Normally it would be a matter of celebration that a British Prime Minister should be the first foreign leader to visit a newly-installed US President, but the pictures of Theresa May hand-in-hand with Donald Trump evoked nothing but shame. This is a man who has said the most disgustingly offensive comments about women, declared that Muslims will be banned from entering the United States (though that may prove to be unconstitutional) and demanded that Mexico should pay for a multi-billion dollar wall that he wants to build along the USA’s southern border. But Mrs May kept smiling while she was with the President and said she looks forward to a new era in which the US and Britain will lead the world. Apart from the fact that her image of a globally powerful UK on a par with the United States is nothing short of delusional, she will soon discover just how “friendly” the Trump administration is when the hoped-for bilateral trade deal is negotiated. The reason the British Prime Minister went rushing to Washington once she heard the dog whistle is of course because Mrs May wishes to recalibrate Britain’s foreign and trading relations in preparation for a hard Brexit, exiting the European Union and the single market. By doing so — if that folly goes ahead — she will turn her back on our 27 EU partners, with whom we share not only laws but values, and instead put together a patchwork of ne best friends, many of whom share some disagreeable traits, from using the death penalty, having relaxed gun laws, and abusing human rights. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minster has announced that Mr Trump will make a state visit to Britain this summer, which would mean his staying with the Queen. If that outrageously offensive proposition does go ahead, I trust the monarch will find herself diplomatically indisposed.
Posts Tagged ‘United States’
Posted by jonathanfryer on Sunday, 29th January, 2017
Posted by jonathanfryer on Monday, 13th June, 2016
The massacre of clubbers at a gay venue in Orlando, Florida, is the worst mass killing by a gunman in US history. Fifty people are dead and several others wounded; across the world there have been spontaneous vigils and acts of mourning. The gunman’s ex-wife says he has a personality disorder, which underlines why there need to be stricter controls on who can get access to guns and other weapons. Personally, I don’t think anyone outside the armed forces should have the ability to purchase a weapon that can slaughter so many people (and the armed forces should only have them for defence). Inevitably, there has been much comment — not least on social media — about the fact that the mass murderer, Omar Mateen, is Muslim and that he was said to have been offended recently by the sight of two men kissing. It is true that there are what in modern terms would be called homophobic passages in the Koran, just as there are in the Jewish and Christian bibles, but it would be wrong to use this incident as a stick with which to beat Muslims in general, especially during this holy month of Ramadan. I was pleased to see that Islamic groups in America have been among the first to offer condolences and material relief. Any people who might like to claim that Christianity is so much more enlightened when it comes to LGBT issues should examine how fundamentalist US churches promoted the hateful anti-gay legislation in Uganda and other parts of Africa, or look at the evangelicals in America who parade with signs saying “God Hates Fags”. What is clear is that the fight for LGBT rights and equality is far from over, both within religious communities and in the wider world. But for me the most striking thing about this dreadful incident is that yet again the United States has shown that its adherence to the “freedom” to bear arms has murderous consequences. I would argue that religious intolerance of homosexuality is an anachronism that needs to be confronted, but so too, sure;y, is America’s love of guns, more appropriate to the frontier age of the 19th century than to the postmodern 21st century. Until that issue is addressed, there will be more shootings by hateful or deranged individuals. And although the Orlando shootings have beaten the record for the number of dead, sometime before too long another atrocity will top that figure. While offering the Orlando victims, their families and friends our deepest condolences, we can only hope that one day the American public and legislators will see sense on gun control.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Wednesday, 9th December, 2015
