From left: HRH Princess Muna of Jordan, HM The King of the Belgians, HM The Queen of Denmark, HIM The Shah of Iran, HM The Queen of the Belgians, HM The King of Jordan, HM The Queen of Malaysia and HM The King of Lesotho, during the grand state banquet.

In 1953, a CIA outfit, working with MI5 and based at the US embassy in Tehran overthrew the only democratic government Iran has ever had. American and British removal of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh ushered in 20 years of repression at the hands of Mohammad Reza Palavi, in which millions of ordinary people were imprisoned or subjected to ‘scientific methods’ of torture at the hands of SAVAK agents, who themselves carried out research in such methods on behalf of the CIA. It was in the Shah’s prisons that the art of water boarding was first perfected.

Persians are more aware of their own turmultous history than most, but even the smallest understanding of1953 helps to explain why, in 1979, Iranian students, fearful of a counter-coup, instinctively occupied the American embassy after hearing that the deposed Shah had arrived in New York.

A few years earlier, the 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire (Persia had been rebranded Iran in the 1920s by a British-installed Shah) was celebrated amongst the ruins of the ancient city of Persepolis. A city of
prefabricated apartments was constructed, each designed to look like a tent by the same firm that outfitted had the White House for Jackie Kennedy. A helicopter pad lay at the centre of the tent city, with streets of tent-apartments radiating from it. In three days, one tonne of caviar was consumed, whilst two hundred chefs were flown in each day from Paris to feed the assembled dignitaries. The photos of the event are remarkable and available after a quick search on Google- Princess Margaret sits alongside US Vice President Spiro Agnew, whilst close by, the Shah himself, in sparkling white military regalia and with sabre sits surrounded by suited presidents, robed princes and uniformed heads of state from across the globe. Emperor Hailé Selassié’s dog was presented with a diamond necklace.

These extraordinary images are crucial to really understanding how fundamentally different Iran was just 30 years ago, and the complexity of our relationship with it. 30 years ago, Iran was not the dusty, alien wasteland of religious
fundamentalism, AK-47s and the hijab which we’re tempted to imagine today. They were ‘one of us’. Wealthy Persians would fly to Paris or London for lunch and an afternoon’s shopping. The Shah was secular, and only slightly more exotic than any other European monarch. He had dinner with Nixon in the White House and rode on Air Force One. They liked us, we liked them, we both hated the Communists, and who cared if SAVAK threw political dissidents into sacks of ravenous cats and hooked communist party members’ testicles up to car batteries?

The remarkable thing is, despite all this sordid history, you’d be hard-pressed to find a young Iranian who doesn’t admire American or British popular culture. On my travels in Syria, a fellow traveller who had just arrived from Iran told me how he had sat on a coach whilst an older woman, dressed in head-to-toe in chador, laughed her head off at a DVD playing at the front of the bus. It was a Mr Bean sketch from the early 90s of Roan Atkinson losing his trousers in a public swimming pool.

There are over 700,000 Iranian blogs out there, with reviews posted of the latest movies, the censors bypassed by downloading them. There’s Persian-language fan-fiction from young Iranian Harry Potter fans, and plenty of middle-class kids who, arriving home throw off their obligatory chador and listen to System of a Down up loud,  Sex Pistols posters on their bedroom walls.

The next Iranian revolution –this time a democratic one- is only a matter of time, and the boneheaded rhetoric of our leaders over the past 10 years has only served to delay it. The current regime has created the conditions for its own
undoing. In the years since 1979, government incentives have led to one of the highest birth-rates and one of the youngest populations in the Middle East. The same period saw a massive expansion in university education, and in more recent years, soaring unemployment and the proliferation of the internet have created a generation that is educated, frustrated and connected to the outside world.

Reading the blogs, it’s easy to see a generation which views with contempt a regime of sanctimonious old men which they consider to be corrupt, hypocritical, incompetent and increasingly irrelevant. It is often said by travellers that whilst it is difficult to persuade a Syrian or Egyptian to talk about internal politics for reasons of repression, it’s equally hard to get an Iranian to speak of anything else. Ambivalence towards the regime is, by most accounts, everywhere, and increasingly out in the open.

So what should Britain do? In June, Iranian presidential elections will be held, and there is a good chance that Mohammad Khatami will be permitted (that’s how it works, unfortunately) by the Supreme Council to stand for President. He held power from 1997 to 2002, and introduced a programme of reform which significantly relaxed conditions within the country; his tenure constrained only by the intransigence of conservative clerics and certainly not helped by the inflammatory rhetoric coming out of Washington. With Obama now in the White House, there is a chance that for the first time in a long time, there will be sane people in charge of both countries, put there not by foreign pressure but by the better judgement of their citizens. Now is the time to show some humility, to be mindful of history, to avoid encouraging hardliners with inflammatory rhetoric and sermons on democracy, and, over the next few months to lie low, cross our fingers and keep our mouths shut.

The Democrats can't afford to underestimate Palin as they did Bush. Not because of the candidate herself is anything special, but because the RNC knows how to frame the debate, and they don't.

What a disappointing debate. Far from the walk-over that many Obama fans were taking for granted, Biden and Palin seemed to demonstrate just how little the Democrats have learned in the past 25 years.

If we look at the debate in strictly intellectual terms, Biden did as well as everyone would expect. He clearly and concisely defended Obama’s positions on the major issues- most impressively in regards to Iraq and the issue of taxation. Palin, to her credit, appeared to have come a hell of a long way since her disastrous CBS interview earlier this week, showing at least an awareness of what McCain’s positions were. Her answers consisted largely of pre-prepared talking points and soundbites, and were a long way from the grounded, systematically explained arguments put forward by Biden. In intellectual terms, the candidate with the superior experience, background knowledge and education won unequivocally.

But both Al Gore and Kerry were beaten by Bush. And as Biden stood there, reeling off lists of arguments, statistics and policy positions- even going so far as to number them for us on several occasions- Palin stood there smirking, just as Bush did in ‘00 and ‘04, and as Reagan had done 15 years before that.

Despite what the political junkies who have the benefit of background knowledge might think, all those facts, arguments and policy positions just bounced right off her. You could see Biden getting more and more exasperated, desperately searching for a knock-out statistic that might elicit a gasp from the audience or an ‘oooh’ and an ‘ahh’ and send Palin dashing out of the room in tears. And poor guy- he just kept repeating himself; wondering why that killer fact didn’t have the desired impact first time round and saying it again, just in case nobody had heard him clearly.

