Russia's Christmas goodwill and Empathy

I wonder why the West should ignore the two Russian initiatives in December and pretend we had never received them.  Just like 90% of my emails to the authorities that are totally ignored!!

I  feel obliged to give credit to Russia when, pre-Putin, they initiated perestroika and glasnost and took the wind out of Reagan's sails in Iceland in a surprise act of generosity.  They appear to have a better track record than the US over wars in far-flung corners of the planet.  Never overthrowing capitalist states, as the West has tried in fighting to overthrow many Communist countries (even elected governments if they were left-wing) - all in the name of freedom and democracy since 1945.

Last decade, Russia came to the aid of President Assad of Syria while the West was supporting the rebels in trying to overthrow a well-established, legitimate and legal government, recognised by the UN!

The December 'request' to the West not to come any further east by inviting Ukraine to become a member of NATO, seems perfectly understandable and reasonable to me in the light of their proud history of empire, like ours.  Our side boasts that we won the two World Wars, vanquished the Commies in the Cold War with the break up of the USSR, their loss of buffer states to the West and the dissolving of the Warsaw Pact in 1991.  Russia probably sees the West being on a roll with their former satellite states embracing the West and so many becoming part of the EU and even NATO.  Yet, there is no empathy, let alone understanding from our side.  Just a determination to spread the untold blessings of democracy ever further eastwards.  And the USA and the West must remain the policeman of the world upholding our culture and democracy and extending it at every opportunity.  The USA must always be TOP DOG in the world!  This attitude hardly promotes international understanding and goodwill.

Christmas is, supposedly, a time of peace and goodwill to all nations.  Perfect timing for the Russians but, we ignored them.  We could have stated our position that Ukraine should be a buffer state between Russia and the West, outside our sphere of influence and, we would not fund, give armaments or support any anti-Russian feeling in Ukraine.  Such a move would have lessened tensions and made it less likely that they would invade Ukraine.  If they did, it would still allow the present measures that are being discussed to be implemented.

We must include Russia as much as possible in G7 deliberations as being a much more positive and constructive path to take rather than condemning them for their taking back of Crimea.  Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev.

Empathy and understanding - "leaders using empathy as a vital tool in their diplomatic arsenal."   Breaking History, Radio 4, on 5 January 2022, available for over a year, here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001329q

In 1972, Richard Nixon and Premier Chou En-lai agreed -

"the Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, also known as the Shanghai Communique.  The communique was highly unconventional; it essentially sees both sides as agreeing to disagree. However, within its text the two sides agreed that both countries, regardless of their social systems, should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states.  It was an agreement that had far-reaching consequences for world history - one that "built a bridge across 16,000 miles" and healed years of division and hostility."

"President Nixon met with Chairman Mao Tsetung of the Communist Party of China on February 21. The two leaders had a serious and frank exchange of views on Sino-US relations and world affairs."  https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/121325

 

Getting the Labour Party into power meant, last time ...

14 August 2016

Getting the Labour Party into power meant, last time, wars of aggression that were illegal, immoral and with no UN resolution.  It has left Afghanistan and Iraq in bloody turmoil with revenge attacks on the streets of W Europe and beaches of Tunisia.  Too many right wing Labour MPs voted for air strikes in Syria only last year to ratchet up the bloodshed.

The West is Best - or is it the Worst?

SELF:  Not a word of protest or objection or dismay was expressed by the West when, in 2014, 50 civilians were killed in Kiev and an elected, pro Russian government was overthrown and a pro Western government installed.  That worked well for the West because only 50 people were killed and it was quickly over within the week.

Overthrowing the Syrian government, however, has gone horribly wrong for the West over these last seven years.  In addition, Assad was an ophthalmologist in London for a time.  Was he given a state visit to London on one occasion?  Is this man another monster of our own making?  He came from the West, it seems.  Is the West a glowing, good and righteous example to the rest of the world in any respects at all?

​"​Ukraine gained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and has since veered between seeking closer integration with Western Europe and being drawn into the orbit of Russia, which sees its interests as threatened by a Western-leaning Ukraine.​"​    BBC News​

Take Crimea for instance.  More than half of its 2 million people are Russian, and Russia still maintains a naval base there. In fact, the region was part of Russia until 1954, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine as a present. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Crimea became part of an independent Ukraine.

