PeterBraden.co.ukArticles Tagged "politics"

In the early 1990's, as Yugoslavia fell apart, Bosnia became the scene for one of the ugliest conflicts in recent history. I have a few memories of watching the events unfold on TV, and of the numerous trials for war crimes that happened afterwards, but I had very little idea of what actually happened in the conflict.

I had taken the bus down the Croatian coast to Dubrovnik, once one of the most powerful city states on the Adriatic, and now a major tourist destination. In 1991, the city was besieged by Serbian forces. After the fall of communism, the Yugoslavian army and it's weapons were largely inherited by Serbia, as around 80% of the officers in the force were Serbian. With this powerful army, Serbia began it's mission of taking all land with an ethnic Serbian majority.

Dubrovnik shows little sign of the damage it took during the siege — a small billboard showing the locations of shelling, and a memorial in the side room of a museum were all the evidence I could find of the conflict. Of course it was not Croatia that took the brunt of the war — to see the real impact I would have to travel inland to Bosnia.

---

I headed North-East to Mostar. As the bus enters Bosnia it passes bullet scarred apartment blocks. Mostar literally means 'Bridge Keepers' — the eponymous bridge is perhaps the most enduring symbol of the conflict — joining ethnically differing banks, destroyed during the war, rebuilt after the conflict.

I spent my first night in one of the soulless pensions in the city, but heard about Hostel Majda from some fellow backpackers who I met drinking the cheaper-than-water beer below the bridge. The next morning I set off in search, armed with little more than the name. As I walked between tall concrete apartments, pockmarked by bullets, I began to feel a twinge of doubt.

But after an hour or so of searching I found it, nestled inside a first floor flat. I had scarcely walked through the door before a coffee was thrust into my hand — Bosnian hospitality is legendary — and I was booked on the about-to-leave tour of the area.

Bata, a great Bosnian bear, speaking a hundred words a minute, a smile fixed permanently to his face, led me down to the minibus. I was squeezed onto the bus — the 18th passenger in a bus registered for eight.

Put on your seatbelts, Bata told us, then seeing our confused looks, he beamed, spiritually I mean.

We drove erratically through the back streets of Mostar, Bata maintaining a commentary at brain boggling speed; we pass a popular local club — Turbo-folk is taking over the Balkans, something the army could never do.

Within a few streets though, we are among the skeletons of buildings in the old financial district, on the city's front line, a snipers nest above us. Bata is a Bosniak, and was living in the city as the chaos descended. He tells us his story — of the saboteurs who kick started the conflict by blowing up a truck; of being hunted by the Croats; of having his life saved by an ex-classmate; of hiding behind chimneys and escaping the concentration camps and execution.

It's an incredible story and we sit rapt and sweating in the back of the minibus.

Before the war, the Serbian leader, Milošević, met with the Croat leader, Tuđman, to draft the Karađorđevo agreement, which discussed the division of Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia. While the conflict is often discussed in terms of the armies involved, the real source of division is the regions patchwork of ethnic groups.

Bosnia is made up primarily of Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks, each group being linked to a religion. The nationalism that provoked the conflict exploited these differences promoting the partitioning of Bosnia under the guise of unity, joining predominantly Serbian regions with Serbia and Croation areas with Croatia. The Muslim Bosniaks were caught between the two factions.

Things were worsened for the Bosnian loyalists by the weapons embargo imposed by the UN. Croatia had access to weapons via its coastline and from Nazi sources to the north, and Serbia had inherited the majority of the JNA's arsenal. The Bosniaks were therefore trapped with no means to defend themselves.

Bata summarises the situation: The Croats wanted the North bank, the Serbs wanted the South, and the Bosniaks were meant to leave down the river.

The fighting finished more than 10 years ago, as the international community finally pressurised a cease-fire onto the table, but Bata explains that the conflict is still there, bubbling under the surface.

The majority of Mostar is now owned by ethnic Croats, and so many Croatian tourists visit the city that apparently it is forbidden for tour guides to mention that it was Croatian forces that destroyed the old bridge. Religious symbols are used as taunts — a huge cross stares down at the city from the former site of one of the biggest Croat fortifications, from where during the conflict truck tires filled with dynamite were rolled down onto civilian houses. The skyline of Mostar is dominated by one of the most imposing church steeples I have ever seen — monolithic concrete topped with an iron cross.

