The blade the bullet and the bomb know no morality, they have one purpose only, to kill and injure. Those who wield these weapons of destruction have choices; they are moral beings who have chosen the way of violence. This choice is informed by their beliefs and their beliefs informed by their chosen cause or ideology; or both.

If choosing the way of violence is based upon an extreme ideology then they have adopted an uncompromising  view of the world and how it should be ordered which requires them, and their co-believers, to spare nothing or no one in pursuit of their ultimate aims; barbarity is unleashed, violence spirals and any semblance of humanity abandoned; they appropriate for themselves the appearance of an irresistible force. However, as in the paradoxical proposition “What will happen if an irresistible force meets and immovable object?” nothing in nature is absolutely irresistible and nothing is absolutely immovable. In the gritty realities of power struggles action and reaction happen by degrees and each mirrors the worst aspects of the other and thus violence breeds violence “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” (From the Christian Gospel)

Am I describing Daesh? I could also be describing Cromwell’s Model Army in the England of 1640s or Fascist regimes in Europe in the 1930s and 40s. All believed themselves invincible all were ultimately vanquished. Their legacy was and is more violence. Violence breeds violence.

(Quote)”The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that”. Martin Luther King Junior

Plato said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

Violence breeds violence and its siblings are: vengeance, reprisal and retaliation. Governments, as well as individuals, adopt these siblings and unleash them at will.  To break the spiral of violence we must contend with these forces of vengeance and violence at their root cause.

All wars end. Either through attrition, intervention, diplomacy or capitulation conflicts cease. But the end of conflict is rarely the beginning of a sustainable peace; too often the end of fighting is merely the impression of peace when in reality it is an armed truce vacillating between possible futures.

For years, America the UK and their allies have appropriated to themselves the mantle of a global, interventionist morality. This policy has been seen by many as either little too late or at worst disastrous for all concerned. For the first time in modern history the consequence of this deeply flawed morality has brought the victims of intervention, in seemingly overwhelming numbers, onto their shores and into their streets. Traumatised, at times half dead, physically and psychologically scarred, starving and despairing they are as much the West’s casualties as any of our armed forces killed or injured in recent wars. Violence breeds violence.

From the violence suffered by traumatised refugees coming to our shores, a new violent reaction is being embodied in the resurgence of reactionary, populist political forces in America, Europe and elsewhere. The populist slogans they scream and chant are a repudiation of the so called liberal, democratic values which have dominated international discourse since 1989. These new forces are indifferent or opposed to any assertion of international morality. They will use violence (rhetorically and actual) to secure their nation’s borders, engender a patriotic siege mentality and practice isolationism from global intervention; rather than try and do intervention better they prefer not to do it at all.

In the Levant, Western influence has waned and is seen as fatally flawed, other regional powers have filled the vacuum but they have historical and ideological agendas which are inimical to the West.

The West, meanwhile, is verging on economic bankruptcy; the UN is also deprived of funds and in thrall to the Security Council, the new American regime is inexperienced and lacks credibility and Europe is fragmenting as a political project. Western intervention seems to be reduced to targeted military strikes in the Levant and anxiety about trade deals elsewhere. The West seems gripped by a moral inertia. So from where will arise new energy for global conciliation and rapprochement come? Russia, China, Turkey, India? Are we in a diplomatic winter?

(Quote from Quran)  “There is no good in most of their secret talks save (except) (in) him who orders Sadaqah (charity in Allah’s Cause), or Maa‘roof (Islamic Monotheism and all the good and righteous deeds which Allah has ordained), or conciliation between mankind; and he who does this, seeking the good Pleasure of Allah, We shall give him a great reward” (Quran, Surah An-Nisaa, 114)

If the Great Reward goes to the conciliators of this world (“Blessed are the Peace makers” Quote from Christian scriptures) then we need an uprising of peacemakers and an army of reconcilers. (The Aramea Foundation, NCF, IoC?). We need a coalition of the willing who will work tirelessly and sacrificially for Peace; demanding a renewal of ethically based foreign policies, a renewal of internationalism, reaching out to enemies and bringing light to the darkest places.

As a person of faith I know faith’s shortcomings but I also know its power to inspire and transform lives and situations and to give vision and hope to humanity in its days of darkness:  “To turn spears into pruning hooks and where people will study war no more” (Quote from Jewish Scriptures).

Faith must play a significant role in post conflict Syria and Iraq, Syria and Iraq will also need all the goodwill that can be mustered and a Marshall type plan of economic and civic reconstruction unprecedented in modern times. This is the cost of the West’s repentance and the East’s intransigence and the Middle East’s incoherence.