And know-nothing Sarah, who had been drilled to parrot slogans, stood there smirking. When it got to her turn, she barely talked about the issues, and she certainly didn’t waste time explaining her ticket’s reasoning for holding those positions. Instead, she told us stories.

At every opportunity, she told us little details about herself which made her look human, like a normal person rather than a politician. Sure, both candidates engaged in the ‘When I was in Smallville I met superman and he can’t afford to fill his gas tank/ pay for an operation’ rhetoric, but Palin perfected the art of Bush and Reagan, and took it 10 miles further. “Is it all right if I call you Joe?”, she asked loudly as the candidates appeared on stage.

She constantly hammered home the idea of her and McCain being Washington outsiders, on several occasions completely ignoring Biden, the audience and the moderator, and, the down-home outsider she is, talking directly at the camera, and thus to the American people. For those that understand the seriousness of the debate, it’s easy to scoff at these kind of stunts- after all, they’re pre-planned hogwash, about as far from being spontaneous as it comes. But for a nation which prides itself on defying formalities and talking straight, and which is fed-up with Washington convention, they were stunts that resonated.

When Reagan won his first election, the polls indicated that something funny was going on. The majority of people actually disagreed with his stance on many issues, but intended to vote for him anyway.

They voted for him because, while the Democrats gave them lists of facts, Reagan (a man who, it must be said had little more time in Washington than Obama) sold them a dream- a world-view – a set of ideas. He spoke about a country restored from the ignominy of Watergate and global recession, in which the American spirit of free enterprise and self-reliance would be restored, evoking the spirit of the frontier.

Whilst bare logic said that they didn’t necessarily sign up for Reagan’s platform on the immediate issues- his ability to connect with voters, to communicate a more abstract set of values and a character the voters trusted and could relate to meant that, while they didn’t agree with him on everything, they nonetheless had confidence in his ability to handle the unforeseen.

People like (and vote) for people who are like them- even if they don’t always agree with them. The empirical, rationalist model which says that people will naturally vote along the lines of their own self-interest has been proven to be wrong, time and time again. The human brain is more sophisticated than a mechanical instrument of narrow, self-interested logic, and is designed to make decisions based on more than the facts before us. People will ignore facts that don’t fit into the frame they have chosen to view the World through.

Earlier this year, the Obama campaign, almost uniquely for a Democratic candidate in a long time, showed signs of understanding this. He beat Hillary, not because they differed substantially on the issues, but because voters bought into a story- a wider narrative of a little skinny kid who, from the most unlikely of backgrounds, had forged himself an identity in America, the nation of opportunity, and who would once again restore that opportunity to the nation as a whole. Presidential elections are about selling characters, not issue positions. If the electorate believes in the character, they’ll trust them to handle the issues.

The Obama campaign- as the Bush and Reagan campaigns did too, ran on the reasoning that if voters responded and bought into the ‘Obama dream’, and the values and principles implicit within it, then agreement on the facts and policy positions would follow. Palin, and John McCain, by presenting a story of a pair of mavericks taking on the World, are doing the same thing. The two most successful Democrats of the 20th century- FDR and JFK, did it too- not by setting out specific plans for economic renewal or for winning the cold war, but by embodying the concepts of renewed confidence, youth and vitality, thus winning the confidence of the American people to handle the challenges facing the nation.

Over the past few months though (I suspect due to the increase in the DNC’s influence since he became the official nominee), the Obama campaign seems to have lost its nerve. They came under attack for not talking about the issues enough, and while it was definitely time to have some plans prepared in more detail that could be referred to in rebutting some of McCain’s more outrageous claims, they’ve done this at the expense of abandoning the key ideas and narrative that won Obama the primary.

Which is the reason why Palin could stand there and smirk, ignoring the issues whilst hammering home her personality, life story and what she (at least pretends) to represent. And Biden was doing half the work for her- did anybody count the number of times he said the word maverick? As George Lakoff predicted an in an excellent article at the beginning of this month, the more the Obama campaign uses the word ‘maverick’- even if in order to negate McCain-Palin’s claims to be one, the more they unwittingly re-enforce the concept.

Nixon standing before TV cameras to say ‘I am not a crook’, simply made us all think of him as a crook. Same principle. Yet Biden stood there and repeatedly said that ‘McCain is not a maverick’, and we all sat there and thought of McCain as a maverick. Use any other phrase- call him a ‘Washington insider’ as Lakoff suggested, a ‘friend of lobbyists’, ‘yesterday’s man’ or any other phrase you like- but got goodness sake, Biden should know better than to fall into line and obediently parrot McCain’s own choice of (largely positive) language to describe himself.

We all know the way the wind is blowing, so let’s make it speedy and painless. My preference would be Milliband for PM, Alan Johnson Chancellor, Yvette Cooper for Deputy, and put Jack Straw back in the FCO, in time for the summer recess.
Assuming Balls or Darling don’t take the reins, however, anyone will do. He should be persuaded to announce his resignation within the next few weeks and set a timetable for new leadership elections, preferably with the new leader in place by the Summer recess.
In the meantime, BoJo can run riot in London and remind everyone how bad the Tories are, and in 2009, we can have an election like we should have done last year….do it that way, and we might just stand a chance. At least we go down fighting, rather than with our head between our legs.

This will give him plenty of time to prepare for party conference and to start talking to the Lib Dems about whether, in the worst-case scenario at the next general election, they want a Tory government.

Once the US elections are out of the way, Milliband then needs to look stateside, as Blair did, and hire in some of Obama’s advisors to bring in the same kind of freshness, excitement and, yes, glamour which we’ve seen out there. He also needs to be using their and others’ know-how to put together a network of young activists at the grassroots, on a scale not previously seen in this country, in preparation for the next general election.

As for Brown, I think he would make a fantastic paper-pusher at the IMF.

And everyone instantly, regardless of their opinion on the affair, involuntarily thought of him as a crook. According to the linguist (hold in here, this is actually quite interesting!) George Lakoff, this is because every word or statement carries with it a ‘frame’. Frames are a little like connotations: ideas, things or concepts that come to mind when you mention a word. Frames go a little further though- they’re sets of connotations which, combined, represent an entire worldview, a system of logic, a way of seeing the world or a particular issue, and a way of reasoning our way through it.

