Nationhood (2): thoughts out loud

This posting is an edited version of a timed and dated journal entry written in Caffe Nero, Silver Street, Durham City UK. This version was first written on 17 July 2008, and has since been updated several times.

I want to look again at issues of nationality, not least because I am aware that some of my thoughts have moved on in response to attempting to resolve some cognitive dissonance on the matter.

(10 August 2008: it is not clear to me whether the people of South Ossetia simply wish not to be governed by Georgia, or if they wish to form their own independent government, or if they wish to form an independent government with the people of North Ossetia, or if they wish to be under Russian (military) protection.)

I believe that people should be free to govern themselves, to form their own government, and should not have to be subject to government by another people. Despite the apparent reported despotism of the Mugabe regime, I believe that the people of Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia, a former British colonial possession) should be free to govern themselves, as should the people of Algeria (a former French colonial possession), Burundi (a former Belgian colonial possession), Poland (a former Russian Soviet client state), Latvia (a state formerly occupied by the Soviet Union) and Tibet (occupied since 1960 by the People's Republic of China). What about Ireland? Scotland? Wales? Cornwall? Brittany? Flemish Belgium? Quebec? Lombardy? Greek Macedonia? Turkish Cyprus? Kurdistan? How is the geographical area of self-government to be determined? What about the European micro-states of Andorra? Monaco? Vatican City? San Marino? Lichtenstein? How self-governing are the Channel Isles (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark) and the Isle of Man? Where do micro-colonies fit in, such as Gibraltar? Ceuta?

Beyond consideration of geographical area, there is for me also uncertainty about what I mean by government. At a simple level, the Westminster government is sovereign. However, federal government in Washington DC is not legally competent over every aspect of legal process in the US. In Germany, the lande possess legal competence not shared by the federal government in Berlin. In the UK, the Westminster government devolved some of its power to the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. Further, although under ultimate control by Westminster, city- and shire-based local authorities wield considerable power through their budgets, as do devolved institutions such as the National Health Service, the national rail network, and a plethora of quasi-non-governmental organisations. However, at an international level much of the legislation enacted by the UK government must conform with legislation enacted by, and directives from, the European Union; with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; with NATO; and with the United Nations. There are probably any number of international organisations about which I know little or nothing that have specific competence regarding areas of UK governance, and this is to ignore bilateral agreements and understandings, such as the recent military adventures undertaken by the US and UK in Iraq (seen, perhaps erroneously, by many people in the UK as the Westminster government acquiescing to the expectations of the US White House). Whilst pariah states (e.g. Burma and North Korea) and states under siege can run against the pack, at least for a period of time, states central to major world institutions, such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan either lead the world or else conform - mostly the latter. The exceptions seem to be the superpowers of the US and China, and formerly the Soviet Union, but even these states are under considerable international pressure to conform, as evidenced by the reluctant progress of the Bush administration to acknowledge the human contribution to global warming. So whilst there is a fiction of national sovereignty, there is also an actual dispersal of powers to international organisations. Significantly this de facto ceding of power is not to a world government, but largely to organisations competent in one realm, such as GATT, the World Bank, the IMF, NATO. The major exception to this is the United Nations. However, the UN achieves its authority only from the Assembly of national governments, not from some superior, independent organisation. The European Union, which is an attempt at pan-European government, uses a hybrid version with a combination of pooled national state authority, and trans-European democratic authority. Sadly, the popular democratic aspects of the EU are both weak and undermining of the enterprise. The UN, EU and NATO also make extensive use of experts.

A further international-scale blurring of the sovereignty of nation states is the power wielded by trans-national corporations in every field of finance, commerce and trade.

The foregoing also presupposes that national governments, as though by divine right, have always had sovereignty. A different reality is that they busily acquire power. In part, national governments have acquired authority in novel fields, such as the regulation of television (and thereby, in the UK, the opportunity to tax viewers) and radio communication (and thereby, in the UK, to sell bandwidth to cellphone companies). In part, national governments have acquired authority from other bodies: in (part-)nationalising some UK banks, the Westminster government has also bought itself an important voice in the UK banking industry. In part, national governments have acquired authority by removing the legal competence of autonomous bodies to regulate themselves. (The HPC [Health Professions Council, a UK government body], has recently regulated all psychologists in the UK, despite there being a pre-existing competent body. The HPC has now turned its attention to counsellors and psychotherapists, despite the BACP [British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy] having an effective accreditation scheme.)