Were the US Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump a character in a movie he would be good for a few laughs. But he is very real and very determined and not funny at all. He is the worst sort of American redneck populist, with the added twist that he has more than enough money to do whatever he wants in this world — and not to be craven to anyone. Of course, we have seen GOP goofs before, Sarah Palin being a case that springs to mind. But Trump is much more dangerous because his rhetoric appeals to the worst instincts among right-wing conservatives and disaffected working class white voters. He has been in hot water in the more liberal elements of the US and global media before, for example damning Mexican immigrants as potential drug dealers and murderers. But his latest outrage, calling for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US is his most egregious outrage yet. Islamophobia is not limited to far right extremists, but it is chilling that Donald Trump has gone so far, unashamedly. Try substituting the word “Jews” for “Muslims” and the warnings of history are evident. Moreover, Trump is bound to act as an unwitting recruiting sergeant for ISIS, al-Qaeda and other extreme Islamist groups who will ratchet up the narrative that not just America but the whole Western World is anti-Muslim, and therefore deserves to be punished and attacked. In a comedy film, the candidate Trump might indeed become President of the United States, but this is no movie, and were the unthinkable to happen in real life it would not be farce but tragedy.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Saturday, 25th August, 2012
As someone who quite often writes obituaries (for the Guardian, amongst others) I always have my eye out for death notices (these days more likely to be found on twitter than in the columns of The Times), so of course I spotted news today of the demise of Neil Armstrong, the US astronaut, at the age of 82. I send my sincere sympathy to his family and friends. But it would be hypocritical of me to say that I jumped for joy at pictures of the First Man on the Moon when Apollo 11 landed there in the summer of 1969. I was in South Vietnam at the time, as a cub reporter, not a soldier, I hasten to add. And even though some of my Vietnamese friends were gobsmacked by the footage (though others swore blind it must be a fake), I had two very negative thoughts at the time, neither of which reflected on Neil Armstrong personally. The first was: Why the hell is the United States planting a US flag on the moon instead of the UN flag; this should be a celebration for all humankind, not US power and money. And second: there are still millions of people dying round the world, not only from wars but also from hunger; how many lives could the cost of this mission have saved? Doubtless some people will say I was naive (well, I was only 19) or radicalised by the horrors I had witnessed in Vietnam (which is true). But interestingly, the same thoughts crossed my mind this summer, 43 years later, when NASA’s exploratory craft landed on Mars and gingerly moved about a few steps. Of course there were no human beings on board on this occasion, though I suspect that will only be a matter of time. The cost of the Mars mission is literally astronomical, but again the same worries nagged my brain. Could Mars exploration not be in the name of the world, rather than the United States? And are there not enough problems here on Earth — ongoing hunger, wars, environmental degredation and manmade climate change — which perhaps ought to be a higher priority?
Posted by jonathanfryer on Saturday, 19th March, 2011
UN Security Council resolution 1973 regarding Libya is a milestone in the development not only of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect but also the realisation of its practical implications. Muammar Gaddafi had shown such flagrant disregard for the well-being of his people, in his brutal attempts to suppress the popular uprising against him, that the international community could not just sit back and watch a massacre take place. This of course goes counter to a longstanding principle in force really since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648: the concept of the sovereignty of the nation state — in other words, that other countries should not interefere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. That is a principle that both Russia and China are keen to see maintained (because of their fears over restless regions such as Chechnya and Tibet) and explains why they both abstained on Resolution 1973. At least they did not veto it, thus giving a green light to international action, with UN backing. Britain, France and Lebanon took the lead on this, with the United States coming on board soon after. At least two other Arab states — the UAE and Qatar — have also indicated their willingness to be involved in the operation to protect the Libyan people. But inevitably the main thrust will come from NATO, with France and Britain again taking the lead. Like many who opposed the Iraq War, I feel that UN action on Libya was essential. But the challenge will be to bring a swift end to Gaddafi’s attacks on the rebels without things escalating or becoming too protracted. And then ideally Gaddafi must go — perferably pushed out by his own people.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Britain, Chechnya, China, France, Lebanon, Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, NATO, Qatar, Responsibility to Protect, Russia, Tibet, Treaty of Westphalia, UAE, UN Resolution 1973, United States | 3 Comments »