All posts by Alan Storkey

Alan Storkey has stood in two elections as a Christian candidate, was Chair of the Movement for Christian Democracy, has written "Jesus and Politics" and has helped shape recent Christian political thought.

We Can Disarm the World

Teresa May’s Fictions on the Trident Nuclear Weapons’ System

August 8, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

(written for Christians on the Left)

In her first policy debate in the Commons as Prime Minister, Teresa May pushed through the gateway decision on the new Trident Nuclear system. The debate was launched at short notice to get it through before real public opinion could be expressed and the arguments examined. Yet, what she said should be re-examined, because it was actually empty rhetoric purporting to be argument. This article examines the empty box of “nuclear threat” and the fear mongering which she presented. She said, “I want to set out for the House why our nuclear deterrent remains as necessary and essential today as it was when we first established it. The nuclear threat has not gone away; if anything, it has increased.”

The Nuclear “Threat”?
First, what is “The Nuclear Threat?” Teresa May names this something as though it automatically exists, but all nuclear powers for the past eighty years have declared they will not be first use aggressors and there has been no threat of nuclear use, except perhaps by the United States against the USSR in the late 1940s . The major international confrontation that occurred was the Cuban crisis in 1962 between the United States and the USSR, when US missiles in Turkey provoked a tit for tat reprisal on Cuba, until both sides backed down. The most serious real threat was when a US H bomb dropped accidentially at Goldsboro, near Washington, in January 1961 and three of the four safety devices failed.
The reason for the absence of threat, as McNamara pointed out in the later 1960s, is that nuclear weapons are really unusable as weapons of war. Mutually Assured Destruction is MAD. Nuclear weapons can only murder millions of people, destroy trillions of property, make vast areas desolate of production and spread radiation and cancer round the planet. Nuclear weapons are useless and unusable. The nuclear powers, the US, China, Russia, Israel, France, India and Pakistan, have not threatened because there is no point to doing so. The United Kingdom has not faced and does not face any national nuclear threat, except, Theresa May cites, Russia and North Korea.
Further, the “nuclear threat” is never used against non-nuclear powers. So, non-nuclear powers do not face a nuclear threat, because they do not have nuclear weapons and cannot themselves be a nuclear threat. The “NT” does not keep Aussies awake at night. We could, of course, join them and be a non nuclear, non threat, non threatened nation. Again, no conventional war has escalated to nuclear, because it is an inappropriate response in a crowded interdependent world.
The “Increased” Nuclear “Threat”.
Yet, Teresa May states the nuclear threat has, if anything, “increased”. The number of nuclear warheads has decreased from over 60,000 in the mid eighties to under 16,000 today, but that does not mean much, given their destructive power. (It does highlight the past ability of the nuclear arms producers to push their production to absurd levels.) Yet, most people would feel that the end of the Cold War reduced the “nuclear threat”. More recently South Africa renounced its nuclear status and some of the “rogue” states have gone: – Gaddafi never really tried; we lied about Iraq; there is an agreement with Iran. Really, there is no increased nuclear “threat” beyond what did not really exist anyway. But, of course, there is North Korea and Russia.

The “Danger” of North Korea.
Only North Korea remains, and Theresa May cites it as one of the dangers we face. Aside the fact that it is 5,349 miles away, has a weak economy (half the size of Lancashire’s and possibly contracting under its military weight), one would expect South Korea, China, Japan, the United States, and the United Nations to have more responsibility in relation to North Korea than us. Indeed, unless we all began throwing darts at effigies of the Supreme Leader, one cannot think how North Korea would become our unilateral nuclear threat and danger. For our possession of nuclear weapons is unilateral; it is so that we can unilaterally use them despite wider world opinion and international law. It is absurd that we would take on the business of using them against North Korea. Are we an other side of the world busy-body? Does the Queen lose sleep over the threat from Korea? Would we obtain the permission of South Korea first? North Korea cannot be addressed by nuclear weapons.

The “Danger” of Russia.
Teresa May then cites her other example – Russia. She says, “First, there is the threat from existing nuclear states such as Russia.” Notice the language, “such as Russia”. There is no other “such as” state. China supplies many of our goods, waited for a hundred and fifty years for Hong Kong back, and is possibly funding our nuclear power stations. Then May adds, “We know that President Putin is upgrading his nuclear forces.” Hello, is that not what the UK has been doing for more than a decade with the Trident renewal programme? He may be responding to us. She adds, “In the past two years, there has been a disturbing increase in both Russian rhetoric about the use of nuclear weapons and the frequency of snap nuclear exercises.” This needs some explanation. When Russia agreed to the reunification of Germany, a deep reversal of 1945 and recreating the historic threat to Russia, it was agreed that the reach of western weapons would not go beyond the East German border; this offered a stable non-threatening end to the Cold War. But since then the US and NATO have been pushing aggressively eastwards especially into Ukraine, close to Russia’s heartlands and much of what has been perceived as the Russia “threat” in Ukraine has been a NATO generated threat to Russia. NATO, without a role since 1990 and the end of the Cold War has fermented this confrontation to give itself a raison d’etre, and engages in frequent nuclear and military exercises and a torrent of confrontational language. The Russian military budget is some 14% of that of the US. We, in the West, as much as Russia, are responsible for increased tension in the area. Finally, Teresa May states, “As we have seen with the illegal annexation of Crimea, there is no doubt about President Putin’s willingness to undermine the rules-based international system in order to advance his own interests.” Actually, when 63% of the people in the Crimea view their nationality as Russian, there were repeated UN polls with majorities for Russian Union and the final vote, albeit with a boycott was 93% for union with Russia, it could hardly be seen as an undemocratic move. Teresa May neglected to add that the US and the UK had prosecuted a full blown war, based on a lie, against Iraq in denial of international law. So our treatment of Russia, and NATO’s determination to resurrect the Cold War, have been a big part of this estrangement and Trident does not help the situation but makes it worse.

The Fear Machine.
So “the nuclear threat” Teresa May talks about is not actual, but part of the fear machine of military politics. We even have “the question of future nuclear threats – (“extreme threats” later) – that we cannot even anticipate today” to ramp up our fear. Meanwhile, everyone accepts Trident submarines cannot address terrorism, the obvious present threat. The fear machine is wheeled out so that we are grateful to the politicians for defending us against what is not there. They can now fund more nuclear weapons which will increase the dangers world-wide. The Parliamentary decision contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty which we signed before the end of the Cold War, saying “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.”
By repetition, not argument, we are cowed into accepting Trident. If we hear the words “nuclear threat” enough times, it must be there. The military-industrial complex and its hired hands work the mantra for this useless, destructive, obsolete, potentially planet destroying weapon to profit their business. We buy nuclear weapons to meet the fear created by possessing nuclear weapons. So the whole establishment is brought into line to support the militarization of the world, the biggest failed experiment of human history. We sleepwalk to the commandment, “Thou shalt threaten to kill”. Or, perhaps, we democratically close down this worship of weapons in the name of a peaceful God.

The Iraq War

War does not work. Disarmament does.

July 7, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

It is time to change a basic British attitude. For a century of more we have been taught that, sometimes, our going to war is good and can bring about a better world. Blair believed that, together with most of the New Labour and Conservative parties who voted in 2003 for War in Iraq. Chilcot has confirmed War was not necessary. It was especially not necessary if we had not armed Saddam in the first place. In 2003 he was already defeated, no threat, had no WMD, and the UN route (supported earlier by the UK and US) was holding him to account. War (or more accurately three wars) destroyed Iraq. War has destroyed Syria. War has destroyed Libya. War destroyed Europe and especially the USSR for a decade and a half during and after both WW1 and WW2. War has destroyed Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, Japan, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Mozambique, the Balkans and Armenia, Paraguay, the Jewish nation, Spain, Algeria, the American Indians, Cuba, Egypt, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Pakistan and most of the nations on earth at one time or another.
War destroys. It kills, injures and traumatizes. It eliminates infrastructure, hospitals, schools, history, housing, the basics of life and intimacy. It encourages rape, torture and robbery. It puts in places an overwhelming need for revenge that few of us could resist. War begets war. It destroys democracy, the rule of law, mutual respect. It validates “You shall murder”. It is the destroyer of persons, civilisation, family from which good does not come.
And here comes the myth. Of course war is evil, but we British are peace-loving, except when we really have to go to War to do good. Remember Hitler. Yes, let’s remember Hitler and the way World War One begat Hitler and the destruction of German, Russian and other nations out of which World War Two grew. We, British, forget that earlier we won an empire by war with the machine gun and the warship. We forget the Boer Wars made us hated for cruelty. We forget our part in generating wars, our belligerence, our turning down of disarmament, our infatuation with being strong, our ability to hate other states, our arms industry and our militarism. But we are now face to face with our War in Iraq. Chilcot has shown, if we did not already know, that the War was unnecessary, illegal, undermined the UN and came from our arrogance and desire to attack. We are the problem. We, “who put things right”, have made things wrong, vast nations destroyed, hundreds of thousands dead, millions of refugees, and we are the problem. We can sublocate blame to Blair, the dossier, the lack of spine of the Attorney General or military failure, but we have been the warmongers. We do not really love peace. Otherwise we would do it. The myth is a lie. We have been taught to shrug, to believe with Blair that our Wars have a purpose. But, we are wrong; they do not. They can be prevented. Three years or two months before they come, they need not be.
War is not an “it”. It is our endeavour. We cause wars, although there is a deafening silence over the process through which we do so. The West, largely, has armed the world. We have listened to those who say, “You need weapons to be safe” or “Arms exports are good for the economy”, and we make arms. We – the US, Russia, Germany, France, China , Spain and the UK – supply 86% of the world’s arms. We pretend that it is good for the world and its defence, but it produces wars, scares, military dictators, terrorism, cold wars, counter arming and arms races. We run the engine that drives world militarism, and that militarism produced the Iraq War and took in half-decent men (always men) like Blair and Cameron.. The engine is hidden, but it produces the power. Arms companies need War to stay in business, and they get it. Arms bring military dictators, threats, distrust, hate and catapult the nasties to the top of politics, but we sublimate what we are doing.
But we can do so no longer. We see the chaos and world destruction that arms cause. It can stop. Countries do not need to fight. Yorkshire and Lancashire worked it out five hundred years ago. Europe learned it in 1945. Mutual disarmament is easier than mutual armament. Swords into ploughshares is more practical than arms races which bankrupt nations and produce catastrophes. It only needs a million people worldwide who understand militarism and disarmament and will act resolutely for the world to change. Those who back arms are weak, because they are wrong; they can only destroy. Making peace works. Nation can speak peace unto nation and we can learn war no more. A fundamental change of attitude is required from the British wanting “to punch above their weight”. War does not work. Industrial militarism is destroying the planet. We can move from the woe of war to worldwide disarmament and the manufacture of peace. That is our Christian calling.

The Iraq War

The British Military Formation of Iraq.