To be continued ...

Shrinking U.S. Cities Find Splendor in Green

The article below is one of several I have seen recently along the same lines:

World Environment News - Some Shrinking U.S. Cities Find Splendor in Green - Planet Ark

I am aware that there are many millions of people, particularly in South America, Africa and parts of Asia, who would experience a vast improvement in their quality of life were they to be given the opportunity to live in these abandoned neighbourhoods. Is it ethically more sound to raze the houses to make green space, or to provide shelter for people who have none?

I am slowly but increasingly persuaded that no-one should be given the right to exclude other people from land that is not theirs: Israelis should have no right to exclude Palestinians from living in Israel; nor supporters of the British National Party [Front Nationale, Vlaams Blok/Belang] to prevent people with darker-coloured skin from living in western Europe. I guess that there are residents of Flint, Michigan, who would object to people from elsewhere in the world (such as refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants) taking up residence in abandoned neighbourhoods.

A related, though separate, issue concerns social welfare. Were familes say, from Timbuktu, to relocate to Flint, Michigan, or to Pennywell, Sunderland, who would be responsible for their social welfare?

[To be continued ...]

Inauguration of a president

The United States has a new president. The world has a new leader. Arguably the single most powerful person on this planet is attempting to change the key in which the superpower, of which he is head of state and commander-in-chief, is humming to itself and singing to the rest of the world.

As I watched the inauguration, I realised that at any other enthronement present would have been presidents, other heads of state and prime ministers from around the world. The government of the US is so significant to the rest of the world that it could be reasonably, if light-heartedly, suggested that everyone in the world should be entitled to vote in the US presidential election.

One part of the world where engagement by the US is of utmost significance is the Middle East. Human rights and justice appear to be under attack from all sides. If ever there were a region crying out for wise, confident, informed, understanding and compassionate leadership, it is the Middle East. I hope that President Obama, Hilary Clinton, George Mitchell and their team are able and willing. Conflict de-escalation and depolarisation would seem to first steps. One group pleading for these is Jewish Voice for Peace:



Were Obama, Clinton and Mitchell to achieve nothing else but to restore hope, justice and human rights to all people in the Middle East, their legacy would be of historic proportions.

Come and See

I wrote the following in comment to a review on Amazon.co.uk regarding the Russian movie by Elem Klimov called Idi i smotri (Come and See). I have posted the comment here because I wish to develop a few ideas from it.

"Whilst what you have written may well be true, fair and balanced, Klimov's movie is intended only as true - it is you who place on it the burden of being fair and balanced. Whilst some art clearly does attempt to achieve balance, I am not sure that a painting such as 'Guernica' would be improved were it to attempt a panoptic perspective. Maybe a BBC documentary about the Second World War in Byelorussia would feel more satisfactory as accurate reporting and fair analysis."

The US Presidential election

1. When I was in the US during August, it was already absolutely clear to me that John McCain would win the election.

2. Subsequent to my return home, the appointment of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, whilst considered inexplicable from the perspective of European commentators, finally brought fully on board the rednecks, the gun lobby and the evangelicals, all of whom had viewed McCain with suspicion as being somewhat liberal. Whilst it still shocks me that there are Christian people in Britain who would have voted for McCain simply because of his Christian beliefs, I know that the same is much more intensely true in the US.

3. During August I saw John McCain start to change his presentation from being the obviously polite, considerate man that he is, to being a person with clear-cut, no-nonsense, straight-down the line answers to any and all questions. I watched the man transform his presentation from appealing pleasantly to conservative people to appealing to rednecks, pro-lifers and evangelicals. Had he been elected to the White House, it is not him about whom I would have felt concern, but all the lobbies to which he owed allegiance.

