CHAT FORUMS
GENERAL CHAT
THE CELLAR
LOCAL AFFAIRS
OPEN DEBATE
CCFC. CHAT
LOST FRIENDS
PC HELP FORUM
ARCHIVES
EDITORIALS
WRITER'S CORNER
COVENTRY HISTORY
CENTURY CHRONICLE
WORLD STORIES
POET'S CORNER
HUMOUR
WEIRD STORIES
WORLD RECIPES
PHOTOGRAPHY
LOCAL PHOTOS
POSTCARDS
ROGUE'S GALLERY
PET'S PITCH
HOBBY CORNER
THE COV-CLUB
COV-CLUB MEMBERS
JOIN THE COV-CLUB
COV. WEB REPORTS
CCFC REPORT
YOUR COVENTRY VIEWS
HISTORY ARTICLES
GUEST DEBATE WRITER
COVENTRY LINKS
COVENTRY LINKS

BUSINESS
COBWEBS DESIGN
COVENTRY WEB
ABOUT COV-WEB
COV-WEB REPORTS


Back to Stephen Brookes Column Index



Stephen Brookes and The Gulf Between us.

By: Stephen Brookes MBE

WHILE war still rages in Iraq , and as the first of my written thoughts on the conflict, I have a few ideas to share with you, as the talk from the Prime Minister is that this time around we will not let the people of Iraq down and leave them stranded and alone, as we did before.

I can only hope that he doesn't start promoting these new promises through his media spin team: we all know to our cost what happened to some of the promises made to the people about Health Services, Taxation and Human Rights by Tony Blair over recent years. Since he wasn't either able or willing to deliver on them, let's hope the people of Iraq have better luck.

There is also much talk from the Prime Minister of the need for a new world order to be established, which I find a strange comment: what does a new world order really mean and whose world order will it be in any event? I fear that it will be Bush’s world order. And that I fear will be a flawed order, based on McDonaldisation. In any event, the America view of a new world order is somewhat different to that which would be conceived by those in the UK or the rest of Europe. America will in the end do whatever suits America.

Of course, there is nothing new in this call: we have heard it all before. I'm convinced that after every major war or world crisis since time began, the call has always been for a new start, with the promise that this time we will get it right and the tragic events of recent years, months or days will never happen again.

A new world order was promised after the First World War, but within 20 years Europe was plunged yet again into war, and the much vaunted League of Nations perished in the dust of Spain and Poland.

We were given in 1945, by the Big Three, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin a new hope, The United Nations, and there was no problem in establishing it, but it is not just getting everyone to agree to it and sign up to it, but getting people to live up to it! Unfortunately, it's just not possible, because we are deeply flawed creatures, and our nature in the end will lead us to mess things up. In the final analysis, we want to do it our own way rather than comply with some master plan. And the Iraq conflict has done just that. Drive a hole through the United Nations hopes of unity. For from now, any nation which disagrees doesn’t need a veto, it just sidesteps and goes to war. I fear that the present United Nations is as dead as the League of Nations.

Realistically, although I am sad about the state of the UN, I have no great problem with its partial demise because, now, we all have to fight our own corner, but I do object to anyone telling me that all our problems will be sorted out by a new world order and the question that must be asked is this: Does the call for another new world order come because we, the people, need it or because Tony Blair needs to save face both in Europe and at the revised United Nations? Or because the two leaders want to own the ball and the playground. And didn’t someone called Hitler want to do this same thing?

© Steve Brookes MBE
Copyright © - Stephen Brookes MBE 2002 - All rights reserved


Disclaimer
The article above is solely the written view of Stephen Brookes.

Back to top of page

Copyright © Coventry Web 2000 - 2001 All rights reserved
Web Design by Cobwebs