STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

When the towers of the World Trade Centre came crashing down, the fear on the faces of those running, those jumping to a certain suicide and those covered in a cloud of dust, told us exactly who the victims were that day. On September 11, we all had a classic view of who the bandits and sheriffs were. Six years on, with the war in Iraq, the rise in anti-Semitism and the hot topic of Islamophobia, it seems the roles of the classic sheriff, bandit game have been reversed.

The saddest thing though is that not only are the western governments considered the bandits these days, but western culture as a whole is ashamed of itself and apologetic for its own values. Our values of freedom, equality and liberty of the individual are the greatest strength and weakness of the western world. But because of the blunders in Iraq on the west’s behalf, matched against the religious zeal of Islamic fundamentalism, it seems as though the western world has become remorseful for its own existence.

After September 11, Muslim communities had a heavy onus of rooting out terrorism from Islam, disassociating themselves from fundamentalism and condemning radicalism. Rather, the opposite has occurred. Western society has had to apologise for its very nature. Our obsession with individuality and liberty has backfired, deliberately or by circumstance, to make us into eternal apologists for our beliefs so as not to be politically incorrect.

Straight after the Madrid bombings, Spain, in a climate of anxiety, immediately changed her government and withdrew troops from Iraq. Fundamentalists in France soon after warned of further bombings should the French government go ahead with banning head scarves in public schools. These events should have unified their respective nations into a common call of solidarity against violent blackmail, but instead, the west went on its own crusade of self-introspection. The west’s internal psyche of rationalism and deliberation posed questions on itself, asking “If these guys are willing to blow up hundreds of people without remorse, then surely we have done something to displease them to deserve such a reaction?”

This political bashfulness was most evident in the Mohammed cartoon fiasco. An irrelevant little Danish newspaper published cartoons of the prophet, and with a touch of spin by instigators, provoked mass riots in the Middle East and attacks on Scandinavian embassies, so much so that European leaders had to apologise for the cartoons. The fact that the cartoons are controversial and inappropriate is immaterial, considering the Arab media have a no-holds-barred approach to attacking the revered values of the west. What is depressing is that European leaders had to apologise for their values of freedom of speech even though they were not remotely responsible for the cartoons.

Perhaps the reason why America and the west are losing the war on terror is because our society is detached from and rueful for our values, while our radical Islamic counterparts have been unrelenting in theirs. When a detainee is under hostage for so long, they begin to lose hope of their own beliefs and sympathise with the hostage-takers demands. Yes, the west has made mistakes in the past, but we should not be under duress to apologise for our existence and values.

A TRIBUTE TO TONY

Tony, as I call him, or "Mista Blair" as he is affectionately called by Robert Mugabe, has recently taken on his new role in heading the quartet Middle East envoy after being Prime Minister for 10 years in a Labour government.

While some in the streets, from London to Beirut, have called for his blood, and although he resigned owing to low scores in the opinion polls and amongst the Labour back-benchers, I still consider him the only political giant of this day and age.

How can someone be a pragmatist, yet an idealist? How can someone be a liberal with conservative values? Blair is that anomaly who has turned politics on its head in the past 10 years and has redefined and reinvigorated Britain to become, once again, one of the centres of the world.

History can only determine his legacy. Many will see his political career tainted by Iraq and the War on Terror. But in a world of clashing ideologies, from neo-conservatives to Islamic fundamentalists, Blair is the only man who sits in the middle and can see the reality of the situation reasonably but still see the broader picture. He has balanced his steadfastness in the face of terror, his support of principles of a free and open society, and his understanding of the importance of Africa and global warming against the uncertain chaos of this world today. And in my history books, he will be written next to other great leaders living in adverse times, such as John F. Kennedy and Winston Churchill.

I doubt Blair will change the face of the Middle East, or even be successful in bringing all parties to one table. But in this day and age, he is the only leader fit for the job. Good Luck Ton.

THE NEW ARMED STRUGGLE

I hate discussing crime. First of all, it is a perpetually depressing topic of a dinner conversation which leads to no result other than despair. Secondly, discussing crime seems to pigeonhole one into the DA loving, Hyde Park shopping, 94.7 listening white South African who lives in a kraal mentality, out of touch with other existing issues such as inequality, AIDS, township crime and the realities of South African life.

But considering I run this blog, no-one can stop me from throwing a spanner in the works and discussing crime with the unusual twist of actually providing, or attempting to provide, a solution to the problem.

The solution to our problem in South Africa lies partially in the military. Why only partially? Because the roots of crime must be addressed, through education and employment opportunities, which is a topic of conversation for another time. But at the moment, our armed forces are largely out of work, barring our AU commitments in central Africa, Sudan and of course along the Beit Bridge border. I cannot understand why it has not even been a topic of conversation in the daily papers for the military to become more involved in our domestic urban war. This is not to say that there must be a military state of emergency, but why can’t the military help carry the burdens of the police by assisting in road blocks and other minor tasks, leaving the police officers to devote more time to paperwork?

I can understand why public opinion would be reluctant to see “Caspers” and rifles back on the street, as it is a reminder of our violent past. Also, perhaps the reason we don’t see the army tackling crime is the same reason why we did not see Nevirapine in government hospitals for such a long time - the government has a hear no evil, see no evil domestic policy.

Amending legislation to empower the military to assist the police and placing some of the military’s capabilities (very restrictively) under the Minister of Safety and Security, is by no means a declaration of a state of emergency nor will it incite a Musharaf styled coup. But what about basic freedom and the Constitution’s proportionality test? Well I would rather have a corporal holding a rifle in Hillbrow than a Nigerian holding a Kalashnikov to my head.