Pro Russian Viktor Yanukovych overthrown in 2014; Pro Western Petro Poroshenko installed.

Why Ukraine Is Such A Big Deal For Russia   February 21, 2014 11:52 AM ET

KRISHNADEV CALAMUR

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/02/21/280684831/why-ukraine-is-such-a-big-deal-for-russia

gives:

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to stem his country's decline in global influence: Moscow's leverage in places like Ukraine is one way to preserve that influence. But there are other reasons why Ukraine is of deep interest to Russia — reasons that have more to do with history, faith, economics and culture.

A Special Relationship

Matthew Rojansky, director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center, says the two countries "are joined at the hip": They share language; Russian media are popular in Ukraine; there are family ties; many Ukrainians work in Russia; and Russians have billions of dollars invested in Ukraine.

"Their relationship is like the U.S.-U.K. special relationship," Rojansky says.

Historically, those ties date back to before the Soviet Union — and even before the days of the Russian empire that began in the 18th century.

Many consider Ukraine to be the birthplace of the region's Orthodox Christianity. Ukraine then became part of the Russian empire, and later part of the Soviet Union, where Ukrainian men were pivotal in the Soviet defeat of the German army in World War II. (Ukraine was perhaps the most important Soviet republic after Russia).

Linguistic And Economic Ties

Linguistically, as we've told you before, most Ukrainians speak both Ukrainian and Russian. But it's the eastern and southern parts of the country where Russian speakers dominate, and where Russia still holds influence.

Take Crimea, for instance. More than half of its 2 million people are Russian, and Russia still maintains a naval base there. In fact, the region was part of Russia until 1954, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine as a present. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Crimea became part of an independent Ukraine.

Millions of Ukrainians work in Russia, and according to the EU-funded Migration Policy Centre, the Russia-Ukraine border is the second-largest migration corridor in the world. (The U.S.-Mexico border is the largest.) The center says that in 2011, more than one-third of all Ukrainian migration was to Russia.

Russian companies are one of the largest investors in Ukraine, accounting for 7 percent of total foreign investment in 2013, according to official Ukrainian statistics. And when Yanukovych walked away from the deal on closer economic and political ties with the EU, Russia said it would buy $15 billion worth of Ukrainian bonds, giving Kiev an economic lifeline. (But on Friday Moscow said it was taking a wait-and-see approach to the events unfolding across the border.)

Ukraine is also a key component of Russia's plans for a Eurasian customs union with some other former Soviet states. But as Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told NPR's Robert Siegel, "for many Ukrainians, and I even think for President Yanukovych, that's not where they want to go."

Seeds Of Discord

The crisis in Ukraine is, in many ways, a conflict about the former Soviet republic's future direction: Should it look westward toward the EU or maintain close ties with Russia?

Until recently, this wasn't an either/or question, says Stephen Sestanovich, a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University.

"For 20-odd years, it has been possible for the Ukrainians to kind of have it both ways," Sestanovich told NPR's Siegel. "What is now the troubling issue on the agenda is the perception of a lot of people that you do have to choose, and that is producing violence across Ukraine."

There are historical reasons for some of the antipathy — especially in the western part of Ukraine that borders Poland, where the protests against Yanukovych have been the loudest. This area was once part of Poland and Austro-Hungary, and became part of Ukraine only when World War II began.

Ukraine was the victim of the 1932-33 famine induced by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Later, it was among the Soviet republics that bore the brunt of the Chernobyl disaster.

Those events undoubtedly resonated in the public memory for years: Ukraine was one of the first Soviet republics to vote for independence from the USSR. It did so overwhelmingly in 1991. The Soviet Union fell apart soon after that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-05/the-west-backed-the-wrong-man-in-ukraine

gives:

"Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So, as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans, they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their agendas turned out to be more self-serving."

Robin Yassin-Kassab

1. I was at Wigtown Book Festival yesterday when I heard Robin speak very powerfully and assuredly about Syria. He said, “I stand with the people not the states”. His oratory brought a round of applause. For me, this is all very well but when the people get clobbered when they stand up to their oppressive dictator, is it really worth all the bloodshed and mayhem?