June 14, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

The End of the Cold War and the possibility of Peace.
On the 2nd August, 1990 Iraqi troops under the orders of Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War. It was a momentous event in world history partly because it occurred exactly when the end of the Cold War could have led to an era of peace. Shortly before it happened, the world had watched as the Soviet Union came to an end after over seventy years as a world-changing state. On the 8th June,1990 the Russian Federation had declared itself a sovereign state, superceding the existence of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, the USSR, after two years of obvious disintegration in the Superpower. In December, 1988 President Gorbachev had announced a plan to very substantially reduce USSR nuclear and conventional weapons; they were unilaterally withdrawing from the Arms Race. Amid great friendliness Presidents Bush and Gorbachev declared the end of the Cold War on the 2nd December, 1989, and, as 1990 developed, the USSR dismembered into several much more independent states. By 1st July, 1990 Eastern Germany had joined with West Germany and the Communist Party had given up control. Discussions were underway on the independence of the Warsaw Pact countries. The USSR, the second Superpower, was gone and the sky was clear for peace.
During 1990 the USSR and Warsaw Pact arms companies collapsed, because their main clients had become bankrupt. Other Cold War related sales also fell dramatically. World arms sales went into fall from $46.5bn in 1987 to $39.5bn in 1988, $38.3bn in 1989, $31.3bn in 1990 and to $25.8bn in 1991, a 45% fall in five years. No other industry would face a collapse like this in their market. It was a point of panic and the major issue for the companies was whether a new enemy could be found for the United States, for if it decided there was no external threat and cut back on its voluminous demand for weapons the great American companies faced implosion, to use a suitable metaphor. At this point the world could have become post-military. For nearly fifty years the Cold War had made arms the central feature of world politics, and now it was gone. Major international tensions could cease and disarmament become normal as Gorbachev had already suggested. (The final spasm in this collapse was the attempted USSR military coup of August 1991 trying to preserve the old military system. It fizzled out because even the military could see that it could not work; militarism had bankrupted the USSR.) The end of the Cold War was a blue sky point in history when peace in international relationships seemed possible. Militarized Communism had gone; everybody could be friends – if Communism was the problem. We lament the failure to disarm, but largely it did not happen because the logic of the arms companies requires War or the Fear of War. Radical disarmament could happen, but it required a deeper understanding. The world waited, and, while we waited, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Western Self-Righteousness.
Iraq has dominated much of the news for the last three decades as a problem that the West has to address, or finds it difficult to address. The teaching of Jesus always puts the finger on the cancer, but most western elites do not listen to Jesus. So, here he is. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matt.7:3-5) The West judges Saddam Hussein for militarism and going to war, but, as it turns out, not only did the United States and the United Kingdom go to war against Iraq without cause in 2003, but it formed the situation in which Saddam invaded Kuwait to an extraordinary degree. Even further back it had largely formed the necessity of a military dictatorship out of which many of Iraq’s problems have grown. We need to see the extent to which we, the West, are the problem and examine the plank which is in our own eye. The plank is so long that it will require several chapters. Western self-righteousness has the form: Oh look, Iraq is in a mess and we must sort things out, but ignores the fact that it is our interfering mess that we are addressing. This is especially important, because this western hypocrisy is the truth which gives middle eastern terrorism its strength. If we fail to address it, terrorism will continue. If we address it, and repent, this terrorism will die.

Iraq’s military history in relation to Britain.
The year 1990 and the Gulf War has a long history in relation to the West. During the eighteenth and early 19th century Iraq was ruled by the Mamluks, a kind of Islamic military caste, and in 1831 the Ottoman Empire gained control and ruled until the First World War. Britain had her eye on the territory, partly because of its significance as a route to India and partly because oil was beginning to be a military fuel. Germany had eyes on an overland route to the East through the area to add a touch of rivalry. In the First World War there was a major confrontation with the Ottoman Empire over Iraq; the siege of Kut turned out to be one of the most humiliating British defeats ever, with 13,000 surrendering. Overall the British lost 92,000 soldiers in the area and eventually won only when the War ended and both King Feisal and Lord Allenby entered Damascus to bring an end to Ottoman rule. During the War the French and British formed the Sykes-Picot agreement which carved up the Middle East between them. This conflicted with the United States emphasis on countries moving quickly towards independence and with the promises made to the Arabs, and especially those given through Lawrence of Arabia and in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence that the groups fighting with the British against the Ottoman Empire would be given independence after the War. At the end of the War both Allenby and King Faisal entered Damascus to bring an the promises made to the Arabs were more or less ditched and a revolt began in Damascus and on 30th September, 1918, which led to Faisal being proclaimed as King of the Arabs. The San Remo Conference from the 19th-26th April, 1920 tried to square the circle and the outcome was that the French were given a mandate to govern Syria and Faisal was proclaimed King of Iraq which was a British protectorate. Really, both France and Britain wanted colonial control in the area and not to follow the proper understanding of mandated territories, which saw then en route to independence.
This became evident not long after the San Remo Conference. The Iraqi people did not much like having a King foisted on them from a Conference in Italy and rebellions broke out, adding to the troubles which Churchill was facing as Minister of War given the task of clearing up after the end of the War. The Iraqis were looking forward to independence and did not much like being occupied, an understandable reaction. They thought they could govern themselves, but were not given the chance, and in May, 1920 they began a revolt among the Shi’ites in the South, army officers and others. It spread. At the same time in the North the Kurds made a bid for independence. Soon Shia and Sunni groups were co-operating. It became an armed revolt in June. When he heard about this rebellion, Churchill has anxious that it would not spread and become established, and he decided to use aerial bombardment to cut out the revolution. He sent in two squadrons of bombers to bomb the insurgents and thought of using gas attacks as well. He engaged Hugh Trenchard to organize the first ever bombing campaign outside Europe to subdue the Kurds and others in August 1920. Bomber Harris learned his trade here. As Catherwood points out, Churchill’s impetus was largely to save money on the military; this was efficient warfare. The Kurds were duly killed or subdued and ceased their revolt. In retrospect, perhaps independence to the Kurds then would have saved us all a lot of trouble. The British dropped about 100 tons of bombs in thousands of hours of sorties. Churchill was happy to drop bombs on the natives to show them who was in charge. This was British colonial military control stamped on the Iraqi political system.

The Client Kingdom, Oil and Militarism.
Colonial powers form the political structure and its culture. King Faisal was installed as a client ruler, which meant that although he was king, Britain was really in charge and not looking towards independence. Much of this control was geared towards oil, which was gradually becoming the fuel of the future as cars, aviation and oil fired ships became dominant transport forms. Initially, the oil had been located in the north near Mosul, and in 1918 British forces had raced to take Mosul so that it, and not France would be in control of these fields. The French were furious. Both France and the United States wanted to be in on the act, and the Iraq Petroleum Company was formed with Shell, BP, French and American companies having roughly a quarter each. There was enough oil for world demand in this period, and so the oilfields were only slowly developed, partly so that British fields in Persia and elsewhere would be more profitable. In October, 1927 a British exploration team hit a gusher near Kirkuk and from that time big oil was an important part of the picture. This was exploitative colonialism, and it meant control through technology, supply routes and above all the military. The Iraqis had to be subdued into accepting this British domination of their major economic asset.
At this time the British also established the policy of governing through the Sunni minority population, which introduced a colonial content to the Sunni-Shia relations in the country which became embedded; the Sunnis ruled and the Shi’ites were excluded from power. The influence of the Iraqi political establishment gradually increased, because they were in effect running the country, and Iraq was technically made independent in 1932, though it remained in effect under indirect British control, with British military bases and strong protection of the oil installations and routes. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 cemented this pattern. It guaranteed British interests in the area and it also set up a process whereby the British would sell and supply arms to the Iraqis. But still there was resentment. There were attempts at military coups against the client King Ghazi during the thirties, but it remained. And
The Second World War was a threat to this position as Britain seemed to have other things on its mind. In April, 1941, when Britain was more preoccupied fighting the Nazis at home, there was an uprising. It looked as though the colonial power might be ousted. But British troops moved quickly on the 2nd May, 1941 and attacked from their Basra and Habbaniya bases, capturing substantial amounts of arms. Soon German arms arrived from Syria, but in other confrontations Fallujah was captured and defended, and further north, Glubb Pasha, who became a British legend, led legionnaires to control the area and they then moved forward to Baghdad to control the country again until a British sympathizing Government was re-installed. Churchill, the arch colonialist, was not going to let go of Iraq. British forces remained in Iraq until October, 1947 to protect oil interests, but by now direct British military power in the region was weakening. In 1948 there was an Anglo-Iraqi Treaty and in 1955 a Baghdad Pact each giving Britain privileges in Iraq, especially in relation to oil. By now the population was beginning to dislike these links with the British, as the British would have if Iraq had owned its coal mines throughout the Industrial Revolution. Britain was the cuckoo in the oil nest and eating a lot. So the British colonial system stayed in place from 1918 to 1958, forty years. It made military control paramount, put Sunni and Shia in a power relationship, controlled oil externally, retarded democratic development and milked the state of its main source of wealth. We, Britain, were substantially responsible for the kind of state Iraq was to be even from early in the 20th century.

Independent?
Britain retained its military bases until 1953 and King Faisal II was broadly sympathetic to Britain; he had attended Harrow School in NW London, so that was not surprising. On the 14th July, 1958 there was finally a successful revolution against the monarchy and the British. A military dictator, British-trained Brigadier-General Abd al-Karim Qasim, came to power. He in turn was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif in February, 1963, who in turn was overthrown by the Ba’ath Party in 1968. The Ba’ath (rebirth) Party had its origins in Syria and was a Pan-Arab Socialist party. Its most prominent move was between 1958 and 1961 when Egypt and Syria united as the United Arab Republic, but a split occurred in 1961 and a further split emerged between the Syrian and Iraqi Ba’ath Parties. The focus was Arab nationalist rather than Islamic. The 1963 coup, which was anti-Communist, was the first run of this policy. The new regime received strong support from the United Kingdom’s Macmillan Government and the United States, so that the two countries could retain their oil interests. Ba’athist organisation was anti-democratic and strongly militaristic. General Saddam Hussein gradually controlled the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and became military dictator in July 1979 in a Sunni dominated government. We have to conclude that the long military presence of the British in Iraq made it more or less inevitable that military dictatorships would follow, as they did.
For a while the Iraqi regime, fed up with the way it had been treated by the West, linked up with the USSR for the supply of arms. Saddam began purchasing large quantities, and when the price of oil went up around 1980, he suddenly had a lot of money to spend either on his own people or on arms. Sadly he chose the latter and became the biggest purchaser of arms in the Middle East. The West saw its opportunity and moved in, and we look at the result in the next chapter as the war between Iran and Iraq gathered momentum.

The Iraq War

A Summary of Possible Conclusions on the Iraq Inquiry (before Chilcot published)

June 10, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

The Iraq Inquiry Report comes out on Wednesday, 6th July. There will be a few days debate in Parliament and then the Summer Recess will arrive and people will be off on their holidays, and we will all forget it. For years it has been in the long grass and now it will be a holiday moan.But what we did in the Iraq War needs discussing before Chilcot comes out. Let us recall what we did.
1. We ignored the clear tested evidence from Hussein Kamel al-Majid, given in 1995, who was murdered by his father in law Saddam Hussein for giving it, that all the weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed in 1991-3. “I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.”
2. The Prime Minister failed to make an independent decision about undertaking an illegal war, but merely followed the United States to war out of loyalty.
3. The War was illegal. Jack Straw was told this, but ignored the advice to his two chief advisors. The Attorney General said it was illegal, but was sent to America at the last moment to make him change his mind.He did, rather than resign and denied his office requirement to uphold the rule of law. We engaged in an illegal invasion of a largely unarmed nation.
4. We, and the United States, bullied the United Nations, ignored their weapons inspectors, and failed to observe the United Nations’ principle of not attacking other nations and deeply damaging it ans an institution.
5. The United States and British Governments controlled much of the international media machine into claiming that Saddam was dangerous, when he patently was not. Most of the media went along with it, including the BBC who was bullied into compliance. The Murdoch Media were especially bad.
6. The Intelligence Services in both the United States and the UK were largely persuaded to support a tale which was untrue, led by John Scarlett, who was knighted for his support of the Blair line. A world-wide portrayal of untruths about the Iraqi regime was mounted as a basis for invasion.
7. Both the central Civil Service and Tony Blair destroyed the proper practice of Cabinet Government to push through the decision that Blair had made.
8. The United Kingdom Parliament voted for a resolution containing several untruths by 412 to 149 MPs (73%) to authorize the war, again through establishment pressure. Both New Labour and Conservative Parties strongly endorsed the war.
9. The Hutton Report (completed in five months) was wrongly used to pillory the BBC and push out its Director General.
10. The underlying causes of the War, that arms companies linked to the neo-cons in the American administration and especially to Cheney and Rumsfeldt, wanted a war against an unarmed foe and that Bush mindlessly needed to beat someone after 9/11, were not and have not been recognized.
11. The United States and the United Kingdom owe reparations to Iraq even of some $3-10 trillion for the damage that has been done by this illegal war.
12. Our War with Iraq created the failed state in which ISIS and terrorism could flourish and led to the present crisis in Syria. It is the most calamitous foreign policy of the past sixty years, and we are culpable for much of the present disorder in the Middle East.
13. We fail to examine and understand the damage caused by war and the belligerence caused by our military-industrial complex, or address the process whereby western arms companies armed Saddam Hussein and made him a problem in the Middle East.
14. We do not consider that our “special relationship” with the United States, given its vast military-industrial complex and proclivity to war, is dangerous and should be reviewed.

