Power Play

The US administration has a lot to answer for. I've just read Obama's status update on Facebook: "We have seized this opportunity to make the American people and the world more secure." Does anything here strike you as particularly odd? Perhaps not, but allow me to explain: The quote is in relation to the signing of a Treaty by 47 countries against the proliferation of nuclear arms. It is interesting to note how positive this quote seems when the reality is not a safer world, but one that is being aggravated into a corner by US foreign policy.

The problem is not the treaty in itself, which can definitely be seen to serve this purpose, rather it is in the countries, conspicuous only by their absence. Two countries which the US failed to bring to the table also happen to be the two countries with which nuclear-relations have always been problematic. Despite the fact that there is little evidence to suggest that Iran has been developing nuclear arms since its initial halt in 2003, there still seems to be some anti-Iranian play being made by the Obama administration the ends of which we cannot be certain of. However it is widely known that the National Intelligence Estimate conducted by the National Intelligence Council in the US deemed that Iran had ceased trying to develop nuclear weapons in 2003. These two pieces of information are seemingly at odds with one another: if the US believes their own intelligence then why omit Iran from the treaty negotiations?

The problems with North Korea's development of nuclear arms is the inability to bring them to bear over it. Who will tell them to stop? Would it not have been seen as less aggressive to invite North Korea to the table? Discuss the possibility of disarming or even down-scaling?

The US is playing a dangerous game here, one which could do far more harm than good. By singling out these two countries the US has done nothing but implicate them both as radical countries with nuclear arms. The thing is it doesn't even seem like a rational move? It doesn't seem plausible to suggest that even realists could explain this move. Is it some attempt to lash out at Iran which by the US account have done nothing wrong? Even if this is so is it still seems an irrational move. What power basis is to be gained by making the situation worse with these countries? Surely the rational move is not to isolate your enemies but bring them closer so that their dealing are more transparent.

It seems as though Obama, far from being a saviour of American foreign policy, is adding to the problem much like his predessor. Also this treaty far from being an "opportunity to make the American people and the world more secure" is more a sign of the dangers to come.

Judge not lest ye be judged

There are few topics of note that have generated as much controversy as the child abuse scandal in in Ireland. The simple hypocrisy of the whole story has changed the way Irish people view their priests and to an extent, the Catholic Church itself. These revelations have done nothing to stop the numbers flocking to have their kids confirmed or baptised as Catholics all the same.

We can talk around the Rome situation in Ireland all day. The reality is the Catholic Church had far too much influence and power in the origins of the state for the humble people of our nation to make any kind of choice. So instead of hating the church for its abuses, not just against children but also the mistreatment of young pregnant women, we enshrine it as something to be proud of, something to make us different from those Protestant Queen loving Brits. There seems to be something inherently wrong with the idea of hating a people whose ancestors committed crimes doubtless, but we have more time for an institution that has committed heinous crimes in the here and now. No surprises.

Furthermore is the decision not to prosecute the guilty but rather let the Church deal with them in their own manner. If these crimes had been committed by any other member of society we would be quick to throw them in jail and keep them on file as committed sex offenders. If these were church leaders from any denomination we would have no problem condemning them and the religion they served under. It's a disgrace that the Irish government has taken this cowardly decision to let be. And what has become of the men accused? They have been moved to another parish, not treated, not kept in isolation. They have served no time for their crimes. There is no justice for their victims.

And what answer to the sinners bring forward? The Catholic Church have stopped short of issuing a full apology to the people it has terrorised. Instead it has labelled the incidents as related to homosexuality which the Church currently condemns as a sin. So instead of taking the blame, perhaps realising that it's antiquated laws forbiding members of the clergy to marry, the Church has blamed its abuses on sexuality. Considering there is no link between the paedophilia and homosexuality it seems as though the Church is doing all it can to place the blame anywhere but on itself.

It is the book of the Church that will hold them accountable for their actions as it seems the government cannot. On the last day they will be judged for the crimes they have committed and the abuses they have hidden.

More of the Same

It recently came to my attention that US involvement in Afganistan is using Rock music with a view to forcing the Taliban from hiding. Actions such as these are not new: as former inmates of Guantanamo Detention Camp have been eager to tell us. But what we can garner from this is that there is still a disrespect for the music and the writers inherent in the US armed forces.

Will playing this music help end the war on terror? If so should it be allowed?

There is evidence to suggest that playing music, particularly of the metal variety, at loud volumes does have an impact on people. However as this is used as a form of torture in certain detention camps worldwide should there not be a limitation to which it should be used? The Guardian refer to civilians being in the direct vacinity of the din: is the US winning the war on terror here or just creating more sympathy for the Taliban movement. A country that will resort to any means to deal with a terrorist cell surely only aids the cause - this can be seen in the rise in support for the IRA in post 1916 Ireland. The fact that this method is currently being used as a form of torture too only adds to its negative connotations as we can assume if producer, method and means are the same, then the expected result must correlate.

The use of music with subliminal messaging during the various wars the US has waged has created a divide in the industry. Now, music with pro-war leanings is reserved to Governments and pseudo-facist conservatives while the rest remains independent, critical and free-thinking. The use of Metallica, Thin Lizzy and at worst Rage Against the Machine not only undermines this, but undermines the ability of individuals everywhere to have their music expressed in a fashion that is not contradictory to the purpose intended. As there is a violation of freedom of speech in some respects, perhaps our American friends, so fond of this freedom, can cease this torturous habit.

Despite the assurances of some army officials that this policy will stop, there seems to be little hope on the horizon that this form of abuse will end. More of the same.