You can endorse or negate a frame; Nixon could just as easily have said “I am a crook”, but simply by using that frame, you bring into the conversation all of the baggage it implies. The implications of this for politics are huge. When arguing, don’t use the other side’s language. Their language has been constructed to evoke a specific frame- a worldview, framework of values, that supports their argument- a framework in which the ‘common sense’ evoked by that frame will mean that you cannot win the argument. Paranoid conspiracy theory it is not. It’s a fact for the record that Radical Conservatives (yes, they exist too), have put millions of dollars over the past few decades into framing the terms of political debate, and, through sheer numbers, getting it out through the media and into the minds of millions of people. Don’t believe me? Look up the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and, here in the UK, Policy Exchange, all of which employ linguists to continually frame the day’s news and get themselves invited onto TV interviews and talk radio to disseminate those frames. It’s a huge operation, and something I’ll hopefully discuss in a future article.

A classic example of framing of this kind, raised by Lakoff, is the phrase ‘tax relief’, coined by US conservatives to describe proposals to cut taxes for the super-rich, and thus blow trillion-dollar holes in the US federal budget as a prextext for slashing social programmes.

What does the word ‘relief’ evoke? It evokes a victim, an affliction and an afflictor. By using the frame ‘tax relief’, regardless of whether you say you’re for or against it, you’re invoking a logic which casts the super-rich as the afflicted, the government as the villain-afflictor, and the conservatives who support the cuts as heroic liberators and champions of the common man.

Beyond US politics, the global justice movement is particularly terrible at ignoring frames. Each time protestors arrive at the G8 waving banners that say NO TO FREE TRADE AGREEMENT’, the sweatshops win. How can a global ‘freedom and justice movement’, be opposed to something which is ‘free’, or an ‘agreement’? As far as the general public is concerned, there’s an implicit contradiction there, which, of course, leaves the protestors wide open to attacks of naiveté, or worse, dishonesty. The protestors don’t agree that free trade is free at all, nor that the things signed at these international summits are even real agreements, given that developing countries are often coerced into signing them- that’s their point- so why accept the opposition’s attempt to describe it in such inaccurate terms? Similarly, the movement is one of the most internationally coordinated in history, and yet many happily accept the label of being ‘anti-globalisation’…..why not just wear a sign that says ‘kick me’ and be done with it?

If we’re going help the World mobilise itself towards a carbon-free future, then frames are more important than ever. At the moment, by using the other side’s language, environmentalists shoot themselves in the foot- we should be against ‘hidden-cost’ flights, not ‘cheap’ ones. They’re not cheap at all- that, again, is our point! They have an incalculable cost in terms of environmental impact which isn’t included in your ticket price. If we were to use ‘hidden cost’ flights frame instead, we’d not only reject the false notion of cheapness, but also build on an existing frame. The ‘hidden-costs’ frame is one that air passengers are already familiar with; they’ve long complained about hidden taxes, luggage charges and booking fees which lay behind the attractive looking prices on the billboards and newspapers. By taking advantage of an already well-established frame, those who recognize the urgency of climate change can, very quickly and effectively, link their arguments to existing dissatisfaction, rather than having to establish a new frame from scratch.

Frames aren’t propaganda terms; you’re not calling apples oranges, you’re simply making the decision to employ language that doesn’t just communicate naked facts, but also implicitly clothes them in your own wider ‘logical framework’, ‘values system’ or ‘world view’, rather than those of the opposition. Everything we say is framed in some way; all language carries, at least subconsciously, a reflection of our own particular worldview or prejudices. Rather, political framing is about being aware of that process and ensuring that the frames we evoke are the ones we believe in, rather than those of the opposition. Propaganda, on the other hand, is the act of framing something known to be patently untrue for the sake of political control. Manipulative framing isn’t just immoral; it also has a habit of backfiring sooner or later.

As all the examples show, whether you like it or not, frames trump facts. A frame, once established in the mind, contains a logical framework. Once the phrase ‘tax-relief’ has become established, it follows quite logically that the taxed become victims, government the aggressor, and so on. Someone opposed to those tax cuts can quote as many statistics as they like in order to refute it, and to point out that super-rich people don’t need tax cuts, but, within the ‘tax-relief’ frame, ‘logic’ will refute the facts every time. People ignore the facts if they don’t fit the frame through which they view the issue. Because Bush & Co were able to argue for the attack on Iraq using the same narrative frame used to justify Afghanistan, then facts and objections did not matter- the war was the next step in an accepted storyline; it made logical sense to a majority of intelligent, rational, honest Americans.

It’s not enough to refute facts, therefore. Progressives need to deliver those facts within their own frames, ones which suggest a coherent system of values and which accurately describe their beliefs. If you establish a frame, the facts that fit that frame are accepted, and the conclusions in regards to policies etc. follow quite naturally.

For example, instead of saying something stupid like “I oppose tax relief for the rich”, say something that you actually believe, rather than doing your opponent’s dirty work for them. What is tax? Tax is what we pay to live in a civilized country, with roads, courts, police, ambulances and clean streets. It’s what we pay for the opportunity and democracy of a civilized society, and to use the infrastructure paid for by previous taxpayers. So say it. A tax isn’t an affliction- spent wisely; it’s an investment in your own, and your country’s future.

Bill Gates only got rich by successfully building upon the investment made by previous generations-; an educated workforce, a secure and prosperous market in which to sell his products, courts to handle disputes with competitors, police to uphold anti-piracy laws- whatever we do in our society, we’re building on the achievements of our fellow citizens, and it’s our duty to repay that debt. That’s not to say people on either side of the political divide enjoy being taxed, and certainly nobody wants to see tax money wasted or to be taxed more than is necessary, but there’s a big difference between something oppressive and inherently bad, and something which, like homework, is a pain in the ass, but which we know is a worthwhile investment in our future.

If you were to discuss tax in this frame, the gap between your progressive and your Conservative neighbour doesn’t seem so wide. After all, he supports a strong military and the principle of social obligations, and believes that, by virtue of being born into this country, we all have a duty to invest in our country’s future by serving it and safeguarding the achievements of previous generations. He’s already accepted that we have an obligation and interest in serving our fellow citizens through military service; if framed correctly, consistently and in a coordinated way, the need for a fair system of taxes and other progressive issues such as climate change and trade justice can be argued for and accepted in quite similar terms.

****

The idea of ‘political framing’ is one I’ve picked up from the rather good ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’ by linguist, George Lakoff, and elaborated on a little. Much of his work is focussed on the American political system particularly, and so I’m interested in how those principles might apply to politics here in the UK, particularly in the fights against poverty and climate change. I’ll be posting more observations, ideas and other stuff as I keep reading more from Lakoff and others, and we’ll see what comes of it. Have a great week! >Ben

From the Democratic debate in New Hampshire last night, it’s now clear that the contest between the candidates has effectively come down to two key characteristics which, in 2008 will matter the most to voters. These are experience and change. The third, electability, is an equally important issue likely to be on the minds of New Hampshire’s Democrats, but one which is typically discussed only behind closed doors. Faced with questions on an array of topics ranging from healthcare to nuclear proliferation, candidates’ replies consistently returned to firstly why they felt they had the experience to handle it, and secondly, why they were best placed to offer a significant break with the past on that particular issue.