Even the beer tells the story of this silent rift. Sarajevsko beer, the biggest Bosnian beer, is unavailable anywhere on the Croatian side of Mostar, whereas Ožujsko, a Croatian beer, flows freely. Apparently bars serving Sarajevsko are forced out of business.

It is a sobering and sad realisation that, while the fighting may have stopped, the war continues. But Bata's attitude brings me a lot of hope; one might expect that the Bosniaks may bear hatred towards the ethnic groups that still discriminate towards them, but Bata explains his philosophy: They say I hate you, I say I love you back, they don't sell our beer, I drink theirs.

Bata spends the rest of the tour showing us more of the Bosnian spirit - telling us about the roots of his lack of bitterness in the philosophy of the region's medieval Bogomils and showing us the incredible natural beauty of Bosnia by taking us to stunning waterfalls.

By the end of the tour I have a massive respect for the Bosniaks who returned to their homes after the war, determined to build a future and rise above the discrimination.

The next day I walk (a little sorely - I bruised my heels jumping of an 11m bridge during the tour) to the bombed out bank we saw during the tour. I climb carefully up the cracked concrete staircase amongst shattered glass and spent cartridges. I don't venture far from the graffiti, mindful of the potential for unexploded ordinance, but on the second floor the impact of the war is driven home. Here filing cabinets full of paper have been tipped across the floor. I look through the documents and find birth certificates, letters — people's whole lives are here, amongst the shattered glass and dripping concrete.

---

I'm sitting on the terrace at Hari's Hostel in Sarajevo, looking down through the humid haze at the city, and sipping on thick Bosnian coffee. The midday call to prayer echoes from the city's minarets.

The city is surrounded by landmine strewn hillsides, where during the siege of Sarajevo, snipers would pick off civilians; tanks and mortars raining down indiscriminate shells and terror. The markets where people gathered to barter for goods smuggled into the city through a tunnel under the airport were a favorite target and almost every one was the site of a massacre.

It is a good place to reflect upon what I have seen of the region. A fellow traveler told me not to take sides in anything I see, but it is hard not to get emotionally involved in a conflict where innocents were slaughtered in such numbers, where rape was used as a weapon, where eight thousand men were murdered trying to escape from a UN safe area at Srebenica.

But Bata's attitude brings me a little solace — the inhuman acts of evil were by individuals, and one cannot rest blame upon a side, or army. The prejudices may still be there, but at least the refugees can return and begin to rebuild their lives.

A thunderstorm rolls overhead and in minutes a heavy tropical downpour is cutting through the humid air. Selena, who works at the hostel, brings me another coffee as I watch the rivulets of rain plunge down to the courtyard.

Forgive, but never forget, Bata said, we forgot about the second world war, and it all happened again.

I think that is the message that I will take from the region. Humans are capable of great inhumanity. The atrocities of the conflict echo the countless conflicts that have happened before, and which continue to happen, in Palestine for example. And through the evils that have taken place we have the solution in the Bosnian Spirit. The forgiveness that is displayed here is far more holy than the atrocities that have taken place in the name of religion.

Before I came to the region I had no idea of what had happened here, and perhaps we are all guilty of ignoring the evils that are happening. When I came here, in my mind Bosnia was a name synonymous with conflict, as I leave it has taken on a very different meaning — of hardships, of beauty, but most of all a spirit of forgiveness in the face of oppression.

I feel a little bit Bosnian.

In solidarity with the comedians who have been lambasted over jokes about the former prime minister, I am not going to mince my words - Jaqui Smith, the home secretary, is a hypocritical disgrace to the country - so mired in corruption and fear-mongering that she personifies everything I hate about politics.

The BBC reports that, after complaints were made about the £116,000 expenses she had claimed on a second home despite claiming that she lived with her sister, Smith has claimed her second home expenses are "above board". This follows her history of voting against transparency in government, whilst consistently voting for the erosion of civil liberties, and heightened surveillance in the name of anti-terrorism.