   In both Christianity and Islam, aren’t the adherents urged to obey the earthly powers, the authorities of the land that have been ordained of God/Allah? I have not been impressed with the behaviour and foreign policy of our English monarchs and rulers down the centuries. However, I would not dream of trying to overthrow them, knowing I would simply end up in jail or with my head cut off or being burnt at the stake! Here in Wigtown, two women were drowned at the stake in the 17th century because they would not acknowledge the authority of their earthly king over and above that of their Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

   Today, we Westerners continue to enjoy great comforts and ease of life. But then we are the top dogs in the world, still. Our economic wealth has partly come from the armaments and ammunition that we make and sell that end up in the hands of any old dodgy regime! Far better to gain employment in more ethical ways. But then the Scots will get their wages from building and maintaining WMD at Faslane for the English to sail beneath the high seas to threaten nuclear annihilation on a huge section of humanity! Our own aggression, immorality and illegality sets a very bad example to other countries and peoples, like Assad and Islamic State.

   

   Tim Weller

   September 29, 2015 at 1:06 pm

   Reply
   • Tim, I think it’s a misconception that people in Syria in 2011 (or Russia 1917, or France 1789) all decided to have a revolution. It doesn’t happen like that. Instead, regimes collapse when they can no longer bear the weight of their own economic/social/political contradictions. And yes, Islam has an idea about loyalty to the ruler even if he’s unjust – but it’s not an idea I agree with. I don’t blame the revolution for what’s happened in Syria, but the violence of the counter-revolution.

     

     Robin Yassin-Kassab

     September 29, 2015 at 1:52 pm

     Reply
     • Thanks, Robin for the reply.
       I think you have lived in Syria and know all about what’s going on. So could you tell me if the present ‘civil’ war started from a peaceful protest demo being put down by force by Assad, please?
       Or, how did it start? Was it part of the Arab Spring revolts?
       I think I know why you want shot of Assad but, would you mind putting in down for me so that I know and understand your position, please?
       Was Assad a friend of the West, at one time? If so, why did they turn against him?
       Thanks for your help.
       Tim

       

       Tim Weller

       October 8, 2015 at 3:13 pm
2. Tim, I’m afraid I don’t have time to respond to your questions now, but I have a book coming out January 20th 2016, with Leila al-Shami, called Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War. That answers your questions. Or, you could read back on this blog from March 2011.

   

   Robin Yassin-Kassab

   October 8, 2015 at 5:08 pm

   Reply
   • Robin, could you listen to this 6 mins, 10 October Radio 4 ‘Today’ interview with Peter Ford who was UK Ambassador to Syria from 2003 to 2006. The interview starts at 1 hr 35 mins 10 secs

     http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gtbj1

     What do you make of it? 27 days left to listen. Tim

     

     Tim Weller

     October 12, 2015 at 9:04 pm

     Reply
     • if you want to learn what an ex-ambassador to Syria who understands the situation thinks, follow Simon Collis.

       

       Robin Yassin-Kassab

       October 14, 2015 at 11:07 am
   • Is the angelic West on the side of governments (regimes) or rebels?

     Why should a government NOT be ruthless in putting down a rebellion? Any UK government would be. Even the good people of Scotland in 2014 had the fear of God put up them, if they dared to be so stroppy as to vote for independence from big brother England. Our problem, in our so well meaning, we know what is best for you fortress, is supporting the rebels to overthrow their governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria. And look where it gets us.

     Rage against the oppressor with extreme care and with non-violence. Only overthrow an oppressive government (regime) by the ballot box, not the bomb and bullet. If there is no ballot box, put up with the tyrant or get out of his reign of terror, oppression, sheer nastiness.

     

     Tim Weller

     October 14, 2015 at 8:06 am

     Reply
     • Tim, who do you think you are to be telling people to ‘put up with the tyrant’? When state officials torture your children to death, rape your wife and destroy your home, I hope someone tells you to put up with it. That’s first. Second, when you say ‘why should any government not be ruthless in putting down a rebellion’ you are talking like a fascist. Are you aware that the Syrian regime has killed 300,000 people and driven out millions? Why shouldn’t it? you ask. Do you leave comments on Jewish people’s sites telling them Hitler had a right to be ruthless? And the armed rebellion was a response to months of state murder, rape and torture. Third, believe it or not, the West is not the prime cause of events in the Middle East. The Tunisian, Libyan and Syrian revolutions were initiated, led and fought by the Tunisians, Libyans and Syrians. Fourth, I already told you I don’t have time to do answers to individual questions, but then you post an ex-British ambassador and ask me to comment. Well here you are: this man is either ignorant of the situation is a straight-forward racist and imperialist. Now please stop trolling.

