Retrospektive: Iraq Communitarian Vs Cosmopolitan complaints

Welcome to a new series that I am thinking of doing called Retrospektive, this will look at old issues and examine them from our current knowledge. For the first one I have chosen the Iraq war and the complaints about the conflict from the communitarian and Cosmopolitan view points of Foreign Policy.

The Iraq war came under a few major criticisms, that we were lied to over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, that we actually went to war for oil, that it has been a western invasion of Muslim countries, the human cost (on both sides) has been too high and the financial cost has been too high. If we divided this into communitarian and cosmopolitan then we have a general complaint about being lied to, and to some extent that the human cost has been too high (though a communitarian side would focus on the home casualties). Then we have that the cosmopolitan complaints of going to war for oil and that it was a western invasion and the communitarian argument that the financial cost was too high.

The interesting thing is that the main arguments that I have heard are that we were lied to, we went to war for oil, and that the human cost has been too high. It is interesting that the main arguments that we hear are two general complaints and a cosmopolitan complaint dispite the fact that in general people side a lot more on the Communitarian side of the debate within F.P.

at first glances you would almost expect people on the communitarian side  to actually think that going to war for oil isn't a bad thing at all! After all you are advancing your countries economic development and economic interests and managing to achieve it with precious little repercussion from the UN. So why do communitarian use this argument frequently rather than focusing on the cost of lives to our armed forces or that the financial cost was to high etc?

Well it is because of two reasons, one the idea that we were lied to and so the decision to go to war wasn't based on good information. Secondly  the average communitarian can see that the Iraq war has lead to an increased military risk to our country rather than a strengthening of security and that is far more important than any financial cost.

For cosmopolitanists the vast majority also agree that there was a weakening in security in the middle east due to this conflict and that even if this doesn't affect us directly, which it may well, then it is still affecting many people in the area. However there is a strong dividing point for cosmopolitanists, was removing Sadam a good thing? even if it had been the worse case scenario and he had WMD's and was committing mass human rights violations does Iraq possibly show that Interventions can de stable areas more and actually lead to a weakening of the human security that we so desire to protect?

I personally wouldn't go as far as to say this, I think Iraq was a cases of a very bad interevention, like somalia in the past, however there have been some very important interventions that have occured. When I was at the Next Left conflict John Denman MP said that we need to be more  careful in choosing our interventions, I agree and think we need to go further than just that. We need to make sure they are conducted in the correct way and that we are committed for the long term, longer than we think they will take.

This may mean that we don't get involved in some conflicts, we may well end up sitting on the sidelines and watching some horrible events occur, however if we know/strongly believe that our intervention would just make the situation worse then it is something we will have to do. The balance between Order and Justice is not one that is easily solved.

Can Christians really believe in Property?

The Christian perception of God (generally, not universally) is one that is all powerful, and creator and sustainer of the whole universe. there are also many verses that discuss that all things belong to God, we don't actually own them we are only left in charge of them. After all in genesis Adam and Eve are made stewards of the garden and told to "work and look after it".  That doesn't really suggest that they owned the garden, it still belonged to God, yet they were in charge.

This really seams to fly in contradiction to history and what such thinkers like Locke have to say about property, where he claims that property started to exist the first moment a man placed boundaries around a piece of land. And yet there doesn't seam to be any real theological backing for it.

When placed in the context of history and we see that Locke is speaking at a time when all property belongs to the king (as he is God's divine instrument on earth) and that Locke is justifying the removal of James the Second and seeking to protect people from further unjust rulers. Its also important to note that Locke's views benefited him greatly with his business in the Americas and the property that he "owned" there due to establishing perimeters around land that had traditionally been occupied by native Indians (though they had no concept of ownership of it).

So perhaps Locke's views may have been shaped out of self interest, does this mean that as Christians we shouldn't believe in Property or we should just try and treat our "property" as not really ours, but God's and use it as such? There is a distinct possibility that the Second option is actually harder than the first.

Grace Changes Everything

I was reading the Total Politics interview with Archbishop Cramer and his thoughts on the interplay between religion and politics. If you frequent my blog then you will not be surprised that I found this topic interesting having a strong faith myself and a long standing interest in politics then the considerations of how they are linked, especially as it isn't just a philosphical discussion but one that impacts me every day. If my religion clearly dictated certain policies, and I believed my religion to be true, then surely that would mean I would be obliged to agree with that political path. conversely If some new laws come into effect that affect religious groups or practices then these may directly or indirectly affect me.