The Iraq War

The Iraq War Report

May 22, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

The Iraq Inquiry Report comes out on Wednesday, 6th July. There will be a few days debate in Parliament and then the Summer Recess will arrive and people will be off on their holidays, and we will all forget it. For years it has been in the long grass and now it will be a holiday moan. But what we did in the Iraq War needs discussing before Chilcot comes out. Let us recall what we did.
1. We ignored the clear tested evidence from Hussein Kamel al-Majid, given in 1995, who was murdered by his father in law Saddam Hussein for giving it, that all the weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed in 1991-3. “I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.”
2. The Prime Minister failed to make an independent decision about undertaking an illegal war, but merely followed the United States to war out of loyalty.
3. The War was illegal. Jack Straw was told this, but ignored the advice to his two chief advisors. The Attorney General said it was illegal, but was sent to America at the last moment to make him change his mind.He did, rather than resign and denied his office requirement to uphold the rule of law. We engaged in an illegal invasion of a largely unarmed nation.
4. We, and the United States, bullied the United Nations, ignored their weapons inspectors, and failed to observe the United Nations’ principle of not attacking other nations and deeply damaging it ans an institution.
5. The United States and British Governments controlled much of the international media machine into claiming that Saddam was dangerous, when he patently was not. Most of the media went along with it, including the BBC who was bullied into compliance. The Murdoch Media were especially bad.
6. The Intelligence Services in both the United States and the UK were largely persuaded to support a tale which was untrue, led by John Scarlett, who was knighted for his support of the Blair line. A world-wide portrayal of untruths about the Iraqi regime was mounted as a basis for invasion.
7. Both the central Civil Service and Tony Blair destroyed the proper practice of Cabinet Government to push through the decision that Blair had made.
8. The United Kingdom Parliament voted for a resolution containing several untruths by 412 to 149 MPs (73%) to authorize the war, again through establishment pressure. Both New Labour and Conservative Parties strongly endorsed the war.
9. The Hutton Report (completed in five months) was wrongly used to pillory the BBC and push out its Director General.
10. The underlying causes of the War, that arms companies linked to the neo-cons in the American administration and especially to Cheney and Rumsfeldt, wanted a war against an unarmed foe and that Bush mindlessly needed to beat someone after 9/11, were not and have not been recognized.
11. The United States and the United Kingdom owe reparations to Iraq even of some $3-10 trillion for the damage that has been done by this illegal war.
12. Our War with Iraq created the failed state in which ISIS and terrorism could flourish and led to the present crisis in Syria. It is the most calamitous foreign policy of the past sixty years, and we are culpable for much of the present disorder in the Middle East.
13. We fail to examine and understand the damage caused by war and the belligerence caused by our military-industrial complex, or address the process whereby western arms companies armed Saddam Hussein and made him a problem in the Middle East.
14. We do not consider that our “special relationship” with the United States, given its vast military-industrial complex and proclivity to war, is dangerous and should be reviewed.

Jesus and Politics

Jesus and Power.

May 16, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

edited version of talk given at WYSOCS Conference, Leeds, 14/5/2016

Christianity is two billion people going to Church on Sunday? Correct? Not exactly. Sometimes it might seem like that with clergy dressing up, hymns, prayerbooks and notices, but it is not really like that at all.
Let us look at Jesus and Power. Christmas is “When Jesus is born King of the Jews.” and we know he was born in a stable and laid in the manger. But stop at the word, “King”. King is not our ceremonial figurehead, Elizabeth Regina, but the central powerbroker – King Henry V, William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, King Herod the Great and, of course, Caesar. So Jesus, king of the Jews, is vying immediately with Herod the Great who had already killed his two favourite sons because they might usurp his place. The power battle is on. Jesus was born and carried with his parents to Egypt, because they were warned in a dream that if he stayed, he died. And so the innocents die in Bethlehem as Herod with cancer in his gut and going mad tried to wipe out every rival to his kingship. If you rule by might, you trust no-one.
You cannot avoid the titles. “King of the Jews”. It is a threat to Herod the Great and later to Herod Antipas. It is also a threat to the Roman Imperium. Pilate was to come to know that Jesus was no threat to him, but should be set free, but the agenda of the Zealots was to banish Rome and reinstate their king. The hope lurked in Judea, Galilee and Samaria whenever a Roman soldier whipped another Jew. But it went further, “Jesus, Son of David”, Israel’s greatest king, but “one greater than David is here” says Jesus, not blowing his own trumpet, but putting the truth on the table and playing with his listeners. The claim is to power, central power in the Kingdom. But the claims are bigger still. To take on the title of the Son of Man was apocalyptic, set in the midst of the great Babylonian and Assyrian empires. There is the vision of the Ancient of Days with a hundred million people standing before Him, and then comes the Son of Man. “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all people’s, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” To wear that title was no little thing, as one would say with the stiffest of upper lips.
And then there is Messiah, also God’s chosen ruler, the deliverer, the One rooted in a long Jewish history back to Isaiah and beyond. “Blessed are you, Simon, Bar-Jonah, for this was not revealed by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matt:16,7) Messiah is, of course, a Jewish term, but “Christos” is not Jewish. Paul in Romans makes clear that Jesus Christ is the world’s deliverer or ruler. He is the rival of Caesar. He will rule with power. This is entirely in keeping with all that Jesus was and taught before and after the resurrection. These claims are so big, they impinge everywhere. But, of course, anyone can make big claims. Indeed, people who make such claims are usually mad and or dangerous. People have been bringing Hitler into debates a lot these days, but, let us say these claims and titles are up there is the Examine My Armpit league. C.S. Lewis’s point; Either he is mad or this is true, begins to come into view.
And the Gospels show quite clearly why the madness line does not work; a modern sociological term is most useful in describing why. “Deconstruction” is what it says, a process whereby a commonly understood term or cultural construct is demolished and left in a heap. Jesus deconstructs Messiah. He has the chance to be the great popular leader. We tend to ignore the fact that at least 5,000 people, many of the armed, rushed round the north of Galilee shortly before Passover and were seeking to make him king by force. (Jn:6,15) He turned them down and deliberately reduced them to a grumbling, disillusioned group, happy to desert this leader who did not fit their image of Messiah as national liberator. We could look at this and other deconstructions in detail, but we must now get to the point. It is one of the most intellectually demanding in world political history, so we must try to do it some justice. For Jesus deliberately throughout much of his life and teaching transforms the meaning and focus of power. We are dealing with the greatest teacher ever, and we need to try to keep up.
So, what is power? Aye, there’s the rub. The seeming dominant view is that power is the ability to require others to do, think, be what the powerful want. Power is control, the ability to impose. Max Weber’s definition of power is “to realize their own will in communal action, even against the resistance of others.” Historically, this model of power seems to have been world dominant – the power over people to enslave, tax, pillage, dominate and use them. It reaches out into imperial power, capitalist power, gender control, political power right down to the present day. Rulers throughout the world have laid hold on resources, taxes, industries, systems of government and law to accumulate resources at the centre of government, in palaces, in glorious capitals and in tax havens, to be in control. As you approach London from the edge of the Thames basin, the towering buildings say this is the centre of power. You visit the Tower of London and know it has been so for a thousand years. This kind of power dominated most of history before Christ and is still widespread today.
Yet, already Jesus had faced the temptation: He is offered all the kingdoms of the world by the evil one. The devil, as he claims, can give it to anyone he wants, if they will worship him, and here is the choice. Nod to the devil and it will be yours. A bit of killing, imprisonment, domination, new weapons, turning the screws, cosying up to the already powerful. Ultimate power but using some evil? No. “Worship God and serve him only” says the Christ. So can there be only good power, uncorrupted by evil? Well maybe. And so the battle is joined. Power as domination is faced. The temptation is faced down. The battle is joined.
We do not have time to look at good power in depth, though that is one of the most important things we and all people could do, but here are some headlines of Jesus’ worldchanging view of power which gives rather than takes, which is power to all rather than the few, which is the will of God rather than the will of the power-monger. This understanding of the radical distribution of power to all Jesus joins at many levels throughout his teaching. The kingdom, or the gentle rule of God, has this necessary shape.
1. Power as service of people, not as being served, what we call democracy or government for the people.
2. Power as recognizing that all are equal before God and in the state.
3. Power as giving the law to all to form law-abiding societies and live justly.
4. Power as care and healing for all.
5. Power as truth and witnessing to the truth.
6. Power as distribution of wealth and income.
7. Power as forgiveness and reconciliation.
8. Power as peace and the healing of nations and the ability not to have enemies.
9. Power as freedom from slavery and freedom to do good work with fair payment and rest.
10. Power as not worshipping Mammon or coveting.
11. Power as the elimination of fear.
12. Power as the freedom of all to be educated.
13. Power as the victory of love and neighbour love.
14. Power as personal responsibility before God
15. Power as the ability to defeat sin and evil in one’s own life.
16. Power as honouring God’s creation and being good stewards of it.
17. Power as distributed in the areas of family, education, church, work, politics, the arts, communication and community.

This summary list, of course, does not do justice to the teaching of Christ, probing all of these issues from many different angles. “Blessed are the meek” How so? “for they shall inherit the earth”. So the humility with which we must approach the earth is laid before us, unexpected, turning from the landowners, unfurling horticulture and attacking the lording people. We could follow through these world transforming principles and the centrality of God in all of them, God the all-powerful, giving power and work to humankind having provided all the raw materials, tools and means of fruitfulness. So, the great alternative is opened up, the gentle, subversive power that actually works to our good, the power of the Holy Spirit and Truth, the power to blessing ourselves and others.

But the power requires a fight. There has been a two thousand year battle for power in principle. As Paul said, “ We do not fight against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers.” We fight against fighting. The powers of this world and the power of Christ, the Lamb on the throne, are in contention, oh, the irony of the lamb. It is easy to miss this fight, spiritual, self-examining, loving, forgiving, fair, fighting beneath the battles of self-importance, making history into not one damn war after another, but it is there. It constantly goes on and it wins. There are the great military head to heads, where controlling power wins for a time, but then people get on, have doses of humility, are free to learn, become a little more democratic, lift the injured man on a donkey and he heals and have holidays with the French instead of fighting them. Women and men hunger and thirst for justice and also receive it. The humble are lifted up and the mighty are brought down from their thrones. Hitler says, “Sich Heil” and Jesus examines his armpit.

There is a long history of this fight against fighting. Consider two points. First, the Vikings were bloodthirsty raiders practicing predation on Britain each summer for a century or more, bringing dread, and exercising control but then they are slowly converted to Christianity and Scandinavia has become one of the centres of peace on the planet. Second, the greatest and most beautiful building project in Britain is the medieval church in every village. Think of the gratitude to God and the co-operation in hamlet after hamlet which went into that project which is the architectural glory of the British countryside.

But the greatest outbreak of Christian insight, the greatest convulsion in the understanding of power, occurred during the Reformation of the 16th and 17th century. It was there where the ideas of Common Wealth, Democracy, Horticulture, Science, Technology, Pacifism, Animal breeding, Quality control, Regulation of market fairness, Freedom of Conscience, Redistribution of Wealth and Income, The Rule of Law, Modern University and popular Education, Reformation Art and Music, Discovery, Astronomy, Biology really look off because God was the centre of the picture and not the ruling elite. It was a massive intellectual and educational transformation. The vote was to be for each person, and not the possessors. Cromwell, flawed man that he was, signed himself, “Your most humble servant” and believed it. Many looking for power on Christ’s terms people went to America. Pacifists like Bunyan were put in prison. There were Levellers and Diggers, looking for radical equality. The Fifth Monarchists looked to the Kingdom of Christ, through with limited understanding, and killed four people before fifty of them were hung, drawn and quartered in 1661. It was an outburst of thought and action that changed the culture of western Europe and North America.