Within any plans for the possible futures in the war torn areas of the Levant, their  must be a plan for  the future of Jerusalem, that city set on a hill which is the rallying point for so much human longing for God.

May we find new hope, new vision and new determination to shape a future where it is not the dead who see an end to war, but the living.

 

Fr Larry Wright

Advertisements

On Power and Leadership, Love and Hope

Autumn by Jackie Richards

The following report is the first in a new monthly series from the Next Century Foundation’s Secretary General. It represents the personal view of the NCF Secretary General and should not be regarded as an NCF perspective:

British Prime Minister Theresa May continues to serve as a world leader out of a sense of duty. The 1922 Committee that controls the Conservative Party to which she owes her allegiance is frightened to allow her to fall on her sword. So a lame duck Premier limps on past her sell-by date, an embarrassment to the nation at a critical time, with the Brexit negotiations collapsing around her ears.

Why is the 1922 Committee so very frightened? Evidently because the leader of the opposition, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, is both charismatic and effective. The Committee feels it needs to face like with like and, alas, there are just three charismatic public figures in today’s Tory Party with any real high-profile presence. They are:

Boris Johnson,

Boris Johnson and

Boris Johnson.

I had thought of including other names but there are only two bitter choices for the Conservative Party: either win the 2021 election with Boris – or lose it. A difficult choice, because the British Foreign Secretary is a wildcard, a maverick schemer and a narcissist. He is no predictable pragmatist. He despises Bashar Al-Assad, or so he claims, whilst seemingly being complacent about the blockade on Yemen. Boris as Premier is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The current Tory Party only has one other charismatic public speaker and that is the foppish Jacob Rees-Mogg. There is a drive to polish him up and bring him out of the dark ages and shape him into an alternative to Boris, but that would perhaps represent too great a challenge. Difficult times for Britain, because to limp on with Theresa is to lose all credibility.

Iran faces a similar challenge. President Trump intends to defer to congress the decision on whether to reintroduce sanctions on Iran. This act of moral cowardice is no doubt prompted by his friends in Saudi Arabia and Israel, who so fear a hegemonic Iran. Iran for her part is concerned about the US returning to a hardline position. As a consequence, Iranian President Rohani has chosen to visit Oman and use the occasion to offer, astonishingly publicly, to reign in Iran’s client group, Hezbollah as well as encourage the Houthi of Yemen to attend peace talks. Curious that last point. Our experience at the Next Century Foundation in promoting second track discussions in Switzerland has been that the Saudis are the reluctant party when it comes to discussing peace. That aside, Iran’s offer on Hezbollah is nothing short of astonishing.

How does this impact on leadership? Well, Iran has made it clear in private discussion with the NCF that she will face a hardliner with a hardliner. Which means what? It means that if Trump’s hardline approach is to be the order of the day, then at the end of Rohani’s current term he will be replaced by Qasem Soleimani, the head of the foreign division of the Revolutionary Guard (the Quds Force) and a charismatic hardliner.

Charismatic leaders are in vogue. Sissi in Egypt, Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, and the emergent Hadi Al-Amri in Iraq and Haftar in Libya are examples of hard men who through sheer grit and determination have seized or are seizing power.

We are moving out of an era of mediocrity, simply because the people of the nations of the world have had enough of the complacent establishment, that has led to an era of the rich-poor divide becoming more acute, and increasing globalization. There is a clear difference between commercial globalization with the uneven playing field that rewards the sweatshop and the polluter, and the advocacy of a world without frontiers, in which we should  all believe.

So the world has leaned, and is leaning, toward a preference for ‘What-you-see-is-what-you-get’, transparent leaders and protest ballots. Hence the Brexit vote and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Hence Trump. Hence Mohammed Bin Salman’s incredible popularity in Saudi Arabia. These are all anti-establishment trends.

Clearly people seek something new from their leaders. What I believe the people of the world now yearn for in leadership is integrity. That is far more than mere box-ticking honesty. Integrity is empowered honesty in action.  Integrity means that you mean what you say when you say it. But that is not to say that there isn’t still room for old-fashioned loyalty. Theresa May and Sultan Qaboos of Oman are both examples of people who live for loyalty, by loyalty, with loyalty. And that is admirable. Combine loyalty with genuine risk-taking integrity and you get a leader who may truly change the world.

And so to Love, the other quality necessary for leadership. Here we are not talking of sit-at-home, watch television and weep sort of love. We are talking of love-in-action. This means love for all those for whom you are responsible. I have just returned from Kirkuk in Iraq where, questioned about care for the refugees in his province, the Governor of Kirkuk told me, ‘They are not my responsibility’. His issue was that they couldn’t vote for him, so why should they vote? 

