War and Violence

In 12th century England, William Marshall, as a little boy, was given by his father to King Stephen as a hostage for his good behaviour! The King rather liked the little boy and eventually returned him safely to his family - instead of hanging him from the battlements in reprisal. How brutal and uncivilised people were in those days - prepared to execute a little boy if it became necessary! Chivalry was tempered by an acceptance of violence.

There was even a time (the peace of God) in the 11th century when the Christian Church was close to banning the use of violence on a Saturday or Sunday, and even the carrying of weapons at all. How far we have regressed since those times!

I apologise to all those who undertook war in past centuries if I once thought them brutal and uncivilised. We are worse! Today I am very unclear what rules apply! Indeed what rules apply to anyone contemplating the use of force. I took it for granted that in war, the Geneva Convention applied. I am surprised to find that in certain circumstances the Geneva Convention could be overruled by the say-so of top politicians. I was 12 years old when the Nuremberg trials set a new standard for the punishment of international genocide and crime. In 60 years since, we have forgotten already what Nuremberg meant and it looks as if those making decisions today however bad will get away scot free!

We seem to have lawyers arguing as public affair Representatives that even torture is acceptable in certain circumstances and that perpetual imprisonment without trial is possible if we dislike those enough, who fight for an alien idea. Evidence these days is merely constructed to obtain the desired short-term solution. Being economical with the truth is thought to be the right way to win and how they must roar with laughter in the privacy of their conference rooms at the naivety of the rest of us.

Isolated and badly educated politicians are making 'personal decisions' without regard to what expert advisers and consultants might be saying. If nothing else, it suggests that government is not any more based on democracy - that need to pay heed to what an electorate might think. For a long time, I was impressed by the idea of a rule-of-law that even nations had to obey. Now I am not so sure what is happening! International affairs have nothing to do with democracy at a time when the world has become a village.

Perhaps it is a time of transition. The last two thousand years supported many different religions and philosophical ideas because because they were separated by huge distances and we scarcely knew what other alien peoples thought or why. Sadly the 'death of distance' brings us face-to-face with each other in a way that was impossible over the last two thousand years. Sunnis and Shias now kill each other only because they have just realised they both exist.
Now the moment of truth is that we have to learn to live with each other, and our politicians are not helping much at a time when many of us are sympathetic to the strange and alien peoples we meet all the time! Where are we going?



Iraq is a catastrophe, the consequences of which may be with us for the next century. I am not so much against the pragmatic objective of solving global problems, but against the incompetence, ignorance and inefficiency of those that try. Much needs to be done to make the world a better place but there is hardly any point in trying if hundreds of thousands have to die. What is going to happen in Iraq is that eventually the armies and politicians will slyly announce "victory" and go home with their tails between their legs.