But we tend to ignore the extent to which Christianity is suppressed because it threatens the controlling rich and powerful. And it was suppressed in politics by the Restoration in Britain. The aristocracy and landowners do not want this kind of thing which threatens their position, and even kicks them out. In France the Huguenots were expelled, the Catholic Church sided with the aristocracy, and then eventually the French Revolution proclaimed an atheistic reaction. In Britain, too, the Church tended to go along with the aristocracy and be vicars of Bray. Broadly, Jesus rule was controlled and tamed by the elites, and enough Christians compromised to allow it to happen.

A proper history would see many victories and losses – the end of formal slavery, the reform of work, the growth of universal suffrage, matched by empire, the suppression of dissent and the growth of statist powers. Each age faces its challenges. At the turn of the twentieth century much was happening which was great in the kingdom. Abraham Kuyper had spearheaded the great reformational revolution still little understood yet in Britain. There had been other reform movements carrying forward the British and American Evangelical awakening. There was the international missionary movement, revivals in Wales, the States and elsewhere. At the same time Rerum Novarum was setting a similar process going in the Catholic Church. Tolstoy and others were proclaiming pacifism and disarmament throughout the world, Christian Socialism was vibrant, but the kingdom was for a while defeated. We Christians have got to understand when we lose and why we lose.

The Great War, the First World War, occurred because there were four arms races in Europe. One of them sparked and the others, largely because there had also been a concerted campaign of fear, fired into a World War. France feared Germany. Germany feared Britain and Russia. Russia feared Austro-Hungary and Britain feared Germany. There were supposed threats in invasion both ways to keep the British and German arms companies humming. They set up a system where they were in control, the merchants of death. They were part of the power as control system, with Krupp linked to the Kaiser and Vickers and Schneider exporting to the Tsar, and suddenly the old system was rampant. Kuyper kept the Netherlands out of the Great War. He didn’t trust Britain after the Concentration Camps of the Boer War, or the Kaiser. The USSR Communist Party withdrew from the Great War after the Revolution, but it was sucked into its own militarism. So Christ’s kingdom was defeated and even discredited by “God is on our side” religiousity. The old model of power was back – armies, weapons and war, political control and slavery, indoctrination and capitalist economic power. It was to appear in the even cruder form of Fascism in Italy, France, Britain, Germany, the United States, Spain and elsewhere. We now deride Fascism because it created and lost the Second World War, but a lot of people, especially elites who distrusted the little people, were close to Fascism, as they still are. World War Two was another defeat for the Kingdom of God and still they come in Iraq, Libya, Syria and the controlling power of the rich.

So the question is, Where do the people who say, Thy Kingdom Come, who know that Jesus, the Servant King, will rule, who know that all areas of life stand open before God, where do we stand now? First, we stand to fight – to fight against fighting, to fight against controlling power, to fight for only good power, to fight for all, to fight for the planet and to fight for justice. In this battle withdrawal is not an option. We must be wise as serpents and know how the counterfeit powers work, so that they are exposed and wither. We fight in the armour of God and resoundingly not with the weapons of control and intimidation. We fight with our feet shod with the Gospel of Peace against militarism and fear mongering. We seek and thirst for truth and justice. We fight knowing all are equal. We live in grace and not self-righteousness. We focus on Jesus Christ, so that people may understand him. Above all, we seek to follow Jesus faithfully and show him to others. We live in the kingdom of Christ on the terms of the king, and disown the shallow view of power which would rule over us. We cannot be sedentary. We must know what we are about, be ready and alert and understand the times, for all power and authority is given to Christ, the good power, the real power, the gentle power of God.

General, The Iraq War

Was the Iraq War Unlawful?

May 11, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, was primarily responsible for the United Kingdom observing the rule of international law, including that embodied in the United Nations. As with all Prime Ministers, he looked to the Attorney General for definitive advice on what was, or was not, legal. The rule of law justifies war and invasion only in acute circumstances and the United Nations is careful only to issue resolutions which validate military action in a clear and final resolution. Obviously, no ambiguity can be countenanced in such a situation. The United Nations since 1945 has prohibited the use of force — except in self-defence or, perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe — unless formally authorized by the UN Security Council. That is easy to understand.

Lord Goldsmith’s Understanding of the Illegalities of Attacking Iraq.
Lord Goldsmith did understand it and here we follow through his view of the UK’s legal position in relation to Iraq during the period between the summer of 2002 and the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. He gave quite a clear judgment that to undertake a war against Iraq was illegal. He stated it in a letter to the Prime Minister on 30th July, 2002, copied to the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, “In the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach [by Iraq] military action would be unlawful. Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force, it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action – but without it the position is, in my view, clear.” This statement is revealing. First, it says that evidence of a breach of the resolution requiring all WMD to be destroyed was necessary. That evidence needed to come from Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors. Second, that a resolution validating the use of force was required, and third, that the position was “clear”. Goldsmith added that this outlawed any military support of the United States. He had already written to Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, squashing the idea we could go to war against Iraq in “self-defence”, because he had examined the evidence and there was no imminent threat of attack to the UK. There was no reason why force could be used legally against Iraq.
The United Nations Secretary General aimed to stiffen this position in November, 2002. His report on the “Prevention of armed conflict” recommended as follows, “It is reassuring that a general consensus is gradually emerging among Member States that comprehensive and coherent conflict prevention strategies offer the greatest potential for promoting lasting peace and creating an enabling environment for sustainable development. The General Assembly is urged to adopt a strong and substantive resolution in support of conflict prevention, as the Security Council did on 30 August 2001.” Conflict prevention was to be the normal approach to difficult international situations, because the aftermath of conflict was chaos and destruction. So Goldsmith’s position as Attorney General, responsible for testing whether Government actions upheld the rule of law, including international law, was clearly in accord with everyone else’s in July, 2002. Without another resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force, the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Lord Goldsmith held this view until well into 2003. He repeated it in a letter to the Prime Minister on the 30th January, 2003. On 12th February in his draft advice to the Prime Minister on the American perception of the issue which had now began to appear in UK diplomatic circles, Goldsmith is critical of the American view. He points out that the American position of needing only another Council discussion, but not a resolution, before going to war against Iraq reduces the role of Council discussion to a “procedural formality” so that “even if the overwhelming majority of the Council were opposed to the use of force, the US could go ahead regardless.” He further noted that “Many delegations welcomed the fact that there was no ‘automaticity’ in the Resolution with regard to the use of force.” This point we examine fully in the next paragraph. He added that if the UK had tried to obtain a definitive second resolution validating the use of force, but then say that a second resolution was not required, would generate the response that the government was acting unlawfully. He further stressed that military action should always be proportional, and aimed to correct the failure in Iraq’s response on disarmament. It “should be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective”. About a week before on the 3rd February he had warned Jack Straw about pressure on legal advisors in the Foreign Office, meaning especially Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who had also concluded that an invasion without a second resolution was illegal. So this was a settled and well developed view held during the year or so in the build-up to the War.

Lord Goldsmith changes his mind in early 2003.
But then Lord Goldsmith changed his mind. During this time the United States was planning War, seeing Britain as its main ally, and seeking to act unilaterally. It had been authorized by Congress on 11th October., 2002. Bush had paused for a while as Tony Blair sought a second resolution, but when it was clear that would not be forthcoming, he was anxious to attack. Six months of planning and moving of weapons, supplies and logistical support had already been completed and the troops were a few weeks away from being ready to attack. The American administration was putting pressure on Blair and Jack Straw, who in turn asked Goldsmith to go to the United States to meet a range of US legal and state department people. This he did and suddenly changed his position. We will call his position before he changed his mind Goldsmith Mark One and after he changed his mind Goldsmith Mark Two.
The reason, as it appears from his evidence at the Iraq Inquiry, for this change is a bit obscure, but we must pursue it. It centres on UN Resolution 1441 and Lord Goldsmith was to accept an argument from the United States. The argument was that Resolution 1441 allowed direct action if there was any material breach of its conditions without another United Nations resolution. It had been passed to put more pressure on Saddam Hussein to conform fully to the UN requirements on WMD disarmament, terrorism, human rights and documentation on 8th November, 2002 as part of a push by President Bush to put pressure on Saddam Hussein. It immediately led to Saddam offering to let the weapons’ inspectors back in and giving them co-operation and on 7 December 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. It seemed to be co-operating. Lord Goldsmith averred now that military means to bring Iraq to compliance could be used directly on the basis of Resolution 1441if Iraq was in breach of it. He claimed to have been convinced by the Americans that France in private discussions had said this was possible and it was therefore a valid conclusion to draw.
The possibility of automatic military action following from Resolution 1441 needs full clarification, for the issue was discussed when agreement to it was being sought. For example, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
This resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.

The Ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities. ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria. He and others understood it in the following terms:
Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.
In other words, the headline understanding was clearly of no automaticity, and the position that the Americans and Lord Goldsmith were discussing was hidden in coded messages at the end of the US ambassadorial statement. Even then, it was the statement of one country in relation to a UN Resolution, and even then it was focussed on the disarmament of Iraq (which had already occurred). Resolution 1441 was unambiguously understood by most countries not to be the trigger for later United Nations action.
But now, a couple of months later Lord Goldsmith, after visiting the States moved to Goldsmith Mark Two, the view that no second resolution was needed. This position has been rather withering critiqued by a number of lawyers. Lord Bingham had been Chief Justice and was Senior Law Lord at the time, competent to judge the case. He later assessed Goldsmith’s statement. “This statement was, I think flawed in two fundamental respects,” he said. “First, it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had: Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months. “Secondly, it passes belief that a determination whether Iraq had failed to avail itself of its final opportunity was intended to be taken otherwise than collectively by the Security Council.” Elizabeth Wilmshurst, legal advisor at the Foreign Office orally described her understanding of Goldsmith’s new position at the Iraq Inquiry like this:
“ the issue really is: how do you interpret a resolution or a treaty in international law and is it sufficient to go to individual negotiators [the US], but not all negotiators, and ask them for their perceptions of private conversations, or does an international resolution or treaty have to be accessible to everyone so that you can take an objective view from the wording itself and from published records of the preparatory work? I mean, it must be the second. The means of interpretation has to be accessible to all. But the Attorney had relied on private conversations of what the UK negotiators or the US had said that the French had said. Of course, he hadn’t asked the French of their perception of those conversations. That was one point that I thought actually was unfortunate in the way that he had reached his decision, and the other point that struck me was that he did say that the safest route was to ask for a second resolution. We were talking about the massive invasion of another country, changing the government and the occupation of that country, and, in those circumstances, it did seem to me that we ought to follow the safest route. But it was clear that the Attorney General was not going to stand in the way of the government going into conflict.
These and other weaknesses were perceived internationally in the position of the United States and now, through Goldsmith’s ruling. The change came shortly before the actual invasion which began on the 20th March.

Conclusion.
It is easy for lawyers, especially ones changing their views under pressure from their paymasters, to make matters complex. So it is worth reminding ourselves of the issue for the United Nations, the UK Government and for us: What is a just treatment of Iraq in relation to the UN requirements to disarm? The following conclusions seem to follow.
1. It is always the job of the United Nations and not individual countries like the US and the UK to decide when UN resolutions have been materially breached.
2. The United Nations must always decide whether acts of aggression can occur against offending countries on the basis of a further clear resolution that addresses and authorizes the aggression.
3. Whether Iraq had committed an offence in relation to its disarmament from WMD was a matter for the UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix, not a matter of individual states to assert.
4. Whatever response was made to Iraq had to be proportionate to the offence deemed to have been committed.
5. The policy of regime change was not a valid policy for the United Nations or third party states.
6. Since UN Resolution 1441 the Iraqi regime has shown considerable evidence of compliance, and there was also considerable evidence that almost all the WMD weapons had been destroyed, and so it was difficult to find what Iraq’s offence might be, and military action therefore had no foundation.
The verdict seems to be that the United States and the United Kingdom had no legal right to invade Iraq, contrary to the changed advice of Lord Goldsmith, Goldsmith Mark Two. Rather Goldsmith Mark One was the correct ruling and should have been given to the full Cabinet, all MPs and the nation, if necessarily, with the resignation of the Attorney General. This conclusion is the same as was arrived at by the two chief legal advisors in the Foreign Office. The War was illegal. Sir Michael Wood, Chief Legal Adviser at the Foreign Office said that invading Iraq would “amount to the crime of aggression.” Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned on the 18th March, 2003. One sentence from her Iraq Inquiry evidence says it all. “I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post.” If Goldsmith had followed her example, it is possible that UK participation in the Iraq War, and even the War itself, could have been averted.
The conclusions which follow from these considerations and events reflect somberly on the law abiding calling of the UK Government.
1. The Attorney General failed to warn against participating in a War and Invasion which was illegal under international law and flouted the principles of the United Nations.
2. Both the United Kingdom and United States Governments were able to lean on the Attorney General to change his mind and declare an illegal war legal.
3. During this period the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States in international affairs was servile and unprincipled.
4. A concern that United Kingdom international action should be law-abiding and law-upholding, and respect peace, seems to have been peripheral in Tony Blair’s Government in 2002-3.
5. The United Kingdom participation in the Iraq War was illegal and culpable. It requires an apology and reparations for some of the damage caused.