Same Difference - just change the name of the country!

The international community - US/UK/France - perfidious, duplicitous foreign policy in a nutshell

The West supports and arms 'moderate' rebels overthrowing the Syrian government but, supports Saudi Arabia stopping rebels overthrowing the Yemen government.

Russia supports the Syrian government stopping the rebels overthrowing it.

Russia, unlike US/UK/France, is not officially involved in the Yemen war on either side, apart from, no doubt, also continuing their normal arms sales - like us reprobates.

If we Westerners tried to overthrow our legitimate, UN recognised government, we would also get in the neck, like the Syrians have found - to their cost.

Russia did not agitate, promote or, in anyway encourage the Arab Spring.
Guess who did?

It appears that it is the 'Christian' democratic Western European nations, with their monarchs and empires, that have done the most subjugating down the centuries.  Certainly not the East or Middle East. 

Is Christian discipleship meant to embrace non-violence, justice and actually doing what Christ taught?

Doing our duty to Queen and Country; doing total discipleship to our God, JC1

Thinking about our nation's recent military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, is there one verse in one of Paul's letters that has a bearing on those trouble spots?  And another as, perhaps, a slight corrective to that one?  What could I be thinking of?!

What would be the mind of Christ in those situations?

How then does that apply to our own Christian discipleship?  Should it affect how we vote, how we write to or, even visit, our MEPs, MPs and councillors?

Hi Tim,

Thanks for all these thoughts on walks etc - we will look forward to seeing you by 9am Friday - we will bring our own lunch and so be ready for the off.

re: your thought for the day, your question about the 'mind of Christ' is a really good one; unfortunately He doesnt offer any soundbites on Afghanistan, Iraq, the Labour leadership etc!!!! (No soundbites but much teaching in the Gospels, Acts and in Paul's letters, don't you think, Peter?)  So we have to rely on the big picture of scripture as a whole I think.  Both the Old Testament and the gospels were written during tumultuous times politically and socially  from slavery in Egypt, warring nations, constant attempts to stamp out the people of God, the failure of the Jewish kings to meet expectations etc;. In the NT there is the total occupation and dominance of the Roman empire with all the injustice and inhumanity that accompanied it.  The apostle Paul made good use of his Roman citizenship and was not, of course, rebellious or revolutionary.  Unlike our Western governments and the public opinion that allows them to be so.  But only when it comes to weaker countries who can't hit back (apart from with terrorism).

When it comes to Romans 13 v 1-7, my commentary has: "The Christian and the state.  Though the Christian has no right to punish (12 v 19-21), the state does have that right and the Christian must respect it.  Paul's confidence that the Roman state is, on the whole, just and beneficent is matched in 1 Peter 2.13-17; 3.v13."

How is the mind of God and of his Messiah expressed? Constantly reconciliation with God through his Messiah is the theme, BEFORE reconciliation with our neighbour is possible. So the sermon on the mount (which most people take as great advice for life) is all about mourning our sin, hungering for God and His righteousness, seeking peace with God first, and only then can we live in our messy world loving our neighbour in need.

So I cannot expect a world that doesn't live under the lordship of Christ to follow his way any more than the OT Israelites, or NT believers could expect those around them to do. Should those who do live in the lordship of Christ follow His (non-aggression) way, however difficult or costly?  That doesn't mean I shouldn't do 'all the good I can to all the people I can just so long as I can', but I think it suggests that the main witness of Christian believers is to enjoy living under the lordship of Christ.- enjoying his world, his peace, his forgiveness, and do all I can to be reconciled with my 'neighbour'.

This may not be what you wanted to hear, as you are still in'campaigning' mode, but I think our world will remain messy until Christ comes again !!  But our own little, individual world should have the minimum mess (or hypocrisy) in it.

Every blessing Tim, and thanks again for all the prep for our time away.

