The news from Planet Sane
It would be nice to live in a world where the [note: fictional, written by me for the purposes of this post] piece below was a representative sample of the London media. It’d be even nicer to live in a world where it was a representative sample of the Tehran media – but ‘getting your own house in order’ has become a cliche for a very good reason:
Our country is embroiled in a major diplomatic incident with a foreign power. Relations between us and the foreign power are poor, although have so far fallen short of outright war.
The other side says we are at fault; our government says the other side is at fault. Nothing has been conclusively proved either way – while we’re naturally inclined to believe our own side, the fact remains that our government has something of a record of dishonesty when it comes to international conflicts.
The charges laid by both sides – an incursion by hostile forces into sovereign territory on the one side, and the unjustified seizure of troops acting outside of sovereign territory on the other – are relatively serious.
However, both pale into utter triviality when compared with the possible consequences if the situation is allowed to escalate, with [our and our allies’ governments, in cahoots with the media, whipping] up public opinion into hatred for the other side and outright desire for a destructive and bloody war.
We urge our government to [distance itself from the] hate-filled rhetoric against the other side, and to swallow its pride and make whatever concessions are needed to bring this dispute to an end.
Finally, we insist on our own right to defend ourselves in a harsh world from terrorists and nuclear states that are publicly hostile to us by whatever means necessary, while also respecting the other side’s right to do the same.
By the way, if you can think of any ways in which the piece above is factually inaccurate – whether applied from a UK or Iranian perspective – please comment below and I’ll note them. It is intended to be a balanced commentary on the facts as understood at this point.
Update: Cleanthes has successfully pointed out some factual inaccuracy – square bracketed bits of the article have been changed to remove it. See comments for more info.
Pingback: Banditry » Blog Archive » Striking a blow against empty webspace…
Your statements about the current situation really apply to every conflict from our Revolutionary War to Iraq. It sounds like the nises that were being made after the Boston Tea Party so many years ago. How can we still be imbroiled in this crap and call ourselves civilized. Other animals do not war upon one another except for food and found.
I hope that you get to see “Death of a President”, the Canadian indy film about the assasination of Dubya on 10/19/2007. It will be interesting to see how the “secret” service reacts on that date.
Paul Fako
John,
“We urge our government to drop its hate-filled rhetoric against the other side”.
Quote and source please.
Stridency in putting our position does not constitute hate filled rhetoric.
Neither is the British government … “encouraging the media to whip up public opinion into hatred for the other side and outright desire for a destructive and bloody war”, at least as far as I am aware.
That is a VERY serious accusation and one that needs to be backed up.
Concessions I’ll deal with at the Select.
Pingback: The Select Society » Blog Archive » Caving In as a recipe for peace and harmony
Except that the British government is not full of “hate-filled rhetoric” about “Iran” (Persia). The current US governmnet might be, but that is another story.
There is only too much realisation here (UK) that the Persian people deserve better than the tyrranical and hate-filled theocracy they are currently saddled with.
erm,, that reminds me ….
There is only too much realisation here (UK) that the American people deserve better than the semi-tyrranical and hate-filled theocracy they are currently saddled with.
It’s fair to say that the British government hasn’t been engaged in “hate-filled rhetoric” directed towards Iran. However, as G. Tingey points out, the US government certainly has been — up to and including the Commander In Chief himself.
Which creates a problem for Britain. Like it or not (and British readers may object to this generalisation) most of the planet currently sees the UK as little more than an extension of US foreign policy. So long as the British government remains silent when Bush exhorts his people to see Iran as “evil”, all the while providing British military support for US imperialism, it becomes nigh-impossible to separate the views and positions of the two nations.
Jim,
this is what John Band says:
“… with domestic governments encouraging the media to whip up public opinion into hatred for the other side and outright desire for a destructive and bloody war.
We urge our government to drop its hate-filled rhetoric against the other side, …”
None of this is remotely true.
– HMG is not encouraging the media to whip up public opinion in support of a war with Iran;
– The media is not whipping up public opinion for any kind of war with Iran;
– There is no public support for a war with Iran;
– HMG is not issuing hate-filled rhetoric.
Take these things out of the equation and the article suddenly looks, well, a bit limp. HMG is, if anything, understating its case and being overly cautious and diplomatic.
The fact that “most of the planet currently sees the UK as little more than an extension of US foreign policy” is spectacularly irrelevant in the context of John’s stated intention for this article.
You seem also to have misunderstood G Tingey’s main point: “The current US governmnet might be, but that is another story.” That’s the whole point.
If John had wanted to make this point, he easily could have done, but in order to do so, he would have needed to branch out into a much wider critique of UK foreign policy in general and support for the US in particular. I reckon he didn’t because he knew that he would then have lost the support for the main thrust of his hypothetical article.
John,
If you’re around, looks like we need your input here.
Cleanthes
Cleanthes, I wasn’t actually defending John’s article. He’s big enough to do that himself should he wish.
I was merely pointing out that as far as the average Iranian may be concerned (and not being an Iranian — average or otherwise — this is mere speculation) when the Bush administration demonises Iran, it may well be seen as a US/UK position. In other words; until the UK contradicts or criticises some of Bush’s more bizarre and aggressive rhetoric, it will be seen as representative of the position of HMG (fairly or not).
So arguably, as long as the Bush administration promulgates “hate-filled rhetoric against the other side” with nary a word of criticism from the UK, it will be read as the hate-filled rhetoric of Britain and America.
The UK government merely has to raise a public voice of objection to the more extreme words of the US administration in order to correct this impression. But they haven’t. And until they do, they will be seen as being guilty of agreeing with the hate-filled rhetoric, even if not uttering it themselves.
Cleanthes – while Jim may not have intended to speak for me, he appears to have done so.
IMO the fact that our government is formally allied with the US, and has not criticised either the US regime or the British press for their demonisation of Iran, is almost as bad as if it *had* joined in. However, it isn’t the same thing and I’ve amended the article accordingly.
Finally – I hope we can all agree that today’s news is excellent and reflects well on both governments – and rather less well on the ‘war! war! war!’ lobbyists on both sides.
John,
“Finally – I hope we can all agree that today’s news is excellent and reflects well on both governments – and rather less well on the ‘war! war! war!’ lobbyists on both sides. ”
Very much so.
Bit busy right now so will need to comment on the rest later, noting of course, that much of this is pretty moot now anyway…
C
Pingback: Britblog Roundup No 112 - Philobiblon
Pingback: Brit Blog Round-Up » Anorak: Celebrity - Finance - Money
Weirdly, I got your quoted comments in my “you’ve got a comment” email, but they haven’t showed up on the site.
But dealing with your paragraphs in order, 1) whatever, 2) no, I said “while we’re naturally inclined to believe our own side, the fact remains that our government has something of a record of dishonesty when it comes to international conflicts”, in the context of An Article That Could Be Written By A Brit Or An Iranian. By which I mean that HMG and the Iranian government are both proven liars in a war context. In no sense, way or means whatsoever have I suggested that HMG are *more severe* liars.