This is not genuine leadership. Genuine leadership means that you take responsibility for everyone for whom you have responsibility, even if you don’t particularly like them. This is a key aspect of leadership. You do not have to like people to love them. There are those who advocate the practice of loving your enemies. That is the nature of truly great leaders. Sissi of Egypt and Al-Amri of Iraq, take note. Great leaders care for the minorities, for the vulnerable. You could do better if you wish to build the nations we know you cherish.

We seek heroes,

We need heroes,

We demand heroes.

And we expect heroic leaders to love us, to protect us, to nurture us, even if they don’t particularly like us. That way they earn our loyalty. And people can be incredibly loyal.

And when we meet gross failure in love and leadership, we must call those responsible to account. Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar for example, who has let herself down, let the world down and, most importantly of all, has let the people of Myanmar down by being complicant in the Rohingya genocide.

Cruelty in all its dimensions is unacceptable. May God have mercy on the souls of all those world leaders responsible for the blockade on Gaza. The collective punishment on a people is an act of great wrong, whether in Syria, Gaza, Yemen or in Qatar. Leadership without love is not leadership – it is oppression. Even Machiavelli understood the need for wodges of love. He advised his disciples that, if they needed to use a heavy hand to keep things in order, they should do so ruthlessly and severely, but then stop, let go and treat people well. For he recognized people deserve love and care, and must get it if stability is to be engendered.

And then there is hope. We have an obligation to hope. Indeed without hope the very fabric of the universe could fall apart. And there is much reason to hope. We live in one of the most peaceful eras in all human history. You don’t think so? Remember our parents lived through the twentieth century with its two World Wars, its genocides in Europe for the Jews, in Turkey for the Armenians, in Africa for the Tutsis. The Vietnam and Korean wars, plus the partition of India. I could go on and on. Names parade through my mind. Aden. Kenya. Uganda. Then famine on famine. Live Aid was not for nothing. Ah, and Sudan. Misery on misery on misery in the twentieth century. And so many miserable footnotes. Little Kashmir, for instance. A century defined by human suffering. Things are better now in terms of sheer numbers of the dead in wars: the world has improved.

Plus things have got better in terms of war avoidance. We, as already stated, are just back from Iraq. There could reasonably be a war- a new war – between Baghdad and Arbil in order to curb Kurdish aspirations for independence. There won’t be, because Washington and Tehran want war avoidance so that they can concentrate on the existing war against Daesh. They have said so both publicly and privately, which is hope in action. Leaders, just like the rest of humanity, but even more so, have an obligation to hope. Whichever obligation or duty the rest of us has to be moral, the responsibility on the shoulders of our leaders is greater still.

The women of the little Christian town of Alqosh in the Ninevah Plain keep suitcases by their bed in anticipation of the coming war. But now they can unpack. There will be no new war in Iraq. Hope? Write the word large. It is often all that we live for.

Dr William Morris

Secretary General, The Next Century Foundation 10 October 2017

The Next Century Foundation at the United Nations – Intervention on Discrimination and Intolerance against Women

The Next Century Foundation took part in the 36th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. During the General Debate on Item 9 “Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance” the NCF delivered an oral intervention on the issue of gender discrimination in the Arab States urging them to take the necessary steps in order to improve women’s conditions, following the recent example of Bahrain.

Election Monitoring – the Kurdish Referendum

The NCF election monitoring team is in Iraq, as so often in the past. This time we are here for the controversial Kurdistan regional referendum on whether the people of the Kurdistan region wish to have independence. And this time our team has joined forces with a larger group kindly invited by President Barzani drawn from a wide spectrum of nations including France, Germany, the USA, the UK, Israel, Canada, Qatar, Russia and Spain.

We will issue a full report in due course but some issues that had concerned us have been resolved. Initially our team had concerns about what we consider may be oversights in transparency. Apparently the breakdowns of the vote by region or district were not to be available. We thought this might be because of misplaced pressure from the international community that did not want the vote to turn into a referendum on the status of the disputed territories. If so we thought that would be unfortunate. There would be no way of knowing whether an individual town in the disputed territories votes for independence or not. We raised the issue at a senior level and our concerns were noted and, whether because of us or because of the influence of others, the policy was reversed and the vote by region is being released.

That said the majority most certainly voted for independence. The mood is one of excitement in most quarters, even exhilaration. We met Kak Masrour Barzani, the President’s son and potential heir apparent. He explained that this would not be treated as a vote on whether an individual town wanted to be absorbed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. Hence the desire to treat this as a “collective vote”.