Jesus

Jesus’ Parable of the Minas (Luke 19: 11-27)

May 4, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

JESUS’ PARABLE OF THE MINAS (Luke 19 11-27)
Introduction.
For a while I have been unhappy with the interpretation of this parable which is generally accepted. Normally it is linked with Matthew 25 14-30, the parable of the talents and it is seen as effectively the same message. “We may take it, therefore, that one original parable lies behind the two versions, although it is not absolutely excluded that Jesus himself told two similar parables on different occasions.” (Marshall 1978 701) It is assumed that although the details might vary, the basic message of both parables is the same. It is pietised and its content is removed. God’s rule means that those who have and use gifts will be given more and those who cut themselves off from God will be judged. The suggestion here is that in Matthew later, speaking to the disciples, Jesus uses the earlier parable ironically to teach this great lesson, but the earlier parable of Luke 19 is completely different.
First, there are the obvious differences between the two accounts. The details are very different. A man on a journey with servants contrast with a man of noble birth going to be appointed King. In one story the servants are given talents: but in the other given minas, and so on. Cities appear in Luke, but not in Matthew and all kinds of jagged differences occur which betoken a different story at a different place at a different time. More generally, these Gospel accounts are very specific and immediate. We know Zacchaeus was short, sat in a fig-sycamore tree, and was unliked by the ordinary people of Jericho. The details are recorded and the details matter in this parable and throughout the Gospels.
Second, we have two different times and locations for the two parables. Luke 19 records what happens a week or so earlier after Jesus had come into Jericho, healed the blind beggar, gone amid the hubbub to eat at Zacchaeus’ house and was on his way to Jeruselem. It was spoken to a crowd in or around Zacchaeus’ house. This Parable, because it and the conversion of Zacchaeus were a deep attack on the Roman Empire, would have spread round Jerusalem like wildfire. Matthew 24 occurs after Jesus has entered Jerusalem and been involved in a massive public debate with his interlocuters. He and the disciples have left the Temple, walked to the Mount of Olives, and are talking. Jerusalem is buzzing and in uproar at the things going on, but they are now the group of disciples apart probably in the evening before returning to Bethany to sleep. Jesus sets out a series of warnings, about persecution and the sacking of the Jerusalem temple, about not believing in false Christs, and about false prognostications, and then in Matthew 24 turns to the theme of “Be Ready”. He gives the disciples six or so parables on what historical, personal and economic awareness involves which the Church rarely hears. The parable of the talents is one of these. The difference in location and timing is obvious, and the relation between the two parables thus becomes clear.The latter parable of Matthew 24 uses elements of the earlier parable, but the focus is completely different. It is a deliberate retelling of the story in kingdom terms. In the first the focus is the Roman and Herodian rulers; in the latter, it is God. It is one of a series of kingdom parables, saying God asks us to use the talents we have been given, laconically using the form of the first parable.
We must discuss the issue of intelligence. There is an idiom which says that Jesus taught orally and repetitively, so that sayings could be handed down to stupid people like us. We could call this the “thick interpretational method”. This seems to be so inadequate and patronizing. Any careful reading of the Gospels shows that Jesus had what we would now describe as an awesome intellect and a command of many modes of discussion and communication. Jesus obviously had problems with the limited ability of his disciples and others to grasp things, and identified how much people would not understand. We are involved in the Gospels with a very rich academy of communication where there is constantly change of focus, debate, audience awareness, explicit cultural pluralism. The quality of this communication is unrivalled. Playing off what he had said at one time with what is said at another would be a mode of communicating. The boring quality assumed by the thick interpretational method is light years away from the fact that the crowds and the disciples, for obvious reasons, hung on every word of this man and knew they needed to “read” what he said carefully. Two different stories in different situations where the second builds on the first need to be read with an attempt to meet the “intelligence” of the author..
Fourth, there is the question of meaning. The tenor of the two series of events is very different. In the one Jesus is intimately addressing the disciples amid the fear of the situation about what the rule of God means throughout time and history. In the other he is surrounded by a triumphalist crowd and addressing a completely different situation.
The better way, therefore, seems to be to recognize that Jesus told two parables, the one in Luke first to the Jericho crowd, and the one in Matthew second to his disciples on the Mount of Olives. Our concern will be with the first.
The Scene – Jericho.
The situation in Jericho is quite easy to grasp. Jesus is on his way to Jeruselem and comes to Jericho with a crowd already gathered around him as a man of miracles and a famous popular Rabbi, the outstanding teacher of his age. But he is going to Jerusalem where he has expelled the moneychangers, frequently upset the Temple Party, the Pharisees, the Herodians – Antipas is “that fox” and it is clear that this event will be dramatic. Jesus has problems with crowds and regularly acts to prevent popular acclaim building up, but here there is no stopping the crowd which jigs along with him. Some of the crowd including the men and women disciples will have come on from earlier and some would have come out from Jericho to meet him. There is a beggar (Matthew’s account of what otherwise is the same event records two blind beggars ch 20 29-34) sitting outside the city, a man who is blind, probably not receiving any communal support and poor. It may be that within the city he would receive abuse. The crowd which engulfs Jesus passes and the blind man cannot make sense of the event. He asks, and finds out that Jesus is passing. Obviously Jesus’ reputation had reached him, and he cries out. Those in the crowd near him rebuke him, possibly because this beggar would just be dismissed as a nobody or because he was being a nuisance. He is insistant, crying out with a loud voice above the crowd, and Jesus stops. We do not know what had been going on, but now Jesus asks that the blind man be brought through the crowd. The crowd parts and the blind man is helped to Jesus and stands before him. Jesus asks him a direct, simple question: “What do you want me to do for you?” and the man replies, “Lord, I want to see.” Jesus therapon immediately heals him, saying, “Receive your sight, your faith has healed you.” The man is honoured for his faith and the crowd face the fact that God has done this mighty act to the man they probably ignored. The crowd fizzes with the event and Jesus is the centre of attention. The healed man, of course, follows Jesus in his heart and close to the centre of the crowd as they go into Jericho in a riot of praise.
Jericho was no ordinary city. At this time it was dominated by the palace buildings of Herod the Great and had its own unique history. It is probably one of the oldest cities on earth, repeatedly invaded and having its walls knocked down, including by Joshua. Its recent history focussed on Herod the Great, who built a great palace here. Herod was big. He had set out to rule Israel, had fled to Egypt, had a brief affair with Cleopatra, went to Rome and persuaded Augustus to back him, then came back and conquered the country and became King Herod the Great. He had a row with Cleopatra because she wanted the balsam plantations near Jericho as a gift from Anthony for her perfumes, but probably to spite Herod. Later, he was paranoid about his sons killing him to seize the throne and wrongly had two of them killed. He backed the Olympic Games and ordered the killing of the innocents in Bethlehem. This was Herod’s place, and every one knew about Herod. They especially knew how he died, because he died in Jericho from a disgusting stomach cancer roaring in pain. His genitals putrified and he was utterly mad. He even ordered that when he died, fearing that he would not be mourned, several thousand of the leading Jews should be locked in the Hippodrome, about 300 metres long, and all murdered on his death, so that his death would be accommpanied by mourning and not by rejoicing. (Josephus Ant. 17:6:5) Jesus never quite met him. So now Jesus was walking into the city of Herod the Great’s life and death. Everyone knew Herod.

Archelaus, son of Herod.
And everyone knew Archelaus, who succeeded Herod. Jesus knew him. He, of course, did not go back to Bethlehem, but was taken by Mary and Joseph to Nazareth, an obscure hill village, in order not to be too near Archelaus the new ruler. And we know why. Archelaus might kill him. On Herod the Great’s death, he had begun by being nice, hoping to have a different image from his father, but soon has a row with his subjects. At the feast of Passover in 4BC the row came to a head and Archelaus had three thousand massacred to teach them a lesson. He was, not surprisingly, instantly disliked, and when he set off to Rome to be accepted by Caesar as king, a whole load of his enemies set off as well. They included Antipater and Antipas, his brothers vying for the throne. In Rome these enemies appeared before Caesar pointing out what Archelaus had done, and also emphasising that he had done all this before being appointed by Caesar and was therefore presuming that he would be King rather than asking for it in the normal obsequious way. Archelaus’ case was also pleaded by Nicolaus, saying how bad the Jews and Antipater had been, and so Archelaus was made Tetrach, a slight demotion, and sent home to run Judea, while Antipas was given Galilee. All of this was basic public knowledge, just as Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are to us, only more so.
Archelaus reigned against a background of revolt and dissatisfaction for ten years. He was cruel, sensual, a plotter and vindictive. He deposed three High Priests in order to profit from the changes and was understood to be a nasty man throughout his reign, In 6AD a deputation of Jews and Samaritans waited on Augustus in Rome complaining of Archelaus. He was summoned to Rome, deprived of his crown and banished to Gaul. He was, in sum, a national failure.He remained of local significance because he further extended Herod the Great’s Palace in Jericho and surrounded it with palm trees. So he was the local boy, just like the Queen Mother is local in Sandringham, but instead of fondness, remembered rather with loathing.