Hillary Clinton, above anyone else, has worked to make experience the central theme of the campaign. Asked about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal last night, she jumped to draw parallels with a similar incident which occurred under her husband’s administration. When queried about her ability to work with congress, she pointed to her ‘35 years of experience’ in national politics, as well as identifying rival candidates from both parties as good friends and colleagues. The way the she speaks, you’d think that Bill Clinton had spent 8 years in the White House as a yes-man.

This is all part of her chief advisor’s ‘incumbent strategy’, the plan being from the beginning to form the Hillary campaign to look as much like a government in exile, ready from day one to take the reins, as possible. Few now doubt that the current administration is one of the least competent ever to hold office, whilst even fewer doubt that when it comes to competence and experience of how Washington works, Hilary is difficult to beat. The flip side of the ‘incumbent’ strategy, is that is was also designed to make mincemeat of younger, unforeseen opponents standing in her way, Obama particularly by exposing their lack of experience. Over the past few days, we’ve seen her attacks get increasingly nasty, as she tries to convince Democrats that not to give her the White House would be, quite simply, irresponsible

Employing the same politics of fear and cynicism which have characterised the White House for the past 8 years, Bill Clinton has repeatedly wondered out loud if America can afford to ‘take a roll of the dice’ on a candidate such as Obama with only three years in the Senate. Hilary, on the other hand, has openly questioned whether anyone but her is fit to go into battle with the infamous Republican attack machine, seasoned warrior that she is. Last night, she even tried to compare Obama to George Bush, helpfully reminding us of what happened last time America voted for a guy ‘they’d like to have a beer with’, throwing caution into the wind and relying on intuition over intellect. After Iowa revealed that competence wasn’t enough, and that the ability to affect change was something that actually mattered to voters, Hilary last night was at pains to incorporate it into her own message, arguing that, as the most experienced candidate, she is the one best placed to affect change and to go into battle with Republicans to achieve it, reeling off a list of legislation she had fought for over the years.

But change is more than a legislative program, it’s also more than a change in the party to hold the White House. The victory for Obama (and, yes, Huckabee) shows that Americans are looking for something more fundamental than that. Even if viewed as incidental, the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton pattern that would result from a Hilary victory is symptomatic of a much more fundamental malaise in American politics.

People are waking up to the realisation that lasting change doesn’t come about from switching from one party to the other every eight years on a razor-thin percentage of the vote, just so the new administration can reverse the programme of its predecessor and institute its own. When Clinton talks about her experience in politics, that’s the game she’s referring to. When she talks about competence, all she’s saying is that she can hit the Republicans harder, knocking them out of the White House for perhaps twelve years, rather than the customary eight. That’s not change, that’s business as usual, and a game of merry-go-round politics which Americans know they can no longer afford.

Hilary’s second mistake is to underestimate Obama as a pretty face who gives a good speech. She’s repeatedly underplayed this, referring to him as the man who ‘talks about change’ implying that she, the gritty realist, is the only one who can deliver. The fact is though, despite being the best orator in the contest, Obama’s charisma and personality aren’t the only things which Clinton lacks.

The role of the President of the United States is not just that of Commander-in-Chief, nor confined to that of Chief Executive. The inhabitant of the White House also happens to be the Head of State, too. Despite what Hilary would like you to believe, Presidents are rarely judged on their legislative programme alone, and their office constitutes far more than a prize to be won on behalf of their party. Indeed, in a Federal government, which, in comparison to European countries, still has a relatively indirect role in the lives of its citizens, the President’s ability to bring change directly through legislation is quite limited. Few, for example, would look back half as fondly on the years of FDR, Kennedy and Reagan if judging them on their legislative record alone.

What makes presidents go down in history as great, within the United States, and overseas, is far less tangible- quite simply, the ability to inspire. The United State’s recovery from economic disaster and restoration of self-confidence almost overnight owed just as much to Franklin Roosevelt’s positive attitude, amiable character and fireside chats as it did The New Deal or anything it achieved. Similarly, in his short time in office, Kennedy achieved relatively little. Nonetheless like a breath of fresh air, the youngest president in history succeeded in embodying the self-belief and faith in progress of his age, just as Reagan, (whatever your view of him), restored faith in the Presidency in the wake of Watergate. As for George Bush, as it turns out, he’ll be remembered less for Iraq or the Patriot Act than the fear and loss of self-belief he exploited and grew in the wake of 9/11. However much Clinton would like to deny it, personality matters, a lot. A president’s ability to inspire people to change can bring far wider consequences than a decision to sign a bill into law.

If it ended there, you still might have a good reason to vote for Hilary. After all, given the mixed results of men like Reagan and JFK, it is questionable whether Americans can afford to chase a potentially ‘great’ president at the expense of playing it safe and putting into the White House a merely ‘good’ one for 8 years. But Obama’s personality, and Clinton’s lack of it, will not just be an asset on the campaign trail, but, once in office, a political one too. The same charisma and eloquence that inspired young people to turn out in droves in Iowa can capture the imaginations of young people across the World. From the streets of Gaza to skeptical Europeans such as myself, the story of how the ’skinny boy with a funny name’, became the most powerful person on the planet has the ability to capture imaginations and re-ignite their belief in a nation built not by kings and aristocrats, but the dreams of the dispossessed and the underfoot.

At home too, Obama’s character can stand for far more than Clinton’s ruthless ambition and technocratic competence. She may be the expert warrior, steeled in the bitter partisan battles of the 1990s, but it is precisely her husband’s inability to win the country wholeheartedly that made those battles a necessity. Ever since the hapless Kerry lost by the single state of Ohio in 2004, ‘Ohio plus one’ has been the mantra of the Democrat establishment, of which Hilary is central. To people for whom the White House is simply a prize, the nation divided into irreconcilable ‘red states’ and ‘blue states’, only a few states matter. As long as enough votes are won to tip the balance and deliver their man (or woman) the presidency, that’s just fine. Small wonder, then, when those same marginal states deliver to congress individuals of the opposite party, that they demand the president be ready to battle. A Democrat President fighting, as Bill Clinton did, tooth-and-nail against a Republican congress may, if he’s lucky, achieve change in a trickle, but nothing that a few hanging chads in Florida can’t reverse overnight.