The potential for trouble in the aftermath of the vote is of course considerable which is why the international community had asked that this vote be deferred for two years. The world wants no distraction from the fight against Daish. They view this vote as creating additional tension between Baghdad and the Kurds a.k.a. ISIS. They my be right but there is no holding back the Kurds with their newfound confidence. If you are the praying type, a prayer that nothing major goes amiss in the aftermath of this vote might be welcome, even appreciated.

Dr William Morris, NCF Secretary General

Ambassador Mark G Hambley, NCF Trustee

 

Unanswered questions following the Defeat of Isis in Mosul

Iraqi forces have been celebrating the liberation of Mosul after three years of occupation by Islamic State. The victory has given rise to questions about how to ‘win the peace’ by safely rebuilding a more stable and peaceful country.

Now that ISIS may soon be militarily defeated, the real challenge begins, that of offering an ideology of fair play and inclusiveness as an alternative to the ISIS ideology of exclusiveness. Younger generations who have been educated under ISIS have been inspired by their message. Measures could and should be taken to turn them away from such ideologies.

A power vacuum will be left behind in the territories formerly held by ISIS.

While the liberation of Mosul offers a beacon of hope, consider the challenges ahead and the continued desperation of those in Mosul who still face homelessness, hunger and oppression. The city may have been liberated, but fear continues to rule the streets of Mosul.

World Wildlife Day: How do our actions impact the environment and the animals that inhabit them?

Our actions, and our conflicts, impact negatively on many habitats and the animals within them. In war the environment suffers exploitation and violence just as people do. Actions which would normally be condemned become normalised and are justified in the context of violence.

Maintaining armies alone is a huge drain on natural resources but deployed armies use vastly more resources. One report suggests that the US military used 190.8 million litres of oil every month during the invasion of Iraq. As well as this, the destruction of infrastructure in Iraq led to huge amounts of pollutants entering fragile ecosystems.

In the heat of war, it is easy to see how the natural world is not an immediate concern. However, the environment is what keeps us all alive. We are sustained and nurtured by the life around us and if we do not show compassion in return we will not continue to experience the world’s bounty.

Resources are limited and in war the present demands more respect than the future. The future belongs to all of those on this planet, including plants and animals. It is not only pragmatic but also morally right to respect this glorious planet.

It is easy to suggest that humans should have a right to peace, but are we not also animals?  We should extend the right to peace to our fellow animals. They are after all sharing this planet with us and many of them, mammals in particular, are able to experience strikingly similar emotional responses to us. Elephants for example have been recorded as experiencing symptoms of a condition similar to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder following heavy poaching.

Looking after our environment not only protects vulnerable species of plants and animals, it can also help to prevent human conflicts from happening in the first place. Resource scarcity is often the catalyst for violence. Water and food shortages are often exacerbated by man-made climate change. Climate change, resulting from overuse of fossil fuels, produces increasingly volatile and unpredictable weather patterns. This in turn leads to loss of crops and livestock in unseasonal and extreme conditions.

The environment and the animals within it are casualties of war which cannot cry out in pain. We must raise our voices for those animals and plants that are destroyed and disregarded. It is in all of our long-term interests to do so. We must fight to preserve the resources needed for peace, even in times of war.

By Eppie Parker

Remembering the Refugees

We say goodbye to 2016 which has been the year of war and more war in the Middle East, and in the West the arrival of Brexit and Donald Trump have heralded a new era of antiestablishmentarianism that some have found disconcerting.

2016 has also been the Year of the Refugee. What follows is a statement signed by some of the participants in the conference on Migration and its Genesis hosted by Initiatives of Change and the Next Century Foundation during World Refugee Week 2016. Please take a look at it. We think you may find it of value.31 December 2016: The following statement is signed by some of the participants in the conference on Migration, its Genesis and Causes hosted by Initiatives of Change and the Next Century Foundation during World Refugee Week 2016. We believe it represents a consensus view of participants:

Action to support Refugees in recently established camps in the Middle East:

• An effort should be made to recruit and employ teachers, doctors and nurses or others appropriately qualified who are themselves refugees within the camps wherever possible, and government aid funds should be diverted to this purpose, in preference to bringing in Western teachers, doctors and nurses and others to perform these roles. This both lifts morale and provides economic support to key refugees.

• That greater emphasis be given to delivering education in refugee camps.