The Prelude – Zacchaeus, the Chief Tax Collector.
As Jesus comes into Jericho they key figure turns out to be Zacchaeus who, we learn, was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. This is likely to be no understatement. Zacchaeus is a chief tax collector. He lives in Jericho, to which a substantial proportion of the funds come for Herod to spend. It would be interesting to know what the full structure of Roman taxes was, and how much went to Pilate, the soldiers and the other Roman institutions, but certainly much of the money came here through Zacchaeus’ hands. Jerusalem was the capital and far bigger, but keeing tax receipts in Jerusalem was very dangerous. A mountain of silver was the obvious target for any insurrection. So the taxes were carried from Jerusalem to Jericho where they were guarded by Roman soldiers in a secure base well away from the crowds. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was the robber road precisely because a whole load of robbers had probably tried to get their hands on conseignments of coins travelling from Jerusalem. The Good Samaritan parable was located where it would be understood. All this is very straightforward.
Zacchaeus, as a chief tax collector would probably be farming out taxes to people who would be collecting for the Romans. Jesus, of course, had related to this group in Galilee, and everywhere they were despised, because they were taking away people’s livelihood and giving it to the Romans. On low subsistence incomes a tax of, say, 20% on very low incomes was crippling, especially with a Temple Tax of a similar amount. These farmed tax collectors were eking out a living along with a few others. They may take some money for themselves, but could not get away with much, because it was collected avidly with Roman supervision. Zacchaeus was therefore close to the centre of the web, an empire of intimidation, probably violence and imprisonment, which brought the funds from the provinces into Herod’s coffers. Mary’s journey to Bethlehem shows how directive this system was; the census was about tax. The Jews hated this system, and they would therefore hate and ostracize a Jew who administered it. Zacchaeus would be rich, but despised, the kind of person people were automatically rude about.
Jesus walks into Jericho with a crowd, some electricity in the air, and looks up into the sycamore-fig tree. Everything suggests that Jesus knew whom he was addressing. As we shall see later, he had a long established knowledge of Herod Antipas and the Herodian system, and Zacchaeus would be known. How Jesus knew him we do not know, but he names him and invites himself to Zacchaeus’ house. The transition is breathtaking. Here is a person who affirms a blind beggar, an outcast, whom it was easy for the Jews to accept, as cured praising God, who now invites himself to the home of a rich enemy, not just of the people, but of Jesus and his friends. This man clearly crosses personal barriers and distance with full impunity. Jesus is firm, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately, I must stay at your house today” , presumably so that the distance and awkwardness can be rapidly crossed. Zacchaeus responds and welcomes him to his home probably with some of the disciples and perhaps the blind man, but the crowd stay outside, for you did not mix with this man who had been socially cut in his rich house. It was unthinkable. Verse 7 “All the people saw this and began to mutter, ‘He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.’” sums up the situation completely. The crowd had gone the other way. The perception was that Jesus was a traitor, for this man was unclean, corrupt. Of course, you did not make too much fuss in the city where the Herodian soldiers ruled, but the crowd mood had changed. “Mutter” sums up the feeling of a crowd whose great hero had ratted on them.
But meanwhile, something very different was happening. Zacchaeus had welcomed Jesus and they had had a discussion. The talk is not recorded, but it is likely, given Zacchaeus’ response, that it involved Zacchaeus accepting that he had wrongly taken money from a number of people and had become rich on that basis. Somewhere in the conversation the Mosaic principles of restitution for wrongdoing must have come up, for Zacchaeus states them in the public announcement that he makes either inside his house with the guests, or outside more publicly. If it was in his house, it would very soon be outside and public knowledge. He says to Jesus, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Zacchaeus’ response is wholehearted, immediate, involves concrete action on recompense to others and hpnours the law and the proper processes of justice. Theft required a double repayment (Exodus 22 1-9) and Zacchaeus was therefore going beyond the law in offering four times. Jesus, too, is wholehearted in his response to him. He says, “Today, salvation is come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.” He is saved, because he is no longer a slave to Mammon, but a child of God reunited with his own people. “For the Son of Man came to seek and save what was lost.” Suddenly, the source of the people’s muttering is gone, and the crowd must have become quite euphoric. The ostracism which Zacchaeus had experienced from his fellow and sister Jews was over. Jesus had authority to say that and Zacchaeus is welcomed back to the community of Israel. He is lost, but is found. Zacchaeus would not have an easy time fulfilling his commitments, but he would be among friends, but he would be lost in the crowd reaction. Here was a prophet on his way to Jerusalem at Passover and overthrowing the Roman Tax System. The whole of Jericho was a-buzz.
Immediately, the relationship of the crowd to Jesus would have changed. Jesus was no longer the hero who had gone to eat with a traitor to the Jews, but he had subverted the whole system. He had won a Jew back and had removed a lynchpin from the hated Herodian system. The knees-up which had been going on after the healing of the blind beggar would now become much more focussed and political. The Jews were always looking for the overthrow of the oppressor and here he was. He had come into Herod’s own patch and had taken out one of the key men. They were looking for the salvation of Israel, the defeatof Rome and its henchmen, so that the Jews could again be free. Since the time of the Maccabees this had become an increasingly apocalyptic and violent dream. Zacchaeus’ conversion was a direct attack on Rome and the Herodians. This was the context of the parable. Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem, the holy capital, and “the people thought that the Kingdom of God was going to appear at once.” (Lk 19 11) Then comes the Parable.

The Parable of the Minas
We recall the earlier hubbub associated with the miracle healing of the blind man and Zacchaeus’ salvation, and now, presumably in contact with the full crowd Jesus goes on to tell them a parable. We are told clearly Jesus’ reason for doing this. The Gospel could not be more plain. “While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.” (19:11) This needs some slight nuancing. Being near Jerusalem was like going up to London on a massive demonstration. Indeed, at Passover something like a million visitors came to Jerusalem and were going to be caught up in the events surrounding the Temple. All the events of the last week were big crowd events. There were a million of us on the Stop the War March in London in 2003 and that was big. So the kingdom of God event that the crowd were thinking might be imminent was not the fulfilment of Christ’s teaching, but an uprising against the Roman/Herodian powers which dominated Judea and beyond. It was the dream of the Maccabees, the Zealots and other insurrectionists. His journey to Jeruselem would have been interpreted by many as the great apocalyptic event when the Son of David would return and throw out the Romans and Hasmodeans. It was “at once”, the decisive time of national liberation which since Ezra and Nehemiah had become the dream of nationalist Jews. The foreign yoke would be thrown off and God would rescue his people. It is into this euphoria that Jesus speaks.
“A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.” Immediately there would be hissing as the thin code identifying Archelaus was recognized. This was about Archelaus, the hated successor to Herod the Great. “So he called ten of his servants and gave then ten minas. ‘Put this money to work until I come back.’ But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king’ He was made king, however, and returned home.” Suddenly, the story was chilling. The obvious references to Archelaus were saying nothing about some great uprising, but were focussed on an oppressive ruler who was in charge and remained in charge. This is the way the system operates. This is not a parable about God, but directly about Herodian rule, “because people thought that the Kingdom of God was going to appear at once” and they needed cold water poured over them. Let’s be clear about this. Jesus is carefully orchestrating events, so that no-one is killed or no futile insurrection breaks out. He is saying, “this is what they are like.” The parable will end with the words, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me.” So this is scarcely veiled warning. If you are getting excited, especially in relation to me, then stop and face death squarely. The contrast is with thousands of leaders who have happily led their supporters or soldiers to death out of their own ego. And the result was as Jesus intended. Nobody died in Easter week, except Judas who committed suicide, and Jesus himself. As Jesus prayed in John 17:12 “I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction. The saving of life is an actual wise effective principal, carried out through foresight and wisdom throughout Easter week, and for the whole Christian community. We will see it in operation again later.
But the parable moves on, or rather it moves back. “He called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. Put this money to work (for me) until I come back.” This was in the space when the king, Archelaus was going to Rome. He went to Rome and came back, not as they hoped when they sent the delegation to Rome, without power, but when confirmed as Tetrach by Caesar. So the servants were given a minas each. A minas was about three months wages at a drachma a day, the basic wage labour of ancient Israel. So these servants were not being given great favours, but were being tested by the king for their loyalty to him. And they know what putting the money to work means, because for the Herodians there was only one business in town and that was tax collecting and tax farming. These guys would be collecting taxes. Zacchaeus was standing there, probably at Jesus side, and the crowd knew what was going on. This story was for them. Jesus carries them along.
The crowd were fixed on every detail of the parable, they were being led. Jesus sets out the response of three servants and in so doing he sets out the whole system. “The first servant came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.” This is the one who works within the Herodian system, the goody-goody or baddy baddy as we would call him. This is the unconverted Zacchaeus, now shifting slightly uneasily as his role in the system is laid out. ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’. No-one would think other than seeing being in charge of cities as being in charge of collecting the Roman, or Herodian, taxes. This is the system rewarding its own. Zacchaeus is struggling a bit at this point. Jesus has just converted him from tax collection to fairness and justice and now in the parable the tax collector is praised, but he is praised by the unjust king, by the Archelaus lookalike. The second servant comes, still working within the system, and he, too, gets his reward. These were the people in charge of the tax system, and the military to back them up. They are the ones who fit in with the system which Zacchaeus has just deserted. And they do well.

Telling the Truth.
But then, says Jesus, another servant comes and says, “Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.” This would make their hair rise. This was the truth. The Herodian/Roman system was hard, run by hard men. They were taking out what they had not put in and reaping where they had not sown. This was it. It was exploitation, robbing the poor, and, (there has to be a bit of theatre here), the servant returns the mina kept laid away in a piece of cloth, and Jesus holds his hand out returning exactly the mina that the king had given to him, and dramatising further what taking out what you did not put in meant. So the truth is there on the table for the disciples, the people of Jericho and the gathering crowd moving towards Jerusalem, and the Zacchaeus who can see his overlords as they were.
But the parable does not end there. Jesus stays with the King, who faced with the truth flies into a rage, and more or less accepts what he has been faced with. “You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in and reaping what I did not sow?” Well, I’ll be a hard man as you put it. Always there are echoes of Archelaus in the crowd’s heads. Then comes the why didn’t you, money-lending response. “Why didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?” “Take his mina away and give it to the one who has ten.” It is the set up line, as the courtiers respond, “’Sir,’ they said, “he already has ten!’” The wicked King’s reply is twofold, in both cases telling the truth. “First, he says, “I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who hads nothing, even what he has will be taken away.” It is breathtaking. The evil man tells the truth. The powerful accumulate and the poor are further impoverished. This is the evil system that Jesus confronted and this is the evil system that we still face today. Oxfam’s calculation that the world’s richest 62 people own as much as the poorer half of the worlds population suggests the problem today. The whole parable is about exploitation, and the evil man, the king, the Archelaus figure, tells the truth.
This was the structure of the Roman system, and Jesus points out what it is like, its iniquity, a warning to Zacchaeus, and a warning to everybody who would continue to live with this system. The truth is laid bare. But Jesus freezes any frenzied reaction to this unjust system and also lays bare its viciousness and danger. He voices the words of the Herodian tyrant, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me.” It is chilling, and accurate in its assessment of Archelaus and of the Roman system. None of these people would be walking into a sentimental insurrection in which they would be slaughtered. Later Jesus could truthfully say to the Father, “I protected them and kept them safe.” (John 17 12) Zacchaeus would melt away before the authorities got hold of him, and Jesus alone would go on to the cross. Second, the wickedness of empire was exposed. Empires harvest where they have not sown. The truth confronts the power, as later Jesus would before Pilate.
The incisiveness of Jesus response in this parable is beyond human understanding. When popularity beckons, most of us walk towards it, but Jesus has a care for the fools who are around him. He warns and saves them. The full horror of this insight only becomes evident a generation later when over a million are slaughtered in Jeruselem by the Romans seeking a similar apocalyptic hope. There is a political implication here, too, in the repudiation of the insurrectionist, revolutionary answer. Jesus did not lead people down the route where they would need to commit evil to achieve their (good?)aims. He was, to our inconvenience, but benefit, consistently holy.
Later in Jeruselem Jesus would take the same structure for the story but instead of telling it against the supposedly imminent kingdom would tell it for the kingdom of God. He turned it round. There were good and faithful servants and a wicked lazy servant. Within this kingdom everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance, but whover does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is the One they really have to fear, not those who can kill the body.
Jesus finishes the parable of the Minas outside Zacchaeus’ house where the road turns up into the hills towards Jerusalem. The crowd wrestles with its content, as they will discuss its points time and time again. Zacchaeus reels intellectually under the transformation and says goodbye to Jesus. The Gospel reports (Luke 19:28). “After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.” The crowd it seems were not surging in front.

From War to Peace

Background to Iraq – slaves to our history

April 25, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

Iraq seeks its Independence.
Iraq has a long history which goes back to the dawn of writing and even the Garden of Eden. Abraham journeyed from Ur. The Babylonian Empire rose and fell here, and after another two millennia and more, it was subject to the Arab Islamic conquest in the mid 7th century, and Baghdad became the capital of the Islamic world for another five centuries . It was sacked by the Mongols, suffered the Black Death in the fourteenth century, and was the focus of a rivalry between the Safavids of Iran and the Ottoman Turks from which the latter slowly assumed control. During the 19th century its population fell to five million from earlier figures of thirty million or more, but it remained a culturally rich area well capable of independence. As the twentieth century beckoned Iraq was looking for freedom from the Ottoman Empire and a new start.