Peter.

This has been sent only to you, Les but is one reply to what Peter wrote on the back of the sheet I gave you yesterday.

You are right.  It is campaigning but, as I see it, it is also, for me, doing my duty to Queen and Country and discipleship to my God (JC1).  "Give to Caesar those things that are Caesar's and to God those things that are God's."

I think, this kind of patriotism puts Jesus Christ first and is also in line with His Spirit that cannot possibly be about overthrowing foreign governments.  In this century alone, these have been Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria.  Last decade, our friends and allies (and our fellow believers) in the States had seven countries as part of their Project for the New American Century.  All to be overthrown to become democratic and American compliant.  All contrary to Titus 3 v 1 and Romans 13 - being submissive and obedient to rulers and authorities.  Especially, the Spirit of Jesus cannot be about bringing democracy down the barrel of a gun, as all three main political parties we vote for believe and do.  My pastor, Les Hardwick, told me that the corrective to complying with the wishes of the authorities is the verse in Acts, "Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men' " Acts 5 v 29.

Therefore, should Christian believers be voting for the main political parties who do war around the world, to try and keep Western compliant governments in power or, use military might to protect their vital strategic interests?  "Not by might, nor by power but by My Spirit says the Lord of hosts" Zechariah 4 v 6.

​Tim

Hi Tim 

Thank you for your e-mail in which you raise some very difficult questions.  In Matthew 24v6 Jesus said "You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.".He also spoke in chapter 25 of the need to look after the poor and hungry v 31 to 46.

The question of voting  has to be answered according to our own conscience accepting that someone else will act differently while following their own conscience. Not voting can open the door to  even worse forms of government     (there was a time when I would not vote.)

In September 2002 (15 February 2003) over one million people marched in London protesting against the war against Iraq, the war still went ahead!  The 1950s,saw many protests against  weapons of mass destruction, nothing has changed.  There seems little we can do! but we can feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, try to overcome poverty and vote for the party which seems most willing to tackle these issues!

Les

Thanks v much for these thoughts.

We need a much higher profile given to non violence, constraint not coercion, a new determination to eschew aggression, power, domination, colonialism, empire building, forcing our ways (and wars) on others.

A new determination to allow religious and political toleration, equality, justice tempered with mercy instead of constant punishment and revenge.  A rejection of hypocrisy in too much unethical foreign policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay.  A rejection of the all out war on Gaza that our side perpetrated in July and August of 2014.  A rejection of lying that allows some of our political leaders to say, "Of course, I will press the nuclear button" to send much of humanity to kingdom come.  Obscene riches to allow, with Trident, such disgusting behaviour by our leaders and, when poverty and inequality is so rife too!

"What we sow today we will reap tomorrow".  Mayhem, instability, civil war in the Middle East is now spreading, with revenge attacks, to our own Western nations that are bombing, missiling Syria and Iraq - and, for many more years to come.  Nearly all the politicians we vote for have unleashed the dogs of war, opened the Pandora's Box, well and truly stirred up a hornet's nest of anger and hatred against Israel and the West.

I must come round today to get the meter reading that Places for People want today.

Every blessing

Tim

Are we white Westerners in any way responsible for instability, turmoil and warfare in the Middle East?

From our track record of warfare, around the globe, in every single year since, at least 1914, we are probably killing more humans in Syria and Iraq than Islamic State is.  Did we stir things up in the region in the first place, over ten decades of cheeky, oil motivated, military intervention in the Middle East?  Especially, since the end of our war in Afghanistan on 31 December 2014, the end of our warfare in Iraq and our support for rebellion called the Arab Spring?

Unlike Western behaviour in their region, at least Islamic State with their conquests, give the inhabitants the choice of staying put and remaining Muslims if they convert to their fundamental interpretation of Islam or, converting to Islam if not Muslims or, paying taxes to Islamic State or, moving out.  The Western way was to bring God, guns and germs to the original inhabitants in the case of our North American conquests of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Killing the adherents of Islamic State in an attempt to exterminate the lot of them, seems to me to be a rather tall order.  Indeed, futile.  Far better to stop our violence and aggression and to welcome those fleeing Islamic State and Western/Russian air strikes.  At least, we can then be sure that all the refugees are fleeing Islamic State and not Western/Russian bombs.