Achieving the kind of lasting, genuine change that Americans of all political stripes desire will mean more than just ‘winning’ a few marginal states, which, with her vast negative ratings, is the best Hilary can expect. At the very least, it will require a sympathetic Congress with more than a razor-thin majority. But it should also go further than that. It’ll mean a fundamental shift of the nation’s political landscape and rely on the ability of a Democrat president to reach out beyond the traditional base. They’ll have to be willing to venture into states such as Mississippi and Alabama, states which, as the poorest in the nation, have much to gain from the Democrat message, and who have been written off as irrevocably ‘red’ for too long. It’ll require framing our arguments in language that evokes not Hillary’s battles of the past, but which builds, as FDR, JFK and LBJ did, a consensus amongst wildly diverse groups of the need to overcome the special interests blocking the corridors of Capitol Hill.

Once in the White House it will also- and Hilary won’t like this- mean relying on more than the winning candidate’s own experience, and beyond a clique of advisors belonging the last party grandee to hold the job. Far more important than such narrow ‘experience’ , will be the humility to listen, as the current administration so often failed to do, to outside experts on foreign and economic matters, to govern in the interests of more than just 51% of the electorate, and the frankness to restore faith and trust once again in the United States and its President. Barack Obama can, and is doing, all of these things. I know who the underqualified candidate is, and it certainly isn’t him.

And so, predictably over the past few days we’ve witnessed the usual chorus amongst the World’s self-appointed guardians of democracy. Bush began the rounds condemning the “cowardly acts”, whist Brown, Sarcozy and Karzai all piled in to register the usual ‘disapproval’ ‘condemnation’ and ‘disgust’. Vladimir Putin, perhaps spurred by his recent selection as Time Magazine’s Person of The Year, went one better, declaring the assassination an act of ‘terrorism’.

At a time when Russia’s post-Soviet hangover grows more distant by the day, it’s interesting that it was Sheriff Putin, rather than the White House Cowboys, who was so keen to make the connection between the current anarchy in Pakistan and the bearded-man-of-whom-no-one-dare-speak. Five years ago, you can guarantee that Bush wouldn’t have missed a heartbeat in pinning this one on Mr. Bin Ladin and his vile cohorts. Instead, in a hangar in Texas, The President’s face was one of a man counting down the days until 20th Jan 2008 every bit as impatiently as the rest of us. He didn’t answer questions, nor did he give any indication of what this meant for American policy in Pakistan. It was a far cry from Moscow.

So why the timidity? Well, part of the answer lies in the fact that Bhutto’s assassination, personal tragedy aside, has left American policy in the area in one hell of a mess. To put it mildly, America backed the wrong horse, pouring billions of dollars into a regime which it now feels obliged to condemn as a pariah and leaving the region and American interests there at greater risk than any other point in recent history.

Bhutto offered a handy route out of that mess; a player ideally placed to act as a bridge between US interests whilst, for a change, also enjoying popular support within her own country. With her death, the US is fast running out of options in a nuclear-armed country which, regardless of your view of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, is of far greater strategic importance than either. George Bush might not have been so keen to blame Al Qaeda for the crime simply because, at this stage, he’d like to leave his options open. Even he now realises that the ‘war against terror’ narrative simply isn’t going to wash, with recent events now leaving policies shaped by that simplistic world view more or less in shreds.

That said, for an individual who claims to want nothing more than to be the World’s number one defender of democracy, Bush’s policy in Pakistan over the past 8 years has been strangely inconsistent. When Pakistan’s elected government was toppled by the army in 1999, led by a military general Pervez Musharaff, the rest of the world quite rightly denounced it and called for the restoration of democracy in the region. The Commonwealth suspended the rogue state, whilst the EU promptly suspended a partnership agreement. In comparison to today, and what had come before, such foreign policy priorities in the 1990s appear positively ethical.

Then came 9/11, which turned a White House of parochialists not much bothered with the World, into one determined to use the full might of America to shape the World to a Texan worldview. In the immediate days after the attacks, Richard Armitage, Deputy US Secretary of State, had promised Musharraf’s intelligence director that the US would bomb the country “back into the stone age” if they didn’t cooperate in shutting down Bin Ladin. The military dictator of Pakistan, sensing, like Blair, that this was his chance to legitimise himself as a World statesman, readily agreed.

Within days, every single news outlet of the World went from referring to Pervez not as ‘General’, as before, but ‘President’. Immediately ‘aid’ in the form of new weaponry for the Pakistani army (yep, the one that had only a couple of years before toppled a democratic government), began flowing in, going from $9.1million between 1999-2001, to $4.7billion a year (that’s a 50,000% increase), as did lucrative trade agreements and personal endorsements for Pakistan’s courageous leader, taking a stand against the forces of tyranny. Thus, for a time, at least, the US had found itself a staunch ally and the military dictator had succeeded in transforming himself into a guardian of democracy.

6 years on to 2007 however, and, mirroring Bush’s other blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan wasn’t looking so hot either. Musharraf’s contribution to the US war effort in the Afghan border regions of Waziristan wasn’t winning him many friends amongst his own population, while at the same time, human rights organisations noticed that the President’s definition of ‘terrorist’ happened to include his political opponents. Add to that growing frustration at the lack of terrorist scalps being delivered in return for Washington’s $4.7bn investment, and Musharraf was clearly in hot water. The time, even Bushites realised, was soon approaching when they’d have to wash their hands of him.

If, 3 months ago, you’d wanted clues as to what Musharraf did next, you might look back to the example of another US ally, back in the days of another Republican president, an equally vocal opponent of tyranny. His name was Saddam Hussein, and despite being, like Musarraf, to put it lightly, of dubious political origins, was, nonetheless for a time a key American ally. Over the course of his rule he received $350bn in Western loans, American military intelligence and arms in return for his courageous stand against the forces of Soviet and Islamic extremism in Iran. In addition, there were the countless atrocities against his own people, rigged elections and all the other features of his rule which it now suits US interests to draw attention to.

At the time, of course, as with Musharraf, such actions were no barrier to partnership with Uncle Sam. As long as Saddam followed America’s short-termist agenda for the region, he was safe. But, as a child who is ‘given an inch and takes a mile’, it becomes inevitable that the dictator would push his luck too far. When this time came with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Western governments and and the media alike suffered from a sudden, collective bout of amnesia. Hands were promptly washed, and the sides reverted to type. The dictator freed himself from the shackles of respectability, unleashing upon his population an even greater degree of brutality, whilst his sponsors, their hands now clean, reverted to their role as protectors of democracy, giving him a good thumping in the process.