4. One of the catch-phrases in the movie Sliding Doors, and I think probably from Monty Python before that, is "No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition". The so-called credit crunch began in September. President Bush, and by implication, the Republicans in general are seen as having handled the US economy badly, whereas Bill Clinton is seen (perhaps fairly, perhaps not) as having handled the US economy remarkably well. I feel certain that Barack Obama has benefited from this perception without having earned that trust.

5. Prior to September, John McCain was doing well in the polls because of his military background. On the other hand, Barack Obama was seen as weak and flaky, as too understanding, as "nuanced". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not viewed by people in the US as anything like the liability that they are seen by almost everyone in Europe. The credit crunch turned an important issue into a very minor issue.

6. When I was in the US, I was struck by how similar Barack Obama is to how Tony Blair was back in 1997. To many, Tony Blair turned out to be a Tory in Labour livery. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has a Senate track record of attempting to push through liberal welfare reforms. I believe that had Hillary Clinton been chosen as the Democratic Party nominee, she may well have won the election had the credit crunch not happened. I still rue the fact that she was not selected.

7. Since its much-celebrated birth, the United States has been a nation comprised almost entirely of immigrants from all over the world. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the people were the poor and dispossessed: displaced native Americans, slaves of African ethnicity, and peasants from Europe, from Asia and from Latin America. Having visited Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Florida and Chicago, I know that white-skinned people are a minority in the US, and will soon not even be the largest minority. White-skinned male patricians do not outnumber other groups in the US, yet this is the category of people from which the two political parties have typically selected their candidates. Martin Luther King's dream was 40 years ago. There is part of me that is appalled that "the world and her lovers" are rejoicing about the skin colour of the person elected to be the next US President. Is it really true that these times are still so benighted?

8. The excitement and razzmatazz around Obama has enthused many people, and raised expectations into geostationary orbit. I wonder how long he will be given before people realise that he is merely the Commander in Chief of the US military, and not Superman, Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Jesus Christ merged into one super-hero.

9. I hope and believe that the world is much safer for having a Democrat, rather than a Republican, White House.

10. Had I been able to vote at a Democratic primary, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton. Had I had a vote in the US Presidential election, I would, without a shadow of a doubt, have voted for Barack Obama.

Postscript (18 July 2009)

My overall, if no-longer well-informed, sense is that Barack Obama has done a stirling job during the first six months of his office. In comparison, the UK government under Gordon Brown appears to have stumbled from crisis to crisis in remorseless succession. Whilst Obama's administration inspires hope for the future, the UK is sinking ever deeper into the mire. I should find it much easier to be proud to be American than proud to be British.

Was this evil?

The following story is edited from the BBC News website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/7631234.stm: 2008/09/23 14:33:28 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/7631734.stm: 2008/09/23 15:55:25 GMT

A 32-year-old woman has been found guilty of murdering her four-year-old disabled daughter.

Joanne Hill, from Connah's Quay, in Flintshire, had admitted drowning Naomi in the bath last year but denied murder due to diminished responsibility. Hill was jailed for life with a minimum term of 15 years. Chester Crown Court was told she had been unable to cope with Naomi's mild cerebral palsy.

Naomi's father Simon Hill described his wife's actions as "evil".

During the two-week trial, the jury heard hard-drinking Hill was ashamed of Naomi's condition, which meant the little girl had to use callipers to help her walk.

Judge Elgan Edwards told Hill there was no excuse for what she did. He said the aggravating features in the case were the vulnerability of Naomi and the breach of trust between a mother and daughter. He said: "You killed your own daughter because you could not cope with her disability. You had other pressures upon you, a disintegrating marriage and you decided to kill your own daughter by drowning her."

Because of the murder conviction Hill will not return to a secure unit but go straight to prison, the judge said. He commented on Hill's "sad" history of mental health problems and said he hoped she would be transferred back to hospital very soon. He added: "This has been a very sad case. Sad for you, for your husband, for the child you killed. "There can be no excuse for what you did."