Western policy is to remove the legitimate government in Syria and to extinguish Islamic State.  Russia policy is to support the Syrian government.  You could argue that we, once more, are over throwing a government down the barrel of a gun and the communist/capitalist Russia are upholding the lawful government.

How dare you say we are hypocrites!

Thoughts on the Syrian bombing debate in the Commons

Why are democratic countries so insistent that they must oust some countries' governments undemocratically- by military force?

Bombing Syria to get rid of IS is so convenient to help get rid of the Syrian government at the same time.  Kill two birds with one stone and never mind the innocent civilians injured and killed, who just want to be left in peace and quiet and with their bodies and minds intact.

We must do something about this evil lot of fascists by our right wing, meddling and 'we know best for you' governments when it comes to the Meddle East.  Our side has also been fascists and evil in the past (twice in the last century) - and the other side would say we are not any better in our wars against them, now.

We are all evil, all warriors, all lovers of conflict.  So why do we call a few thousand Muslims in Syria/Iraq an evil, fascist, scum, a death cult?

West is best at overthrowing governments it calls regimes

Why should a government NOT be ruthless in putting down a rebellion?  Any UK government would be.  Even the good people of Scotland in 2014 had the fear of God put up them, if they dared to be so stroppy as to vote for independence from big brother England.  Our problem, in our so well meaning, we know what is best for you fortress, is supporting the rebels to overthrow their governments in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria.  And look where it gets us.

Learn this lesson from Syria

Rage against the oppressor with extreme care and with non-violence.  Only overthrow an oppressive government (regime) by the ballot box, not the bomb and bullet.  If there is no ballot box, put up with the tyrant or get out of his reign of terror, oppression and sheer nastiness.

Is the West on the side of governments or rebels?

Why should a government NOT be ruthless in putting down a rebellion?  Any UK government would be.  Even the good people of Scotland in 2014 had the fear of God put up them, if they dared to be so stroppy as to vote for independence from big brother England.  Our problem, in our so well meaning, we know what is best for you fortress, is supporting the rebels to overthrow their governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria.  And look where it gets us.

(reply to David Blair article, 'Putin's Plan for Syria is a war without end', in the Telegraph on 2 Oct 2015)

Standing with the people means being cut down by the state!

It was good to read the above posts and replies.  I was at Wigtown Book Festival yesterday when I heard Robin Yassin-Kassab speak very powerfully and assuredly about Syria.  He said, "I stand with the people not the states".  His oratory brought a round of applause.  For me, this is all very well but when the people get clobbered when they stand up to their oppressive dictator, is it really worth all the bloodshed and mayhem?

In both Christianity and Islam, aren't the adherents urged to obey the earthly powers, the authorities of the land that have been ordained of God/Allah?  I have not been impressed with the behaviour and foreign policy of our English monarchs and rulers down the centuries.  However, I would not dream of trying to overthrow them, knowing I would simply end up in jail or with my head cut off or being burnt at the stake!  Here in Wigtown, two women were drowned at the stake in 1685 because they would not acknowledge the authority of their earthly king over and above that of their Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

Today, we Westerners continue to enjoy great comforts and ease of life.  But then we are the top dogs in the world, still.  Our economic wealth has partly come from the armaments and ammunition that we make and sell that end up in the hands of any old dodgy regime.  Far better to gain employment in more ethical ways.  But then the Scots will get their wages from building and maintaining WMD at Faslane for the English to sail beneath the high seas to threaten nuclear annihilation on a huge section of humanity!  Our own aggression, immorality and illegality sets a very bad example to other countries and peoples, like Assad and Islamic State.  Tim Weller

REPLY:
Tim, I think it’s a misconception that people in Syria in 2011 (or Russia 1917, or France 1789) all decided to have a revolution. It doesn’t happen like that. Instead, regimes collapse when they can no longer bear the weight of their own economic/social/political contradictions. And yes, Islam has an idea about loyalty to the ruler even if he’s unjust – but it’s not an idea I agree with. I don’t blame the revolution for what’s happened in Syria, but the violence of the counter-revolution.