If that parallel doesn’t take your fancy, you could look to Iran itself, prior to the rise of the Ayatollahs who Saddam was sent to defeat. The Shah of Iran, like Musharraf, was brought to power in a coup against a democratically elected government, gradually tightening his grip on power whilst enjoying American and British support. This is a story which can be repeated throughout the Middle East, South East Asia and, most famously, Central America, take your pick.

In the days following 9/11, we were told the US was done with these old games. That it would no longer tolerate dictators or give room to those who sheltered tyrants. That it was a friend of democracy, and a friend of free people, everywhere. For all my misgivings about the Bush regime, I wanted to believe him. The photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with a 1980s Saddam said it all though. As we’ve seen in our less-than frosty dealings with Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia over the past 8 years it’s business as usual.

We are, as usual, backing the wrong horses, pouring money into the regimes of tyrants, turning their people against us, and reaping the ‘blowback’ that inevitably comes a few years later when we outsource our dirty work to dirty men, who are then overthrown in favour of even more extreme, hostile regimes. Oblivious, we shrug and continue to pour taxpayer’s billions into the pockets of extremists, and think that making deals with dictators to consider elections at some point in the future constitutes a path to democracy.

The question of what Musharraf did next should, by now, be obvious. He suspended the constitution, he shut down the press, called a state of emergency, and then used his failure to bring security to the country as an excuse to postpone elections. Battening down the hatches, he played out the same script as every other American ally-turned-pariah over the past 50 years. Cornered by his own people, his political opponents, The West and Islamic extremists within his own country, Musharraf is no longer a man in control of his own destiny. The question that really matters now is not what Musharraf, but what the current administration, and especially the next one, chooses to do, next.

In fact, it’s hard to underestimate the importance of, and to a large extent reliance on Roe vs. Wade to the American Right, and in explaining middle-America’s dramatic shift from the moderate progressivism of the New Deal and Fair Deal, which has seen states such as Kansas -once seen even as a hotbed of progressive politics- become one of the most reliable red states in a matter of decades. Whilst middle-America used to gripe about being screwed over by the GOP: the Rich-Man’s Party, the Friends of Big Business, these days they enthusiastically rally against increased spending on healthcare, education, in favour of tax cuts for billionaires, blaming America’s ill’s on the so-called East and West Coast ‘Latte-drinking Liberal elites’, all whilst their jobs disappear off to China and their small-towns are laid to waste.

So the question which follows is, why has so much of America wedded itself to a party and an ideology which clearly does not represent them or their interests, and which has clearly failed to fatten their wallets, failed to secure their livelihoods, and failed to protect their way of life, resorting to the crudest of persuasive methods, the butt of a gun? The answer, is ‘values’.

The Democrats simply don’t stand for anything anymore. Their election strategy for the past 12 years has been to simply cherry-pick the issues which election agents and polls say matter to people. They present election promises almost as a menu, for all the various bases of support to pick something which appeals, and to vote for them accordingly. “Something for the Latino vote”, “Something to keep the Afro-American lobby happy”, “Something to keep the contributions coming in from business”- there is simply no coherence. The Democrats can talk in details about their policies until they go blue in their faces, and often what they have to say makes a lot of sense- but, thanks to the short-term electioneering of ‘flexible’, ‘middle of the road’ politicians such as the much-sanctified Clinton, any kind of ideological basis or narrative underpinning all that has gone out the window.

The Republicans, on the other hand, don’t need complex statistics about tax bands, median rates of income, national product, domestic growth rates or anything else to get their message across- it’s pure and simple. “We’re about values” they say, speaking in broad, all-encompassing terms such as “protecting life”, “upholding the American family”. While it’s often extremely unclear which policies these vague soundbites describe, the soundbites themselves are jarringly clear. The GOP knows what it believes, we are told. Unlike all these intellectual, head-in-the-clouds East coast elites who speak in statistics and with mountains of evidence to support their argument which nobody bothers to read, the GOP speaks the common man’s language; the word on the street. They are, it would seem, now the ordinary man’s party.

So let’s get back to Roe vs. Wade. If we are to see the rise of the popular American Right as part of some kind of ‘backlash’ against these so-called Liberal elites betraying ‘traditional American family values’, then there really can’t be any clearer symbol. You see, Roe vs. Wade didn’t legalize abortion; it was legal in many states already. What it did do, however, was take the decision out of the hands of individual states, and instead forced onto them a decision made, with no vote, no debate- a decision made by a bunch of presumably out-of-touch, arrogant, anti-democratic amoral liberal ‘activist’ judges up in Washington. Whether you agree with that verdict or not, that’s how it looks to the guy on the street, and when the traditional Democrat support rally behind the decision, making it a key part of their platform, that view is simply confirmed.

In terms of abortion rights, Roe vs. Wade has actually achieved very little. All the states which have always opposed abortion continue to do so, and whilst thanks to the Supreme Court no law can prevent you from having an abortion in the Mississippi Delta, in practice, obtaining one there would be little less problematic than 34 years ago. Violence against those who carry out and receive abortions remains, cultural attitudes towards the practice remain unchanged, while states such as Mississippi continue to pass all the legislation they can to make the process as difficult as possible. In effect, Roe vs. Wade, whilst a symbolic victory, has cost the pro-choice lobby considerably more than it has gained.

On the other hand, Roe vs Wade has become the talisman of the American right’s revival. “Forget your economic woes, your lost jobs, your dying towns and floundering small businesses, put your selfish concerns to one side”, the Right need only call, “This is about values!; America’s soul, things much larger than any of our day-to-day concerns”. By appealing to the moral and religious consciousness of Middle America, focusing them on broader issues such as homosexuality, the death penalty, and, at the very top, abortion, -matters which, while not having a direct bearing on your average voter, are nonetheless ‘matters of principle’- the much more personal, ‘bread and butter’ issues of financial security, education, healthcare – all of the Democrat’s traditional issues- become almost irrelevant.

It’s time to call their bluff. It’s time to shift attention back onto the real political issues; the issues which directly affect your average voter, questions like whether they have a secure job without having to look over your shoulder to China, whether they can send their kids to college, whether they have enough money to retire. The question of whether it is right for one man to marry another, or for stem cells to be used in medical research are not political issues which have a direct bearing on the lives of the vast majority of Americans, they are moral ones; matters for prayer and critical thought, resolved through calm, careful consideration and conscience, not the havoc of endless rhetoric, frenetic lobbying, disagreeable disagreement and shameless electioneering.

