Sunday 17 August 2008

The Left-Right Alliance For Peace Takes Shape

Peter Hitchens has a stormingly good column all round this week, but particularly important, coming as it does from the Right, is this:

I like Georgia. I like Georgians and their superb hospitality. I have several times travelled to that beautiful country. But I wouldn’t lift a finger to save it from the Russians.

What cause would we be serving? Democracy? Ha ha.

This Olympically corrupt statelet is not a law-governed democracy. President Mikheil Saakashvili’s nauseatingly named Rose Revolution was a putsch achieved by an orchestrated mob, followed by an election so shamelessly one-sided that our supposed hero got 96 per cent of the vote.

The only excuse for this was that previous elections had been rigged, too, which of course they had.

American-trained he may be, but his opponents and critics fall victim to blatantly Soviet-style methods of intimidation. He is also adept at bombastic propaganda.

Do we really want young men from the Midlands of England and the Lowlands of Scotland fighting and dying for years to come to save this dubious creature from his own unhinged, wilful conflict with the Kremlin?

You might think not, but David Cameron is all for it. In an amazing demonstration of unfitness for office, the Tory leader last week wrote one of the daftest articles I have ever seen.

He wants Georgia to be allowed into Nato, so committing this country to come to Georgia’s defence if it is attacked. He wants to do the same for Ukraine.

Will someone send this man an atlas and a history book? When will our political class stop trying to grow hairs on their teenage chests by starting wars and deploying forces we no longer have?

Why should we get entangled in this? What business is it of ours if Russia wants friends and allies on its borders, rather than a weird Nato alliance, kept on life-support long after it triumphantly achieved its purpose. What is Nato for now? Does anybody know? If they know, will they say?

No doubt some half-educated twerp will now accuse me of appeasement. There is certainly plentiful appeasement going on now – of the Provisional IRA and of the European Union.

But Britain has no interests in following American adventures in the Caucasus, let alone taking sides over the dangerous future of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin is not Hitler – or Stalin. As for Neville Chamberlain, the stupidest thing he ever did was to promise to defend Poland, when he knew we couldn’t and wouldn’t do so.

When our bluff was called we were dragged by an unstable, rackety ally into a war we weren’t ready for and very nearly lost.

Who plays that part today?

15 comments:

  1. Is Peter Hitchens aware of and supporting the British People's Alliance, then? This is excellent news!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aware, yes. Supporting, you'd have to ask him.

    This is exactly one of the two parties for the re-emergence of which he has been calling for some years. And there is absolutely no sign of the other one - pro-life, pro-family, anti-war, morally and socially conservative, and British and Commonwealth patriotic, but not pro-worker or economically social democratic.

    At least in the (guaranteed) absence of that other, I am sure (and I am not just guessing here) that he will give us very favourable coverage in the run-up to the next Election.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What does favourable coverage mean? Does this mean we will get a substantial discussion in a column of the BPA? Can you guarantee this if you're sure? And what will that mean if you don't get any such coverage?

    ReplyDelete
  4. [Czechoslovakia]... that faraway country of which we know little...' [Neville Chamberlain]

    The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier [Otto von Bismarck]

    Do we really want young men from the Midlands of England and the Lowlands of Scotland fighting and dying for years to come to save this dubious creature from his own unhinged, wilful conflict with the Kremlin? [Peter Hitchens]

    Some things never change. How long before we can expect articles about how the Crimea was a foolish, pointless, unwinnable war?

    ReplyDelete
  5. They all had a point.

    Rob, all that no coverage would prove is that we do not write his column. Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  6. So favourable coverage doesn't mean a mention in his column then? Strange. Does it mean mention on his blog?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, we shall see, shan't we.

    You really are going to have to do better than this, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not quite sure what you mean. You said "I am sure (and I am not just guessing here) that he will give us very favourable coverage in the run-up to the next Election"

    I'm just asking what that means. I assumed you had a specific purpose outcome in mind when you wrote it. You seem to be strangely reluctant to elaborate on this, now challenged, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I said, we shall see. This is not the time or place for such details.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "This is not the time and place for details" - then why did you mention it here in the first place?!

    It's really very simple. You boasted that Peter Hitchens would give you good coverage. I'm asking what that will be. You're now not saying. Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Roll on the end of the school holidays.

    This sort of unsupervised teenage Internet use is irresponsible parenting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How do you know Rob is a teenager? Why are you just attacking him rather than answering his polite question (which I'd also quite like to know, please?)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Have you and Rob simply never been politically active, or have you just bought into the current fantasy that everything happens on the Internet?

    Anyway, I will not be putting up any more comments that are not about the wise words of Peter Hitchens as reproduced here.

    I once told him to his face that he was really Old Labour trying to get out. He didn't disagree. Way out on the Far, Far Right (including from time to time in comments on his blog), they say the same thing. But they don't intend it as a compliment.

    And they do tend to go on about his brief youthful Trotskyism, which could not be further from the point. Unlike some, he has clearly changed his views. Which is why he is not rabidly anti-Russian, unlike some when they were young Trots, and unlike some now that they are old Trots.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please, one more question (I'm not being rude, I'm really just trying to find out). I assume from your latest response that Peter Hitchens won't be giving you written support - that's fine, I understand your point that not everything happens that way.

    Presumably then he will be giving some kind of face to face support, maybe canvassing of the type that senior politicans do (which is to say photo op, quick door knock, smile etc)? I can't imagine he'll be phoning people on your behalf, and simply mentioning your party to the people he sees face to face wouldn't really be an effective use of his time because even as a famous national journalist, the people he meets will still be quite small in sheer numerical terms.

    Is that face to face canvassing type of thing what you had in mind then? Sounds great! I look forward to seeing the photos on your party literature. I do think, seriously, that a photo of the two of you together could sway quite a few people.

    ReplyDelete