The First World War and the Empire.
Our European War, the First World War, was fought throughout much of the globe, and it was also fought in Iraq. When the War arrived the Ottoman Empire sided with the Germans and Austrians. It fought tenaciously at Gallipoli, but gradually lost control of its territories including Iraq as the central powers were defeated. The war in Iraq was a major confrontation. The British moved in from the Gulf with some success and with support by the Kuwaitis. They were in Basra by November, 1914. In April, 1915 the British were successful in the battle of Shaiba, but in November that year they were surrounded at Kut, and under siege in December and early 1916. On the 29th April, over 13,000 soldiers surrendered and became captives. But in December 1916 British forces resupplied at the port of Basra advanced on Baghdad and General Maude and his troops captured Baghdad and some 15,000 Ottoman soldiers. Right at the end of the War British troops advanced into Mosul and captured the oilfields near there. So the First World War in Iraq was a major front. The British lost 92,000 soldiers in the area while the Ottoman Empire lost over 300,000 troops. Of course, many of those soldiers were from India and other parts of the Empire. Overall the cost of the War in Iraq was some £40 million, and it was carried through partly so that Muslims in other areas would not get the idea of revolting against the British. Strategically, Iraq was also seen as key to an overland route to India and part of a grand colonial design. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Britain’s empire in the East could grow yet more. Germany had been a rival planning a railway to Baghdad, but now that threat was gone and Britain had it all its own way, with a little accommodation to the French. The War in the East was a great imperial victory.
But the Americans, and native populations around the world were beginning to have a different view of Empire. A grand British Empire was not now so straightforward. The “Indian Mutiny”, as we called it, happened in 1857 and many people now knew that the Indian people should have their independence. The Boer war and concentration camps did not receive much approval, even in Britain, and people were beginning to question colonial savagery by the British, French, Belgians. Perhaps nations had the right to govern themselves.

T.E. Lawrence and Charles Doughty: being a guest.
The key British figure in the fight against the Ottoman Empire was T. E. Lawrence who worked with tribes and rulers in Palestine, Syria and Iraq to defeat the Turks throughout the region and was seen as the hero of the war in that area. He was a different figure, absorbing the cultures of the vast Arabian area, and coming to see things from their point of view, seeing that of course they needed and should have self government. He was one of a group of British people who understood the Arab people not in terms of power, but in personal terms. He depended in part on the great Charles Doughty, who earlier wrote Arabia Deserta, a travelogue of the desert people of the great space between Arabia, Syria and Iraq. From Doughty he got information, perspective and a sense of these desert people. It is worth dwelling with Doughty for a moment. In his introduction to the book, Lawrence writes,
“I have studied it [Arabia Deserta] for ten years, and have grown to consider it a book not like other books, but something particular, a bible of its kind…[Doughty] had many things against him. Forty years ago the desert was less hospitable to strangers than it is today. Turkey was still strong there, and the Wahabi movement had kept fanaticism vivid in the tribes. Doughty was a pioneer, both as European and Christian, in nearly all the districts he entered. Also he was poor. He came down a lone man from Damascus with the pilgrim caravan, and was left behind at Medain Salih with scant recommendation. He struck out into the desert… They tell tales of him, making something of a legend of the tall and impressive figure, very wise and gentle, who came to them like a herald of the outside world. His aloofness from the common vexations of their humanity coloured their imagination. He was very patient, generous and pitiful, to be accepted into their confidence without doubt. They say he seemed proud only of being Christian, and yet never crossed their faith. He was book learned, but simple in the arts of living, ignorant of camels, trustful of every man, very silent. He was the first Englishman they had met. He predisposed them to give a chance to other men of their race, because they found him honourable and good. So he broke a road for his religion. He was followed by Wilfrid Blunt and Miss Gertrude Bell, other strong personalities…No country has been more fortunate in its ambassadors. We are accepted as worthy persons unless we prove ourselves to the contrary by our misdoings..”
This then was the choice:- to be guests of these people or to be colonial overlords, to be humane or to go in with a gun. T.E.Lawrence fought with them against the Ottoman Empire, respected them deeply and was respected by them.He promised the rulers in the area that independence would follow at the end of the War and he thought the British Government had also agreed the same thing.
Indeed, he had good grounds for so doing. It was strongly stated in the Anglo-French Declaration made on the 9th November, 1918 as the Ottoman Empire fell and the Great War ended. It said:
“The object aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.
In order to carry out these intentions France and Great Britain are at one in encouraging and assisting the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and, Mesopotamia, now liberated by the Allies, and in the territories the liberation of which they are engaged in securing and recognising these as soon as they are actually established.
Far from wishing to impose on the populations of these regions any particular institutions they are only concerned to ensure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the populations themselves. To secure impartial and equal justice for all, to facilitate the economic development of the country by inspiring and encouraging local initiative, to favour the diffusion of education, to put an end to dissensions that have too long been taken advantage of by Turkish policy, such is the policy which the two Allied Governments uphold in the liberated territories.”
This is a strong, clear and hopeful document. It cannot be misunderstood. This is the British Parliamentary translation. But all was not as it seemed. A secret agreement, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, was negotiated between November, 1915 and March, 1916 and signed on 26th May, 1916 which carved up the area among the great powers. The French had the mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the British for Palestine and Iraq. President Wilson had intended Versailles to be the great treaty of national self-determination and independence following the American model of 1776, but the old colonial powers in part thought differently. Lloyd-George and Clemenceau met a few weeks after the Anglo-French Declaration on 1-4th December, 1918 and agreed on the spheres of influence which were to be exercised in a quasi-colonial way, with no immediate move to full independence and in denial of the Anglo-French declaration. Lawrence, betrayed by the British Government, was cut off from the people he loved, and later died.

Arabs and Jews.
Another part of the post war agreement was the Balfour Declaration that the Jews should have a homeland in Palestine. This partly arose out of Christian and Jewish Zionism and also out of anti-Semitism in Europe, including Russia, and in the Middle East. Balfour published a letter saying that this aim was government policy but this was not fully communicated to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. The letter of the 2nd November, 1917 was as follows:
His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The promise was for a home and not a state, though some of the people behind the declaration, like Leopold Amery, Lloyd George and Alfred Milner saw the possibility of Palestine becoming a Jewish Commonwealth when the Jewish population in the area had become a majority. However, the Palestinians did not much like part or the whole of their country being given away by a colonial power. They could give away Kent if they wanted to, but Palestine had been mandated near independence, and Britain was again exceeding its brief in a quasi-colonial way.
It is worth hearing the words of the Muslim-Christian Association in a petition a day after a Zionist Commission parade on the 3rd of November, 1918.
“We have noticed yesterday a large crowd of Jews carrying banners and over-running the streets shouting words which hurt the feeling and wound the soul. They pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the Holy Land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by the Arabs for long ages, who loved it and died in defending it, is now a national home for them… We Arabs, Muslim and Christian, have always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries… but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation…ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.”
Of course, there are two sides to this question. Jews had faced pogroms. But the motivation for the Balfour Declaration identifies the problem. Commentators agree that the main impetus to making the declaration was to bring the Jewish lobby in the United States firmly on board for the United States War Effort. The United States declared war against Germany on the 6th April, 1917. On the 5th May the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour addressed the United States House of Representatives eulogizing democratic institutions, and on the 18th July Lord Rothschild drafts the first version of the letter. So the formulation of the Balfour Declaration was partly about politics in Washington and London rather than a direct concern for persecuted Jews. If the motivation is in the wrong place, the outcome is likely to be as well. Carrying out this policy required a great deal of goodwill in the area and was likely to be difficult. It became more difficult because of what followed.
Churchill and the British War against Iraq Independence.
At the end of the War Iraq was mandated to the United Kingdom for military rule by the League of Nations. The terms of the Class A Mandate were set out in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. They were deemed to “… have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.” Iraq was a Class A mandated territory. The understanding in this arrangement was that mandated territories would quickly move towards independence.
Yet, the British occupation did not honour this principle, but sought to stay in control. The oil in the area was likely to be strategic for the oil companies and the Navy. In the language of the time, we had an interest in the area. The Iraqis were looking forward to independence and did not much like being occupied in a way which did not accord with the Mandate. A lot had fought to be rid of the Ottoman Empire and did not expect it to be replaced by the British. They thought they could govern themselves, but were not given the chance. In the Spring of 1920 they began peaceful requests for a route to independence. These escalated into coherent protest. There was agreement between Shia and Sunni groups about independence. Three anti-colonial groups formed – The league of Islamic Awakening, the Muslim National League and the Guardians of Independence and representatives were chosen to represent the case to the Civil Commissioner, James Wilson in May. He dismissed the possibility and in June armed opposition began which soon spread. By the end of July the Iraqis controlled most of the area round Baghdad and also much of the area to the North. David Omissi describes it thus.
“The revolt shook the very foundations of British rule in Mesopotamia, and brought about major changes in political and military policy. The rising, mainly a response to British tax policy, began in Rumaitha in early July and insurrection was general along the lower Euphrates by the middle of the month. After a column composed mainly of the 2 Manchesters was almost entirely destroyed by a rebel ambush, a division of Indian reinforcements was hastily summoned to Basra, but the first of these reserves did not arrive until 7 August. The situation was at its most serious during the last week of August when the rebellion spread to the upper Euphrates and to the countryside around Baghdad: there were also the first signs of unrest in Kurdistan. At the height of their effort the tribesmen fielded about 131,000 men, of whom perhaps half were armed with modern rifles. Their leaders were drawn mainly from those groups whose power had waned under British rule: Shia mujahids, former Ottoman civil servants and ex-officers of the Turkish armies. The leading Arab patriots in Baghdad and the wealthy merchants of Basra, men with more to lose, stood aloof and awaited the event. For the British the crisis had passed by mid-September but heavy fighting went on until the end of the following month.” The Kurds were organising their own rebellion at the same time, so the British Government was upsetting almost everyone.
Winston Churchill had been appointed Minister of War at the end of the War to clear up any unresolved problems, and he was not going to let go of any of the Empire. He had vast amounts of unneeded weapons left over from the War at his displosal. When he heard about local rebellions, he thought that aerial bombardment might be the answer to these disturbances and he sent in planes and dropped about a hundred tons of bombs on villages and troubled areas, an unheard of move outside the trenches of the Western Front. He engaged Hugh Trenchard to organize the bombing campaign and the Iraqis and Kurds were terrified into submission. The Air Minister, Lord Thomson, detailed how one district of “recalcitrant chiefs” was subdued in the Liwa region on the Euphrates in November 1923. He wrote: “As they refused to come in, bombing was then authorised and took place over a period of two days. The surrender of many of the headmen of the offending tribes followed.” Bomber Harris first learned his trade here. Churchill also suggested using gas from planes. As Catherwood points out, his impetus was largely to save money on the military; this was a quicker and more efficient way of ending the war than conventional troops. The Kurds were duly killed or subdued and also ceased their revolt. (In retrospect, perhaps independence to the Kurds then would have saved us all a lot of trouble.)
Churchill was happy to drop bombs on the natives to show them who was in charge. This move was quite momentous in two ways. First, for many the horrors of the Great War had led them to conclude that it was the War to End All Wars, and they wanted a full end to all military aggression. Churchill broke that barrier by carrying on with business as usual. Second, the idea of mandated rule became quickly distrusted; it was holding on to territory instead of launching countries towards democracy. Churchill faced a great deal of press criticism at home, partly because of the bombing, also because of the cost of the war and also because the war-time promises of independence had been broken. Quelling the rebellion cost some £20 million in 1920 just when Britain was trying to recover from the vast expenditure of the Great War. Churchill, the arch-colonialist, keen on a strategy for welding India into British control, was on the defensive and seen as a belligerent and dangerous politician.

The Post-War Client King.
Churchill set about rectifying the situation and trying to calm things down. He summoned a Conference in Cairo to sort out what should happen and it was agreed to appoint King Faisal as a client ruler. It is interesting how Churchill presented this move. “The main upshot as far as Iraq was concerned, was that the Emir Feisel was invited to proceed to Baghdad as a candidate for the throne of Iraq. Though not of Iraqi origin, he had very special qualifications for the post. He came of the Sharafinian family, which as guardians of the holy place at Mecca, commanded wide veneration throughout the Islamic world. His father, Sherif Hussein (afterwards for a time King of the Hejaz), had organised the Arab revolt against the Turks during the war.. He himself had fought gallantly on our side and had taken part in the various exploits of desert warfare with which the name of Colonel Lawrence will always be associated.” This is a politician trying to mend his reputation. But he is appointing someone “on our side”, a client king, and the king knew that his position as monarch depended on the British and therefore accepted what he could not change.. The threat of bombing remained if there was any trouble with the Air Force in Iraq increased to eight squadrons in 1921, and gradually the population quietened down accepting the British imposed status quo.
Thus, Faisal was chosen as king in a referendum and became the head of Government. During his time in power the representative institutions waned and the military became closer to the centre of government, partly because the British military were the power behind the throne. As well as the Iraqi army the British used Assyrian recruits as well. Churchill pointed out how the cost of the British Garrison dropped from £20m in 1921/2 to £5m in 1923/4 to £1.6m in 1927/8. This period after the Great War, when Churchill was organising fighting the full length of the borders of the USSR to get rid of the Red Menace and in Iraq was where he learned another level of fighting war. He had already failed in backing the Dardanelles Campaign and was desperately trying to restore his reputation. But now he had brought Iraq back under control, and in his version of the history the Empire was back on track.