On 26 November, 2007, Hill collected Naomi from a child-minder and took her home. The court heard how Hill had run a bath, adding bubble bath and came down for a glass of wine. When the bath was full, Hill put her daughter in the bath and drowned her by holding her head under the water for up to 10 minutes. The post-mortem examination found Naomi had died by drowning and also found facial haemorrhages which pointed to the girl's head being forcibly held under water with her face against the surface of the bath. Hill then dressed the little girl and put her in her car together with a bottle of wine before her husband returned home from work. She then drove around for eight hours.

The following day, Hill arrived at the Countess of Chester Hospital with her dead daughter in her arms, shouting for help.

The court heard how it was unclear what Hill was doing in the eight hours leading up to her arrival at hospital with Naomi dead in her arms. Police established she visited a petrol station at about 2330 BST that night and the jury were shown CCTV footage of her smiling and joking with the sales assistant.

Speaking after Hill was convicted by a unanimous jury, her husband Simon said: "Joanne is a non-swimmer with a fear of water. To be held under water is her biggest fear. "What she did to my princess Naomi was evil. There's not a minute that goes by without me wishing that [Naomi] was still here. She was my constant companion, she was my best friend, she was my little princess."

Hill's mental health issues first became apparent in the early 1990s when, aged 17, she saw a child psychiatrist for anxiety and repetitive thoughts. In 2000, she attempted suicide and throughout the year she was prescribed a medication for anxiety, depression and sleeplessness. In January 2003, shortly before Naomi was born, Hill was diagnosed with chronic anxiety and immediately afterwards, suffered a severe form of post-natal depression.

In a statement North Wales NHS Trust said a full review was to be conducted under the control of the Flintshire Local Safeguarding Children's Board. "Until these formal processes have concluded it would be inappropriate for the trust to make any detailed comment and the trust is also bound by the rules of patient confidentiality," the statement read.

A spokeswoman for the disability charity Scope, which focuses on people with cerebral palsy, said they were "saddened and appalled by this case". "Naomi's death is a tragedy," Alice Maynard said. "However, this case raises the wider issue of how many disabled parents still don't get the support they need in bringing up children and how society continues to portray disability in a negative light, creating shame and stigma around impairment. "Tragically, in this instance, this combination of factors proved lethal."

The jury in the trial of Joanne Hill, who has been convicted of murdering her disabled daughter, had a crucial decision to make about the 32-year-old's state of mind.

Hill, of Connah's Quay, Flintshire had killed four-year-old Naomi but the jury had to decide whether she was ill on the day she killed her daughter.

The defence case rested on proving that Hill, who had a history of mental health problems, was suffering "an abnormality of mind" when she drowned Naomi in the bath.

But Michael Chambers QC, for the prosecution, said Mrs Hill's behaviour in the months and days leading up to the killing had been considered normal and rational.

He said Hill should be found guilty of murder, rather than manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, because she had made a "deliberate and conscious" decision to kill her daughter.

Naomi was disabled, having mild cerebral palsy, and Hill could not cope with it, claimed the prosecution.

But deciding whether somebody is mentally ill at a particular time is a complex task.

During the trial at Chester Crown Court, Dr Aideen O'Halloran, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, said Hill's behaviour in the weeks leading up to Naomi's death indicated she was having a relapse of her mental health condition.

The court was told Hill had a history of mental health problems which first became apparent in the early 1990s when she was 17 years old and saw a child psychiatrist for anxiety and repetitive thoughts.

In 2000, Hill twice attempted suicide and throughout the year she was prescribed medication for anxiety, depression and sleeplessness.

In January 2003, shortly before the birth of Naomi, Hill was diagnosed with chronic anxiety and the following April, she had a "hypermanic" episode.

After Naomi was born ten weeks prematurely in a "difficult" birth, Hill suffered a severe form of postnatal depression, although she did respond to treatment.

On Boxing Day 2006 she suffered a severe relapse and left the family home to be cared for by her parents.

Once again Hill recovered, returning to work part-time in the March and full-time a month later.

In June, doctors decided there was no need for further involvement by her local Mental Health Team and in August her case was closed, although she remained under the care of her GP and on several types of medication.