General Action by the international community to ameliorate the refugee crisis:

• That international governments consult local people regarding actions that affect their wellbeing before taking those actions. And that where possible, most particularly in war torn nations, the international community empower local communities to take control of their own destiny, e.g. by giving them a voice in regard to the dispersal of international aid.

• We support an expansion of the definition of refugee under international law to incorporate those displaced by environmental disasters, in particular those human-caused. Whilst the current definition of refugee encompasses the persecuted (as well as by de facto practice those displaced by war), a new legal framework is needed to also address the needs of communities affected by climate change where that climate change is life threatening as in cases of famine as a result of severe desertification or in cases of population displacement because of rising sea levels.

Recommendations specific to the United Kingdom:

• That asylum seekers be permitted to work in the United Kingdom whilst seeking asylum, should they wish to do so.

• That the concept of “temporary protection” including permission to work and / or study in the United Kingdom for a limited period be further extended beyond the current Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme.

• That the concept of “humanitarian passports” and of registration for asylum within the region be developed further. The Lawyers’ Refugee Initiative advocates the extensive use of humanitarian visas – that is to say visas for the specific purpose of seeking asylum on arrival – issued in the country of departure or intended embarkation.

• In order to speed up the processing of asylum applications and reduce legal costs and emotional strain for all involved, we recommend that the Home Office only appeal decisions in exceptional circumstances, and rarely if the case has been under consideration for more than five years. It should perhaps be a statutory duty that all Home Office appeals must take place within one year and be grounded on strict criteria. The actual asylum application process should have inspectors who ensure that decisions are made on independent criteria that are generous to genuine refugee claims with a mechanism for withdrawing status for five years on conviction of a crime or proven false information – and fast track citizenship after five years.

Recommendations to the international community of relevance to specific nations in the Arab World:

• IRAQ: That a special task force be appointed to provide aid and support to IDPs (internally displaced persons) in and from Ninevah, Anbar and Salah ad Din Provinces so that the community in Northern and Western Iraq feel a sense of hope and encouragement.

• LIBYA: The return of the Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, Italy and France to Libya to support the new internationally recognised government of Libya.

That the international community agree to the request from the new internationally recognised government of Libya for help with land mine clearance – or at the very least technical support and training for land mine clearance.

• SYRIA: That a ‘track two’ conference be convened which participants would attend without precondition and that would welcome members of the government, key international players and those from any faction of the opposition.

Action to reduce levels of extremism:

• That the communities in refugee receiving countries be encouraged by faith leaders to welcome to their homes people new to the area of other faiths or cultures  with no agenda other than that of befriending them and offering a listening ear. The West needs to rediscover the dynamic of its own rich spiritual tradition.  At best this has been the engine of social advance, just governance and effective peacemaking for our countries.  Too often as a civilisation we project an image of material self-seeking, and miss the active comradeship we could enjoy with believers from other traditions.

• All nations of the world face a moral and spiritual challenge. This problem is not unique to the Arab World. The vast majority of Muslims do not follow extreme ideologies. That said a disaffected minority have adopted the apocalyptic ideology promoted by ISIS. Alternative expressions of faith exist that engender a sense of belonging. One such ideology is that known in the Middle East as al-tasalluh al-akhlaqi or الأخلاقي التسلح, based on the same principles as Initiatives of Change – absolute love, honesty, unselfishness, and purity and the practice of listening for God’s guidance. “Sufi” doctrines of this kind should be considered in the search for ideological responses to violent extremism. As an example of this alternative approach see https://www.facebook.com/khawatirmovement/

We also commend the international community to regard refugees, whatever their circumstance, with compassion and mercy. It is our duty to our fellow men and women to treat those in distress with compassion. Compassion is love in action. Although we are not legally obliged to accept refugees, we do have a moral duty to significantly help ameliorate their situation so that they can take temporary refuge in countries neighbouring their own. That duty is a duty to humanity that transcends any obligation we may have to accept economic migrants and / or the free movement of labour and should not be confused with any such obligation – and we are not yet doing enough.

Endorsed and signed by the following members and friends of Initiatives of Change and The Next Century Foundation

Amit Mukherjee, Initiatives of Change India

Chris Evans, Initiatives of Change UK

Dan Parry, Filmmaker

Dr Peter Shambrook, Historian

George Butler, War artist

John Bond, Initiatives of Change UK

Professor Dawn Chatty, The Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford

Reverend Larry Wright, The Religious Affairs Advisory Council

Sabiha Malik, Founder, Sanghata Global

Siwar al Assad, The Aramea Foundation

Suleiman Fortia, Former Member of the National Transitional Council, Libya

The Lord Stone of Blackheath

William Morris, Secretary General, The Next Century Foundation