Oiling the Wheels
In the era after 1918 the British expected to dominate the oil territories of the Gulf area. They had an established position in Kuwait. As Fiona Venn notes, “In 1918, the Foreign Office stated that ‘It is imperative that . . . Great Britain should continue, as hitherto, to perform her special duties and to retain complete ascendancy in the Persian Gulf.’ It reiterated this belief in a 1926 general review of British foreign policy commitments.” At the time Kuwait was the most developed of the oilfields, but by 1927 it was clear that there was a major oil field in the Kirkuk region of Iraq. The Iraqis did not have the infrastructure, knowhow and independent access to markets to exploit it on their own, so the international oil giants were able to entrench and grow. The United States wanted to be in on the act, and they began bargaining strongly in the early 1930s. It was helped by the fact that Edwin Mellon, the Head of Gulf Oil, was also Ambassador to Britain and Britain might find herself defaulting to the States on its First World War debts. There were a variety of views in the Foreign Office and other departments, as Fiona Venn shows, but some accommodation was made to the Americans in Kuwait and also in Iraq.
There the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) was formed with Shell, BP, French and American companies having roughly a quarter each. The British mainly thought of oil in terms of fuelling their battleships and aircraft, because the British motor car industry remained quite small and elitist, but in the States under the impetus of Ford and General Motors the need for oil for car transport was expanding more rapidly. Broadly, there was enough oil for world demand in this period, and so the oilfields were only slowly developed. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty guaranteed British interests in the area, partly because the British fleet commanded the Gulf and so the British oil interest was firmly established. Iraq was the main source of the wealth of Shell and BP, the great British petroleum giants. These companies had automatic access to government, especially when Conservative Governments were in power, and oil was to be a long term player in the area. It was not without significance that the two countries which controlled Iraqi oil from the beginning were also the ones which invaded in 2003.

The 1930s.
By this time the British policy of governing through the Sunni minority population had established a status quo. It coloured Sunni-Shia relations in the country with the latter feeling an underlying resentment which was to build over five decades or more, while the military became a Sunni cabal, formally working with the British, but really wanting to be rid of them. Iraq was technically made independent in 1932, though it remained in effect a British colony, with British military bases and strong protection of the oil installations and routes. A Treaty protected British bases and oil interests. Britain also had their own man in place, Nuri al-Said, who worked with the British and appointed his own people in the military and government whenever possible.
The new King Ghazi, son of Faisal I tried to move away from British control.. He had been Crown Prince since 1924. He was irked by being substantially being controlled from London. As he came to power in August, 1933, the Iraqi armed forces attacked Christian Assyrian groups living in the North East in what came to be known as the Simele Massacres. They were members of the ancient Nestorian Church, and had already been massacred in 1915 as part of the wartime fighting. They had trouble with the Kurds, partly because the British used them to fight their Kurdish neighbours. Tens of thousands died in 1915 and many more were relocated to refugee camps by the British. The massacre in 1933 was actually supported by King Ghazi and signalled a situation where the military were more or less in control to do anything.
In 1936 there was a coup d’etat overthrowing Prime Minister Yasin al-Hashimi. It was staged by Bakr Sidqi, acting Commander of the Iraqi Army. It was to be followed by six more coups in the period up to 1941. Sidqi was assassinated in 1937. By this time the country had moved from being a constitutional monarchy vaguely on the British model to being dominated by whatever faction in the Army happened to be dominant at the time. It was a massive failure in government reflecting the fact that the British had kept the military in control for a couple of decades and had prevented the moves towards representative independence after the Great War.
King Ghazi died in 1939 as a result of an accident involving a sports car. It may have been as assassination. His son, Faisal II succeeded him, although he was only four years old, and that further cemented the grip of the military on the country.

The Second World War.
When war was declared the Iraq Government broke off diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany, but then Rashid Ali replaced Nuri al-Said (the pro-British figure) as Prime Minister. On the 31st March, 1941 when it looked as though Britain was losing the War and was weak, there was a coup removing all the British sympathising people including the regent for the young King. By treaty, Iraq was pledged to provide assistance to the United Kingdom in war and to permit the passage of British troops through Iraq. The British decided to attack, partly to prevent other groups getting ideas about revolting. They had small number of troops in Kirkuk and some planes and bases, but acted effectively. Forces were diverted from Malaya and by the 2nd of May, 1941 had attacked from their Basra and Habbaniya bases and captured substantial amounts of arms. Soon German arms arrived from Syria, but in another confrontation Fallujah was captured and defended and further north, Glubb Pasha, a British legend, led legionnaires to control the area. British forces moved forward to Baghdad again in control of the country until a British sympathizing Government was re-installed. British forces remained in Iraq until October, 1947 to protect oil interests. Far from being independent Iraq was once more under British military control.

The End of the Monarchy and Military Dictatorship
Britain retained its military bases until 1953 and King Faisal II, now grown up was the Monarch, but really a client king like his grandfather. During this period Britain and the United States thought they could move back into supplying Iraq with weapons, but they were wary of one another. The American arms companies wanted to be in there, preferably with aid which would help pay for the weapons, but began vying to sell arms to the Iraqis. Nuri al-Said was back in power and negotiating, hoping for aid to buy weapons. John Foster Dulles was impressed that the Iraqis were anti-Communist and the British still wanted to maintain their hegemony in the area. In February, 1954 the British and Americans concluded a secret agreement about how they would supply arms and military support to Iraq. For a couple of years they vied with one another to supply the arms, with Anthony Eden especially keen to retain the special link and keep the Americans out. Suddenly, it all changed
On the 14th July, 1958 there was a revolution against the monarchy, the British and the Americans. A military dictator, British-trained Brigadier-General Abd al-Karim Qasim, came to power. The King and Nuri al-Said were killed and the Iraqis started to look to the USSR for their arms. He in turn was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif in February, 1963, who in turn was overthrown by the Ba’ath Party in 1968. The Ba’ath (rebirth) Party had its origins in Syria and was an pan-Arab Socialist party. Its most prominent move was between 1958 and 1961 when Egypt and Syria united as the United Arab Republic, but the split occurred in 1961 and a further split emerged between the Syrian and Iraqi Ba’ath Parties. The focus was Arab nationalist rather than Islamic. Ba’athist organisation was anti-democratic and strongly militaristic. Really, it was a continuation of the pattern we have observed since 1918 of military dictatorship mirroring the focus of the colonial powers. General Saddam Hussein gradually controlled the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and became military dictator in July 1979 in a Sunni dominated government. He took a while to establish himself by killing off his rivals, and for a while the spotlight was on Iran, where Ayatollah Khomeini and the hostages dominated international concerns. Yet Saddam had already begun buying weapons wholesale with the country’s oil revenue and look set to become a great money spinner for the western arms companies. He was the classic military dictator, building up his own military position with the special Republican Guard as a crack force surrounding him. He was worried about an alliance between the Shi’ites in Iraq and those in Iran.

The trapped British colonial mindset.
A number of points arise from this history. First, Britain had a habit extending over half a century of interfering militarily in Iraq in a pattern of colonial control linked mainly to getting oil on the cheap. She would return to this pattern of behaviour. Second, the long military presence of the British in Iraq shaped the pattern of government so decisively that it was more or less inevitable that military dictatorships would follow, as they did. Third, Britain in seeking to control the government of Iraq to its own purposes repeatedly failed to let Iraq develop democratically and left it with retarded patterns of government involving militarism and a client monarch. Fourth, in its desire to have a military presence and supply arms, it encouraged a centrally militaristic view of government. Seeing King Ghazi in his uniform conveys that eloquently. Fifth, Britain’s engagement with Iraq has never been straight. It has always had other agendas, used the country to its own ends and manipulated the politicians to its own purposes. In the era of Saddam and Thatcher this became even more marked. Sixth, it has ignored the social complexities of the area – Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Assyrians, Christians and the problems of each of these groups. Finally, it has a long history of imperial superiority, believing that is has the job of sorting an area out, probably through fighting, of seeing the problems of Iraq but failing to see the problems caused by Britain. Sadly, dropping a hundred tons of bombs in 1920 pales into insignificance in the light of the devastation caused in Iraq in three wars dominated by our national self-righteousness. We have been locked in a colonial mindset for a long time.

Christian Perspectives, Christianity

The Servant Queen and the Whole Earth

April 20, 2016 Alan Storkey Leave a comment

The Bible Society, HOPE and the London Institute have just published a lovely book, entitled “The Servant Queen” as a tribute to the Queen on her 90th birthday. It shows Elizabeth’s clear sense of duty and devotion to God, and her conception of being the servant of the state of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth. The book shows through what she has said in Christmas broadcasts, but also through decades of service to the State and to the ordinary people whom she serves, how this has worked out. It is built upon the example of Christ and with Jesus as her focus, as she fully acknowledges. She is, simply, another Christian, learning and living the lessons of the Christian faith.
I’m not the kind of person who believes that Britain is Great, or even great, or a monarchist, but Elizabeth’s understanding and practice seems to me to be one of the defining principles of governance throughout the world. She has taken the words of Christ, and lived them. Jesus said, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead the greatest among you, should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” And that is the kingdom service Christ conferred on his disciples. The ruler is the servant. That is not only the personal commitment of Queen Elizabeth, but also a principle of governance that applies everywhere and throughout history, as Moses also was the servant of the Lord. It is the reversal of state control, self-glorification, conquest, empire, using nations in our self-interest, militarism, ethnic superiority and the attitudes which generate wars and international crises which have dominated much of history.
It is also the deep undergirding of democracy, for democracy is the service of the people by the rulers. Slowly the self-service of the monarchy and the government has dropped away under the influence of Christ’s words. They are for us. They are not the lording people. They are not serving themselves by corruption and manipulating the law, by passing the resources of the state to their cronies, by building themselves big houses, by being like Caesar or Herr Examine My Armpit. They are not masters, but servants. We have Civil, or nearly civil, servants. We have ministers who answer to us. When we call, they should come running. For the least of us, whoever is the least, and in Christ’s kingdom there is no least, because the lepers come first, they are our servants. They are not to get uppity. That is democracy, the normative structure of the state, the service of all the people by the stewards of law, justice and the common good – and we know She knows.
Of course, the British monarchy has the trappings of imperial and national self-glory – palaces, servants, crown jewels, a gold coach, titles, soldiers with furry hats who march up and down, an aristocracy who shoot birds and play silly games on horses and Lords dressed in vermin. The Queen was born into this set-up and it is still substantially intact. The British establishment state has a bloody, “send us victorious, happy and glorious” insufferability, and for some inexplicable reason wants to punch above its weight, but She knows differently. She knows we need to renew ourselves in God’s love and become better people. She knows we need to love our neighbours as ourselves and that what the quiet people do moves the world. She knows that you do not have to be rich or powerful to change things for the better, and the unseen and unrewarded often do the best stuff.
She also has a grasp on peace and reconciliation, and understands the Common Wealth of nations, what they can give to one another, like few others, and her international visits and welcoming of foreign visitors, has given that dimension weight in the life of the nations. She understands “healing old wounds”, and does it well whether in Ireland or elsewhere.
Her governments often do not see things the same way. They are often into winning, self-promotion, and putting down the opposition. They, contrary to Christ’s words, are constantly parading themselves as our Benefactors and telling us how good they are for us. They frequently go out and fight other states, and see them as enemies or threats. They have the power. They govern and shape the laws. But they also fail by their failure to serve. The principle of service rules, even when it is ignored or compromised. In Christ, and by obedience in Elizabeth, it does, and should, rule throughout the earth.

main webpage