In November, it was recorded that she was drinking heavily, increasing the risk of depression and the likelihood that she would stop taking her medicine.

Later that month she killed Naomi.

Dr O'Halloran concluded that Hill was suffering from depression and was able to "disassociate" her feelings, a combination that was "an abnormality of the mind" in her view.

But Dr Paul Chesterman, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, told the jury Hill's actions had not suggested a mental disorder at the time of the killing last year.

Hill had enjoyed a night out and had sex with a workmate on the Thursday before Naomi was killed, behaviour that Dr Chesterman said was "incompatible" with clinical depression.

Away from the trial, Gordon Huntley from the charity Wrexham Mind office sympathised with the jury's difficult task.

"When it comes to mental health it's far more difficult. When it's a physical illness, it's quite visible," he said.

"With mental health it's not quite so easy because the person doesn't necessarily understand what's going on themselves.

"It can be really difficult for jurors to come to any sort of understanding, let alone decision, about why somebody might want to do something like that."

And the complexity of the issue can lead to very different conclusions, even from experts, about a person's state of mind.

"I don't always agree with some of my colleagues in health on occasions," said Mr Huntley.

"I work closely with them and I'm quite friendly with a number but they do face quite difficult decisions in terms of what is happening to an individual.

"'What diagnosis do I give them and therefore what treatment can I give them or is available, is it the right one?'

"It's quite difficult and can be quite a lonely position for them to carry that burden."

Mr Huntley said it was also incredibly difficult to predict whether somebody with a history of serious mental health problems was likely to commit an extreme act.

"The stigma that people face with mental health issues is significant but it's not warranted, but unfortunately there are incidents that lead to tragic circumstances," he said.

"While for the vast majority, that's not the case, there are some of those events and sometimes people fall through the gaps."

European invasion of the Americas (1)

My two visits to the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian, Washington DC, prompted me to consider the ethics of the European invasion of the Americas from 1492 onwards. I have been journalling about this issue in detail on paper, but have been reluctant to date to commit any of my thoughts to publicly-accessible electronic form. However, having just read the article reproduced below, I thought that it would make a good start to the process of placing my thoughts about the issue in the public domain. The article is in Planet Ark, world environment news, which I believe to be a subsidiary of Reuters.

***

BRASILIA - Isolated native Indians in the Amazon forest of Brazil and Peru remain threatened by advancing loggers despite growing international attention to their plight, a senior Brazilian official said on Thursday.

"Pressure from Peruvian loggers continues, it's a concern," Marcio Meira, head of the government's Indian affairs agency, Funai, told the foreign press association in Brasilia.

Brazil's Acre state along the border with Peru is one of the world's last refuges for such groups, but increasing activity by wildcat miners and loggers puts them at risk.

Dramatic pictures of pigment-covered Indians from the region threatening the photographer's aircraft with bows and arrows were carried in May by media worldwide.

The Peruvian ambassador to Brazil subsequently told Meira his government was concerned about the issue and preparing measures, without detailing what these were.

Brazil has 26 confirmed native Indian tribes that live with little or no contact with the outside world. There are unconfirmed reports of an additional 35 such groups.

Many of them live in the forest like their forefathers did centuries ago, hunting and gathering.

More than three months after the photographs sparked an international media frenzy, Funai officials continue to witness logging activity in the region. "There is evidence. We see timber floating down the river which originates in Peru," said Meira.

Survival International, a group that campaigns for tribal peoples' rights, said last week that the Peruvian government had not lived up to its promise of publishing an investigation into accusations of illegal logging.

"The Peruvian government must not be allowed to bury this issue, or to turn their backs on the uncontacted tribes," said Survival's director, Stephen Corry.

The issue will be discussed at an international conference on native Indians in Georgetown, Guyana, later this month, Meira said.

Advancing loggers also threaten isolated tribes in Brazil's northern Mato Gross state and along the upper Xingu river in Para state, Meira said.

(Reporting by Raymond Colitt, editing by Ross Colvin)

Story Date: 15/9/2008

***