As long as American Politics is haunted by the ghost of that decision in 1973, it will be impossible for us to move beyond these questions onto the real ones affecting America’s future and that of much of the Western World. By allowing such pressing matters to be eclipsed by the ’smallness’ of the political discourse, Americans are, allowing the Right wing to get away with this, the greatest steal in decades. A steal in which, with the nation transfixed on abstract issues, matters of principle, rather than of politics, unresolvable by any law or politician, they are able to walk off with other people’s money, pollute our cities, ship your jobs abroad, and pawn off your futures to the highest bidder, all without a murmur of dissent.

Well firstly, I’m here to tell you that the war on terror can’t be won, because it doesn’t exist.

What is terror? Can you fight it? How do you fight it? Why do we face terror?

Why hasn’t anyone asked any of these questions?

Nope, they’re too difficult. The thing is, following the attacks of Sept. 11th. Everyone was just too shocked, too amazed, and too angry to ask logical, rational questions like that.

Questions with answers that might be difficult to face, questions that might make us reconsider our actions, questions that might change the way we live. Questions that make us feel uncomfortable as we realize its’ not black and white, that there are no easy answers.

So lets ask the questions.

What is terror? Terror is not a man. Terror is not an organization, terror is not an army. Terror is a verb. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, terror is simply ‘extreme fear’

Now, George W Bush, has at his command the most technically advanced military in history. He heads the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. The United States military has the most sophisticated equipment, the largest navy, and the fastest aircraft.

With these, the United States (not forgetting its loyal allies of course) have the ability to attack and kill just about anyone, and anything on the face of the planet. The opposition in a few minutes time will stand up and tell you that Al Qada is on the run, that they’ve been chased out of Afghanistan, that this ‘apparatus of evil’, is in disarray.

That may be true, that may not be, but I believe that’s irrelevant. Bombing Al Qaeda, freezing their bank accounts, arresting their members is a pointless waste of time. Why? Because killing terrorists and destroying their bases isn’t killing and destroying terrorism, they’re merely the people that embody it.

Those members of the house who are familiar with Greek mythology will remember the Hydra, a fearsome monster with several heads. It was a threat! It wanted to kill us all! It must be confronted! Yep, that’s’ right, what they needed was a war on hydra! So along comes the hero Hercules with his sword, and hacks the hydra’s head off. Easy. Simple. Or is it? Because from that severed neck, sprouted a pair of new heads, with knashing teeth, beady eyes, and a nice big appetite. So he hacked those off. Along came some more, and he hacked those off. Needless to say, before long, Hercules was a dead man.
Today, ladies and gentlemen, we face a Hydra. We can hack its’ head off, we can destroy Al qaeda, we can kill bin laden, but for every terrorist you kill, there’ll be two more to take their place. The truth is, we can’t kill it. There are always going to be people that hate us, there is always going to be a threat, to kill every person that would ever take up arms against us, would be to defeat evil itself, a job I fear even the might of the United States is not up to.
Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that we do live in fear. We do suffer horrendous and barbaric attacks, and don’t think for one minute that I don’t deplore the deaths of any innocent person or for one minute exonerate those responsible. But the fact remains, there are people out there who hate us, and we’d be doing ourselves a severe disservice to assume that every single one of them is an unhinged religious radical.

When our leaders stand up and tell us that those that support terrorists hate freedom, liberty, and all the lofty ideals upon which our societies are based, he’s wrong. The people of Palestine who danced on the streets following the atrocities of 9/11- were they all evil terrorists? Their actions were wrong, misguided, and sicken us all, but we should not be so quick to assume that they hate these things. The thing is, the America they see stands for none of these things. To them, it is arrogant, selfish, self interested, even provocative, and the comments of many of our leaders support these ideas.

We must not forget that this is not a war between two nations, but one between nations and extremists. If we allow extremists on our side to take over, it will become even more destructive. While Al Jazerra broadcasts a tape from Osama Bin Laden claiming this is a war against Islam, CBS is interviewing men who say that ‘Islam is an evil religion’, and flouting their belief that ‘ Mohammed was a Terrorist’. Words such as these only galvanize the World against us. Tough rhetoric, bombs and destruction do not make people love nor sympathise with us.

We’re not a crusade, any more than they’re on a Jihad, and we should not forget this. The notion that America and it’s allies are against the Muslim world is furthered by the it’s continued support of Israel. No matter who is to blame for the bloodshed, it is American military aid that bulldozes Palestinian homes, and kills without trial alleged terrorists. There are terrorists among them, people whose frustration has boiled over to the point of using their lives in what they believe is the defense of their way of life, but for the Israelis to punish all Palestinians, with the perceived support of America, is wrong.

You cannot simply hack this hydra’s head off. You cannot treat the symptoms of this disease that blights the world, you cannot defeat terrorism by simply killing the terrorist.

A World free of terrorists but full of hatred for us will simply breed more terrorists. Do not think this outpouring of hatred against us can be cancelled out by more blood destruction and chaos. Do not let the legacy of the 3000 that died that day be the unleashing of a futile attempt to destroy evil itself.

Instead of living with the fear and suspicion of a nation at war, let us encourage our neighbours across the Atlantic and our own government to treat the World with respect and trust.

Instead of bombing nation after nation, destroying home after home in a global war of madness, let us support nations that struggle, let us build homes for those who have none, let us use the money we would have spent on missles, on earning the respect and admiration of the world.

Because guess what?
People with full stomachs don’t hate us for being prosperous.
People Educated don’t fall for the lies spread by terrorists.
People who have freedom in life do not seek freedom in death.
People who have the chance to change the world through peaceful means do not seek to change the world by making us live in fear.

that will result Remove the reasons for terrorism, remove this evil hatred of America and it’s allies, and you will remove the terrorists. Take away the causes, and the truly evil ones, who have no political or religious motives, will be isolated. They will have no desperate or disenfranchised young people to recruit, and terrorist organizations will wither and die. And then, and only then, we will have won the war against terrorism.

And so the next logical question is, If we live in fear, ‘in the shadow of terror’, then how can we fight it?

a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
• noun 1 extreme fear. 2 a cause of terror. 3 the use of terror to intimidate people. 4 (also holy terror) informal a person causing trouble or annoyance.
Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition here are going to stand up in a minute and tell you that our lives are in danger. That there are people out there who will stop at nothing to kill us all. They’re gonna tell you that these men are inhuman, that they hate freedom, that terrorism is something that must be defeated at all costs. You’re gonna be told that the only way to defeat it is to fight it, that we’ve gotta confront this on all fronts.