Her ludicrous double standards make me feel ill - this new scandal is less than a week after she supported the secretive new government database that will track the travel movements of every British citizen.

Smith is hardly a stranger to embarrassing revelations - in 2008 it was discovered that a campaign of letters defending Smith and her identity card policies was actually written by her husband - who receives a £40,000 salary as an advisor to the commons.

Despite admitting to smoking cannabis in the 1970's, "Wacky Jaqui" headed the government review panel that reversed the governments policies by raising cannabis from a class C to a class B drug.

Her voting record has also been exemplary in it's support for authoritarian measures - she spearheaded the campaign for the despicable 42 day detention period without trial. She has stated that police can restrict photography, a major blow for freedom of information, raising the potential for police abuse and totalitarian control. She has lied consistently about the populations support for ID cards as she maintains her cavalier support of such an ill thought-out policy, ignoring public opinion and the many counter arguments.

All of these measures were designed to protect the population from the over-hyped threat of terrorism, and the growing danger from gang violence in the UK, however Smith admits she is uncomfortable walking the streets, suggesting walking on streets at night is not "a thing that people do". She has encouraged the creation of a vigilante police force, another reminder of her fondness for the trappings of totalitarian society.

Her policies smack of the "wilful ignorance" that her colleague Dominic Grieve accuses her of. She is obviously out of touch with the populace - she has been quoted as saying people "can't wait" for ID cards, despite the majority resistance to the proposals. She is so arrogant in her position that she feels she has the right to simultaneously campaign for less transparency in government and more intrusion into the lives of British citizens. She defends her policies by manipulating the populations fear of terrorism, and distorting statistics.

Her recent support for the despicable database to monitor the travel records of citizens comes after the governments repeated failure to protect sensitive information about our identities - identity theft is far more frequent and pervasive than terrorism.

I am sickened by her disregard for the rights of innocent citizens, and her seeming attraction to an orwellian Britain. I hope that in any small remnant of conscience she may still have, she feels shame for the mess she has created, and the corruption she has been embroiled in.

The headlines this morning broke the news that there is proposed legislation to prohibit drinking for pregnant mothers and raise the tax on alcohol. This in the same week that new medical guidelines advised no consumption of alcohol before the age of 15. The reasons for this legislation: the negative social and medical implications of binge drinking. I cannot think of a more idiotic way to tackle the problem.

The medical guidelines advising people under 15 not to drink are perhaps the pinnacle of this nanny state lunacy. Citing health concerns, the authorities are essentially suggesting that children grow up in a society where alcohol is ubiquitous without any understanding of the drug. At 15, at the height of their rebellious period, they are told that alcohol consumption is now allowed, although they cannot purchase it, and so introduced to the vice that has been a tantalising taboo throughout their childhood. With no parental grounding to fall back on, they are expected to give the drug the respect it deserves?

What is more, these guidelines provide no help in the area in which they are designed to work – childhood alcohol abuse. The only people that are going to heed the advice of the new warnings are concerned parents, the very parents that should be helping to introduce their children to the adult world. Molly coddling them is only going to increase the chance that they are going to experiment with alcohol with their peers, where these guidelines are going to be ignored.

I believe the main reason alcohol is so abused in this country is the fact that it is unattainable, that it is so associated with the excess of a night out that it becomes synonymous with binge drinking. By levying ludicrous taxes on alcohol, the government is essentially helping to create the conditions for binge drinking – people cannot afford to drink every night, so save their money for one big splurge at the end of the week. The fact that throughout childhood, alcohol has been the mysterious elixir to which parents party, and that until their 18th birthday they cannot participate in this rite, means that when young adults have the chance they like to partake – alcohol is after all a great way to spend an evening – if it wasn't, it wouldn't be so popular.