I do blame the revolution in Syria, Robin because State violence was met with protester violence.  Pretty impossible for most of us not to, I know.  But then that shows how important it is to rebel only if you are of the amazing calibre and of the heroic stature of a Gandhi or a Dr Martin Luther King Jnr or one of their many tens of thousands of followers who resisted even revenge over the decades of  suffering.  But, in the process, slowly wearing down the powers that be - and winning!

I think governments (if they do what America, Britain and France want) or regimes (if they don't), Robin will always stifle any opposition either by force as in Syria in 2011 or, much more sensibly as in London by Police action (like kettling) to allow dissent on the streets but only up to a point.  Like last year, the Establishment put the fear of God up some Scots to make them vote 'No' to independence.  The English government and all major parties threatened the Scots with all kinds of dire consequences if they rebelled and voted 'Yes'.  In countries like Ukraine, Syria and Israel, dissent is met with violence.  The West uses violence, coercion and coups to get their way in countries that are not part of their supposedly so very free and democratic Club of nations that toe their line (the Western aligned countries).

NOTES:
Wikipedia has:
"The unrest began in the early spring of 2011 within the context of Arab Spring protests, with nationwide protests against President Bashar al-Assad's government, whose forces responded with violent crackdowns. The conflict gradually morphed from prominent protests to an armed rebellion after months of military sieges."

"The Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي‎, ar-rabīˁ al-ˁarabī) was a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010 in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, and spread throughout the countries of the Arab League and its surroundings."

"Many Arab Spring demonstrations were met with violent responses from authorities,^[23][24][25] as well as from pro-government militias and counter-demonstrators. These attacks were answered with violence from protestors in some cases.^[26][27][28] A major slogan of the demonstrators in the Arab world is Ash-sha`b yurid isqat an-nizam ("the people want to bring down the regime")."

Not the meek, but the brave, the bold and the violent will inherit the earth (Matt 5 v 5)

The brave, the bold and the hard men go out, explore, conquer and claim land as their own.  Very cheeky but, so typical of us lot!

James Cook (1780s) claimed New Holland (Australia) for Britain: "an illegal theft of a continent from its indigenous people" (Vanessa Collingridge on 'Timewatch' 19 March 2015)

Why were those indigenous people so ungrateful that they never thanked their lucky stars that they were discovered by the White Christian nations?
The brave, the bold and the tough claim for themselves what they find, then colonise and turn them into their peoples, their slaves.
The brave, the bold and the get-up and go make their own empire and maintain their control by coercion, force, violence, killings, warfare.

I think, our grab and brag ways around the globe can be likened to an octopus with its tentacles reaching out to every corner of the planet to claim land and people for ourselves.  Our Empire was the biggest and best for the worst behaviour humanity has ever seen.

Jeremy Paxman, in his TV series on the Victorians, with their fast expanding empire, quoted a saying of theirs, "Grab and brag; occupy and fortify"!

The brave, the bold and the violent will control the earth's resources and get what they want.
Those who inherited the earth fully supported the Arab Spring and the replacement of leaders they no longer liked. 
The brave, the bold and the violent will spend four years trying to overthrow their enemy, President al-Assad of Syria.
The brave, the bold and the violent will overthrow the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  The new military leaders got a slap on the wrist from the United States of the World for their undemocratic ways.  
The brave, the bold and the violent will oust the elected, pro Russian, President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine to put in their pro Western man, Petro Poroshenko.  Killing protesters in a revolution to get a leader sympathetic to the West!
The brave, the bold and the violent will take ever more land in Judea and Samaria to house the fast growing State of Israel.
The brave, the bold and the violent will stamp out any chance of there ever being a state for the Palestinians.

Only the meek share land with their neighbours.
Only the meek allow themselves to be governed by whoever.
Only the meek allow themselves to be incorporated into a Fascist state or a Communist state or an Islamic state without fighting back, violently.

The meek go for more subtle ways to fight back - if they can.
Only the wise and meek Judeo-Christian West maintain democracy and capitalism and introduce education for girls, cricket and voting for Afghanistan, after 13 years of warring on the Afghans (I mean the Taliban - those vicious Muslim extremists who will not accept our good and perfect Western ways - like our demon democracy that is not even based on fair votes!)
Only the wise and meek Judeo-Christian West have their massive arsenals of weapons of mass destruction to stop them being attacked by the Russians, the Communists and the Muslim extremists.
Only the wise and meek nations stop other nations from acquiring weapons of mass destruction - if they possibly can.
Only the wise and meek Judeo-Christian nations imposed sanctions on Russia for taking back Crimea after 60 years but, not on themselves for war crimes on Gaza and, before that the years of war of aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq - of course not; silly me to even think such a thought!