Each political party has proponents who argue that their party is most compatible with Christian belief and practice and in the run up to the election I predicted, and saw occur, that some people would come out and claim Jesus as their own. Cramer on his Blog argues for an understanding of the roots of conservativism from its Christian roots and how they should impact it now. Part of me really admires this, the reference to the original beliefs, of all parties, is something that is good and should be done. In addition to this the promotion of Christian views within politics and how they should affect us is also something I believe is a good cause. To say that something which Jesus obviously claims will affect our entire mindset and yet then decided that it shouldn't affect our thoughts on politics seams quite strange to me.

So this is where we get to the actually point of this post and where the title comes from, why I disagree with enforcing Christian morals upon people, even if I personally believe they are good and worth promoting. Grace.

It is the most amazing theological concept and truly separates Christianity from all other religions, it should prevent a judgemental faith and insure an inclusive and welcoming community for all, even if people never choose to follow Jesus. However like so many things it is easily corrupted and turned into a reason to judge and too feel superior to others.

Put simply Grace means that your salvation, your acceptance and reconciliation with God, has nothing to do with your actions or even thoughts, it is all dependent on God. It should lead to the realisation that actually as a Christian you are just as flawed and imperfect as any non Christian, it should lead to the realisation that even if I don't go out beating people up the anger I feel towards people means that I too can not judge them.  If this was true then forcing someone to conform to Christian morals no longer makes sense form a Christian perspective, after all they will deep down dislike them and not believe in them which according to Jesus is just as bad. On top of that the Christian perspective on life is that the fleeting moments that exist in this life aren't actually that important, rather the eternity in the new heaven and new earth are what really matter, so why bother

System shock

Tonight hasn't been an easy night, for those of you who don't know I am currently doing a CELTA course (a part time course so that I can teach English as a foreign language) and at my teaching practice tonight I didn't meet up to the mark. It was a vast improvement on my previous lesson and there are some easy and obvious issues that can easily be solved. However it does seam now that every time I love one problem I develop another! This whole course has not been made easier by the fact that I am dyslexic and so getting to grips with Grammar, to write clearly on the board and with some organisational skills.

So I am at a lose end, what if I don't pass this course? My plans for the next year will basically completely fall through, I won't be able to go abroad, I won't be able to teach around here and considering the way things are going at my current job I won't have a job and the issue of what job to do next will still be there.

It's all very funny though, only yesterday I was with some of the other members of the well and we were discussing the passage James 4:13-17

¹³Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." ¹⁴Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. ¹⁵Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." ¹⁶As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. ¹⁷Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.

All very appropriate I'm sure you'll agree, I had been trusting in my on plans and to some degree boasting about them and felt certain they would occur, then all of a this happened. A complete system shock that means that the certainty I had in my ideas and what I would be doing is no longer certain.

Its not a certainty that I will fail this course but things do need to improve if I am going to pass. But its okay, if I fail then I have failed, luckily God is with me and with him I can deal with any failure that I make.

[Haven't done a blog post like this before what do you think about it? More like this?)

Where are you on the global rich list?

Today I was with some of the people from my church and the topic got round to money and wealth and some one mentioned this web site: The Global Rich List

The idea of the website is that you enter you average yearly salary and it shows you where in the worlds rich list you would come. It's truly shocking how high you come from so little money and I do think that it puts into perspective our lifestyles and the luxury we live in.

In recent years disposable income levels and standard of living costs have risen dramatically, we have more money to spend on junk and useless things that we don't need than ever before in our lives and yet many people seam to insist that this isn't the case.

The worse thing about this is that I trap myself in this lifestyle, in recent times I have guilty of acquiring plenty of "things" that I really don't need and really won't make my life any better. Trying to break free of consumerism really isn't easy.

A few photo's from Next Left

I appologies for the poor quality I haven't had time to edit them but I hope you enjoy them anyway!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisjw133/sets/72157623943941805/show/with/4609797377/

Quick Post: Kingston Council Lib Dem Gains!

So despite doorstep complaints about having the highest council tax in London and that we weren't an efficient council and Losing 2,000 od votes in the general election we actually managed to gain council seats!

We Should Seriously Consider the Conservatives offer.

I know its hard to hear and I know that some people will be saying we should rejecting it straight off for whatever reason but please bare with me.

The First thing has to be that this isn't the final offer and things can change before the final options are forward so lets not judge it as it is.