So how can we escape the cycle of knee-jerk politics, and ill thought out legislation? I would advise taking a leaf out of the European book of laws – Allowing alcohol to be available cheaply and with little legislation, promoting sensible drinking with food and the relaxed culture that goes along with it. Alcohol should be extricated from the stereotype of excess, re-labeled as something to savour. I would go as far as saying that the age restrictions on pubs and bars should be removed, as long as a child is with a parent – what better way to be introduced to the world of your parents then experience first hand the place they relax in – perhaps drinking a watered down beer with your father. Promoting the family and friends aspect of alcohol would help remove the stigma of sensible regular alcohol consumption.

Alcohol has been part of our heritage for many centuries – it is a drug and thus must be treated with respect – but has many positive aspects to offer. Perhaps we should reconsider the way we introduce the next generation to it, rather than revisiting the prohibitionary experiments that ended so disastrously.

(This is an open letter to my family, friends, and any UK resident who is concerned about preserving the freedoms we enjoy)

Dear Friends,

In the last few years we have seen a worrying trend. We live in times where terrorism is a major fear. Having lived through the attacks of September 11th and the 7th of July we are all intimately aware of the havoc that a few angry extremists can wreak. And yet we have responded to these attacks with fear; by demanding that these threats are eliminated at all cost we have sacrificed our liberties for the sake of cowardice.

Although the majority of our British compatriots are well intentioned, the media has frenziedly exaggerated the threat of Islamic extremism, and the government has taken advantage of that fear to push for more control over us. Legislation like RIPA; proposals for national biometric ID cards; the handing over of our private data to government agencies; all take away from the rights of innocent citizens. We are sacrificing the freedoms for which we have fought for a misguided feeling of security.

It is hard to argue against many of the attacks on our civil liberties without being accused of being tolerant of the crimes which the new measures are alleged to prevent. The fallacy that we must support these crimes to be against the preventative measures has marginalised and stigmatised many of the defendants of our rights. As President Obama summarised in his inaugural address, we must reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

As more and more of these attacks on our liberties are foisted upon us, slipped secretly through parliament under popular legislation and argued for by a sensationalist media, there has been one voice that has been unwavering in their support of our rights and freedoms. Liberty is a organisation dedicated to supporting civil liberties in the UK. They have campaigned against ID cards, RFID tags, the threat to free speech and many more vital issues.

If we are to protect the liberties that we enjoy, to preserve our way of life with all of its freedoms, to defend the equality of all citizens and oppose totalitarianism, then we must support organisations such as this. I have already joined Liberty - I feel it is my duty as a citizen of the United Kingdom. I would urge you to do the same. The ultimate aim of terrorists is not to kill, but to destroy our values and way of life. We must fight to defend these values, and I believe that supporting organisations such as Liberty is a vital step in this goal.

Thank you,

Peter

The situation in the Middle East seems to be worsening. The news that Israel is suspected of using white phosphorus in urban areas is a new low in the conflict. There has been shockingly little outcry in the West over the way that Israel is behaving - indeed the majority of news outlets seem to be in support of the Israeli offensive.

Clearly this is a complex scenario, and without a knowledge of how the region came to be in this situation it is difficult to judge the morality and justification for the scenes we are seeing. By polarising the issue and taking it out of context, the mainstream media have failed badly in reporting on the region.

The history of the Middle East has always been a turbulent one. For thousands of years, its position at the meeting point of three continents has meant it is often the place where armies collide, and the deep religious history of the area has meant that it has held strong emotional weight on the people fighting over it, often inspiring the conflict itself.

The First World War saw the region seized from the Ottoman empire. In a secret agreement between Great Britain and France a large portion of the Middle East was divided among the two powers and the control of Palestine by the British was confirmed by the San Remo Convention in 1920. This mandate meant that during the interwar period, Palestine was controlled by a civilian administration headed by the High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel. This period also saw the start of a great migration by Jews back into the region - over 350,000 Jews returned between 1920 and 1945, influenced by the increasing anti-semitism within Europe.

This influx of Jews caused much bad feeling from the Arabs, causing the British to attempt to limit the immigration of the Jews, and in 1929, the massacre of 67 Jews. It is thought that the massacre was inspired by rumours that the Jews were attacking Arabs and seizing control of their holy places. The massacre drove the Jews out of Hebron, and was one of the events that resulted in the creation of several militant Jewish groups, such as Etzel and Lehi, whose reciprocal violence caused them to be branded 'Terrorist groups' by the British administration.