Only the meek put out their tentacles in taking for themselves land around the globe and, in the years of this century, exhibiting: Guantanamo Bay, rendition, torture, coups, aggression, illegal unnecessary wars and, now, drones to do our killings for us without fear of our heroes taking any casualties. They get away with it because they are the rich and powerful nations that are part of the Christian, capitalist, democratic, pleasure-seeking, freedom-loving West.
The supposedly meek, Judeo-Christian Western powers, have indeed inherited the earth.

Unfortunately, over these last 101 years of UK wars somewhere around the world, first Christian Western powers threw their weight around in the Middle East and, then, the Jewish people in the State of Israel since 1948, have all set a very bad example to the Muslims.  Some of them have, finally, flipped to form Islamic State.  We have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.  We opened Pandora's box.  Our violence, I think, bred their violence.  Revenge leads to yet more revenge.  The radical Muslims have finally learnt our violent, coercive, death-dealing from drones, ways.  Except, we are all safe and secure in our homes, as long as we don't go anywhere near the Muslim majority countries.

EVIDENCE:
Letting the Arabs (Muslims) down after the Christian nations' war of 1914-18.
Yet, the Arabs were fighting on our side thanks, largely, to Englishman, T E Lawrence.
France and the UK were given the Mandates to rule certain countries in the Middle East.  The UK was given Palestine.  We quickly threw in the towel when Israel's terrorist gangs got to work and the State of Israel was soon born without the agreement of a single, surrounding Arab nation.

The State of Israel was born and remains growing in strength and size out of warfare and victory from aggression and land grabs.

It also helped to salve our conscience over doing so little to stop the Nazi genocide in Poland and Germany in the 1930s and 40s.  The House of Commons showed itself to be anti-Semitic in the '39-'45 war.

(How do Christians interpret that catastrophe for the Jews, from a theological perspective?  eg: Exile for Israel from the Promised Land to Babylon when they disobeyed the Lord God.  They were also without their Promised Land from 70 AD to 1948.  1900 years dispersed around the world?  1900 years of exile?  What brought that about?

Was it a really big disobedience to Yahweh that brought about the attempted genocide of His Chosen People by a formal and long-standing Christian nation in the 1930s and 40s?)

WHY IRAN IS NOT IMPRESSED BY AMERICA, ISRAEL, UK

The Christian nations' record in the Muslim Middle East has been disastrous and reprehensible:-

Us lot - the supposed meek and mild of the earth - are much, much more guilty of the most terrible discrimination, expulsions and persecution of the Jews than any Muslim peoples down the centuries.

Yet, the Muslim countries have been our Number One target since 1838 (First Afghan War to 1842, Wikipedia).

The Suez Crisis of 1956, when UK, France and Israel ganged up against Egypt to get back the Suez Canal under their ownership.  Even the United States was horrified and, with Russia, condemned it!

The overthrow of President Mosadeq of Iran over his nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.  We put in our own man - the Shah of Iran - to secure our influence and his country's co-operation with the Christian, freedom-loving, democratic upright West is Always Best.

The shooting down of the Iranian airbus by an American warship.  The Lockerbie downing of our American airliner followed later in the same year.  But we never learnt the lesson.  Never made the connection!

We Brits fought four wars in Afghanistan and failed to win decisive victories in a single one of the wars!

In the first, the entire mighty British Army was wiped out, apart from one very lucky survivor in 1842!

This century's fifth war, lasting twenty years, was catastrophic for the Afghans - even as we ignominiously sneaked out with our tails between our legs.  ("What are foreigners, like them, doing coming to the UK in small boats?  It should never be allowed."  After we messed up their land, too!!)

No wonder, after this despicable record of illegality and war crimes, Iran calls America and Israel the Great Satan.  Quite right, too.  I'm ashamed of my country's behaviour.

TIM WELLER