They’re gonna tell you that to beat a killer, you’ve gotta kill them first. They’re gonna tell you that its’ ok for the government to bug my phone, track my computer, imprison me without trial, because at the end of the day, it’ll mean I don’t die in a terrorist attack.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the War on terror is a myth. It’s a smokescreen, its’ a sham. Its’ also a piece of political genius.

What has our action in Iraq accomplished, other than to give Al Qaeda time to regroup following our botched escapade in Afghanistan? It has split the nations of the free world, destroying international relations on a scale not seen in decades, disuniting us, and tearing apart the institutions that, however inefficient and weak, offered us the best opportunity of bringing the world together around one table. Saddam Hussein is gone, but where is he? Freedom has been brought to Iraqis, which I agree, they will one day thank us for, if they survive the anarchy and chaos, which, under the leadership of the United States, Britain and 25 other nations (mostly from the developing world, enticed or threatened for the sake of lucrative trading agreements), shows no sign of abating.

Iraq is becoming a Mecca for terrorists. Where Saddam Hussein brought tyranny and security (at dreadful cost), anarchy is prevailing. With the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime gone, and security on the streets a distant prospect, Iraq is fast becoming a place for any young aspiring jihadist. Just as Al Qaeda learned their line of work in the Mountains of Afghanistan in the war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Iraq is becoming the training ground for the next generation of terrorists. With American soldiers out in the streets, in heavily insufficient numbers, a resentful population, and with no security, Iraq is the ideal target for any young radical who dreams of jihad against America.

The Irony of Iraq is that despite its’ almost self-defeating consequences, it was never a haven for terrorism or a hotbed of Islamic radicalism. Saddam Hussein was not sympathetic to Bin Laden and his religious motives, rather, like most dictators, he was merely motivated by a dangerous lust for power, and all the wealth, guns, and women that came with it. He was the ‘godfather’ of Iraq, running it along much the same lines as a gangster. Iraq was the ‘family business. Besides, Iraq was on America’s agenda long before 9/11, and although I agree that it would have been necessary to confront it at some point, It is wrong to convince ourselves that Iraq ever posed any significant threat through links with terrorism, or to equate the cold, intelligent, ideologically driven Osama Bin Laden to a corrupt, inefficient, and merely power-hungry dictator that remains in Iraq (as far as we know), having it seems, deluded himself into thinking he can one day reclaim power.

At home, too, the War on Terror is having a disastrous effect on our society, as law after law such as the Patriot Act is introduced allowing the government to spy on US Citizens and detain them without trial, slowly threatening our civil liberties, and the very freedom we aim to protect. Our treatment of those suspected of terrorism in Guantanamo Bay has shown how easily the terrorists can corrupt our principles and rights, which apply to all, even terrorists. Even our right to protest against the actions of our governments are being eroded not by the law but by our societies, as our of fear shock, and insecurity, we are being reduced to nations of flag-waving Chihuahuas, forced by those around us to stay silent, to wave our flags and support our government, lest we be accused of support for terrorism. Religious intolerance, one of the causes of 9/11, is being fuelled by our reaction to the war on terror, bringing suspicion, hatred, and fear into our communities of all Muslims and those of Islamic and Arab heritage. We seek to protect our freedom by suppressing it, to fight intolerance while becoming intolerant, to bring democracy while suppressing those who speak out against us, and to destroy those who hate us while caring nothing of what others think of us.

Those that suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order. – John Lindsay

While America, with or without its allies, can destroy all those that hate it, no amount of guns, bombs, and missiles can make people love us. As long as people hate us, there will always be terrorists no matter how many we kill. The War on terrorism is only escalating this hatred, spreading the pain and destruction of downtown New York all over the world. It can win a war anywhere, kill anyone it wishes, and destroy any regime is disapproves of, but as it is painfully learning in Iraq, one thing it cannot do alone is win peace.

Global turmoil, destruction, and resentment should not be the legacy of those that died on September 11th, 2001. Further hatred, war and destruction will only multiply itself, the consequences of which we will have to live with for years to come. Two years of this has brought little that we can be proud of, nor a safer world. The cost of this global crusade is costing Americans more than money, for our future will be shaped less by the events of 9/11 than by our response to it. The future, freedom, and standing of America in the world is being destroyed by reckless decisions made by a government that seems committed not to peace and true security for Americans, but the implementation of policies that prior to September 11th would have been unthinkable. Next year it is time for a new direction, something that only Americans can provide, and for which the rest of the world can only hope.

We need to sit down and remember why we are fighting this war against terrorism. Is it so that we who perceive ourselves to be ‘right’ can act as we see fit against any regime that dare threaten or oppose us? Or is it because we believe in the principles of tolerance, freedom, democracy, and the rule of law? Will the new post-9/11- world-order we are fighting for stand for these values? If so, then why are dozens of prisoners being held without charge and trial in Cuba? Our civil liberties are being eroded away, as the rule of law is compromised in the name of freedom and democracy. ‘Saddam Hussein would not give us the same treatment’, I hear the hawkish right shout- yes, that is true, but should we ourselves descend into terror in the process of fighting it? Our values and beliefs for which we are fighting must not be destroyed in the process of defending liberty or we have already lost.

The UN should, and for the sake of a stable future, must have the authority, impartiality, and power to form, and implement rule of law over nations, lest we return to the darkest hours of the 20th century with all the bloodshed associated with it. The turning point in our search for democracy was when we realized that no person should be above the law. The same should apply to nations; to act unilaterally is to turn your back on democracy and the rule of law among nations. George W. Bush in September gave the United Nations a choice; support the United States and do as America believes is right, or become insignificant. How can it expect Iraq and other ‘rouge states’ to comply with the decisions made by the UN when it itself threatens to flout international opinion, and is withholding millions of dollars in dues?

As the worlds only Superpower, with unparalleled economic might and military muscle, the United States should heed the advice of its’ friends and allies, and learn the lessons of the mistakes made in the past. The nations of Europe and Asia, have all paid the price of mistakes made in the name of empire, each sure of their moral righteousness, and with the power to implement such a world view. They each in turn betrayed the beliefs on which they were based, resulting in the horrors of Colonialism and Empire.

The United States is in a very different position today, there is much more at stake, and the fight much less clear, against an enemy who can take any shape or form. Yet there are still comparisons to be made, and history to be heeded. The message is clear: In fighting for your values, do not destroy them