The Second is that we don't have as much bargaining power as we'd like. 57 seats isn't a strong position to be making claims and seeing as we would make up 1/7th of the seats in total that's not a lot. To demand the world for nothing in return would be ridiculous. we have to be realistic about how much we could demand in exchange and lets be honest a full change in the electoral system is a big ask and one that I don't think the conservatives could deliver (from their MP's or from the House of Lords). However I do believe that he would need to offer something much more significant in this aspect to win people over.

The Third It would provided more confidence for the market and would help the recovery.

The Fourth is that surely it is better to be in a Lib/Con pact and influencing policy than a tory government on its own (of course this isn't a completely accurate as it could be a conservative minority which would mean that we wouldn't have to concend on the more unpopular measures we didn't want)

The Fifth point though is that it would mean that we would be percieved as more ready for government, we'd gain valuable work experience if you will. This could be a huge factor if we do have another election soon and could well mean that then we might be in a better position to negotiate on PR.

The Sixth and final is that a coalition with Labour would mar us as keeping them in power, ESPECIALLY as the Conservatives had the largest amount of votes and seats. Surely we should give this party more attention than the second place party (though not automatically assume we should form a coalition with them).

Now there will be costs, we would have to put through some unpopular policies that we really wouldn't want, but, if we believe in the idea of coalitions then it is something we would have to get use to.

The Conservatives haven't exactly helped themselves with the Conservative home article about the 10k income tax point that has changed it from progressive and fair to regressive in one quick step.

So lets not be hasty, lets wait and hear the negotiations and see what the final deal is.

Reasons 6 and 7 for why I will be voting Lib Dem

Reason 6: Vince Cable has a doctorate in Economics, what more could you want in a chancellor

Reason 7: The Lib Dems have a whole section of their manifesto dedicated to young people and students.

Reason 5 for why I will be voting Lib Dem

We will reduce classroom sizes in schools. This will mean more attention to all students, high ability and low.

(you may well be wondering where reason 4 is, well that was helpfully provided by a few of my facebook friends as :Nick Clegg is fit.)

"What we need now is a strong government" really means...

What we need now is a government with only a third of the people who would vote, would vote for them, and when you factor in turnout that means the actually percentage of the population who vote for the government might be close to a quarter. However we should give them a strong mandate to force through whatever, even though many more people want something else.

Reason Three for why I will be voting Lib Dem

We will raise the starting point of income tax to £10,000. This will be a tax cut of around £700 for most people, this has been accounted for and you can view the details on page 102 of the manifesto. Around 3.6 Million people will be completely exempt from income tax

Reason Number Two why I will be voting for the Lib Dems

They will change the voting system so that it is no longer a winner takes all affair. We propose a change to the STV system which will still provide constituency links (in multi-constituency districts) but will mean that every persons vote counts and no longer will a party with less than 50% of the vote have a landslide

Reason Number One for why I Will be voting for the Lib Dems

From the preamble to the constitution "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundermental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorane or conformity.

Push Factors Verse Pull factors in Immigration

I have been thinking recently that this whole immigration debate has been completely focused on the "pull factors" for immigrants coming to Britian and how we're seen a "soft touch" and how our "large benefits attract people" etc etc. Many Lib Dems have critised their comments but I want to actually talk about another approach we should consider along side. The "Push" factors that lead to people wanting to leave their country.

The people who are influenced most by Push factors seam to the ones who people are most upset with. Most people accept that "genuine asylum seekers" should be allowed in, but its all the non genuine ones we don't want. Having known people who have gone through this process it is not easy to prove that you need asylum, (if this system isn't seen as far by those seeking asylum then it actually would encourage them to disobey it and to go on the run, especially those who are genuinely at risk. Though this is a side track) so the number of "failed asylum seekers" might well be higher than it actually should be based on their genuine need. In addition to this instead of saying that it's a good idea to make it harder for them to come to Britain surely we should seek to improve the situation in their home country. If we seek to promote peace, to encourage developing economies (in environmental ways so their development doesn't cost as much to the environment) then we would see a dramatic drop in movements in to our country.

In addition to this it would also encourage further migration away from Britain by people who have sought asylum in the past and from British people seeking opportunities further afield.

HOWEVER the biggest reason is that in itself it is a good goal, the change in immigration should be a by product to promoting good peace and quality in the life in other countries.

I find it very depressing that in the current debate there has been a complete focus on making the pull factors less appealing and not discussing the Push factors at all.