The second world war saw the increase in this immigration, as Jews fled from the horrors of the Holocaust. While the British sought to maintain their quotas for immigration, huge numbers of Jews entered Palestine illegally. In 1946, incensed by the British position on immigration which had left thousands of Jews stranded in displaced persons camps across Europe, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, headquarters to the British Administration, was bombed by a Zionist group called Irgun. Despite the bombing, the British position continued to be unpopular, and as the Jewish voice within America became louder as Jews escaped across the Atlantic, Britains hold on the region became untenable.

The fate of the region was decided by the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947. Although the plan was wildly unpopular amongst the Arab and Muslim world, the vote was passed by the dominating power of the West, and almost immediately Arab riots broke out in Jerusalem. The famous slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land" became a bitter insult to the people whose homeland had been taken away.

In 1948 the British terminated their mandate and Israel declared independence. The Arab states had put forward a plan for the creation of a "United State of Palestine", rejecting the UN's plan as it was opposed by the majority of Palestinian residents, and the news that Israel had declared independence prompted an immediate invasion by the Arab countries: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq supported by Morocco, Sudan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

The fighting lasted a year, during which an estimated 80% of the Arab population fled the area. The ceasefire meant that the area now known as the West Bank was annexed by Jordan, while Egypt took control of Gaza. While the Western world had acknowledged Israel's sovereignty, the state is not recognised by the majority of the Arab world.

The bloody history of Israel has continued to this day. In the 1972 Munich Olympics, 11 Israeli athletes were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist group. Israel responded by sending airstrikes to Beirut where the surviving attackers were believed to be hiding. Israel has also continued to erode the boundaries of the Palestinian regions in a quest for more land, and more water - many of the aquifiers lying on contentious land.

The recent conflict seem to start with the beginning of the Second Intifadah, a Palestinan uprising caused in part by the failings of the Camp David Summit, and the riots following the military presence at prayers a day later. Partially provoked by the failings of the Oslo Accords, Palestinians, angry at the failed withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and the West Bank, erupted in violence.

This violence has continued to the present day, and the situation in Gaza today is considered to be a continuation of the Second Intifadah.

The viewpoints of the two sides cannot be more diametrically opposed - Israel considers it's actions to be a part of their own war on terror. By going on the offensive against Hamas militants in retaliation for rocket attacks, they are showing that they will not tolerate such terrorism. Part of the reason that this is the view espoused by the Western media is the fact that it is such a similar line to take to the West's position on terrorism. Since the events of September 11th, and the London bombings, taking anything other than the hardest line on terrorism has been inconceivable - certainly political suicide. By capturing the population's fear of terrorist attacks, both Britain and the USA have managed to polarize opinion, a valuable political tool which has thus been embraced. By casting the Arab world as the supporters of such events, an 'us and them' feeling has been created, which means it is far easier to justify tanks aimed at civilians, airstrikes on mosques and now chemical weapons. They're 'terrorists' - they don't deserve pity. It is far easier for the media to jump on the bandwagon of hate that they have created to sell stories of fear, to capitalize on the divisive politics and portray the story as a struggle of good versus evil. Besides, Israeli's are whiter than Palestinians - it's easy to subtly influence the racism of the nation to support the story.

And on the other side there is just as much manipulation. The USA is as hated as they can be in the Arab world - the war in Iraq has made sure of that - it is easy to portray Israel as the lapdogs of the infidel, after all most of the Arab nations still don't recognise the Israeli state - Hamas aren't terrorists, they're fighting the century old oppression of the foreign invaders.

And as with any conflict the losers are the civilians, the people caught between the aggression of both sides. Both sides have powerful allies - Hamas are receiving weapons from Iran, Israel have the backing of the US. The conflict has the potential to get much worse. There are more powers at play here than just Israel and Hamas. While a ceasefire would bring welcome respite to the battered Gaza Strip, only negotiation and diplomacy, tolerance and discussion between the West and the Arab world, will bring an end to the conflicts in this area.