Syria: to war or not to war?

"While the Labour whips were applauding, laughing and cheering Miliband in their office, Assad napalmed a school. Yeah, very funny stuff."

This statement, from former Conservative MP Louise Mensch on Twitter, sums up the general feeling in Britain about the potential war on Syria. It has become, not a war against President Assad, but a war between Miliband and Cameron. His view is that Assad’s actions are war crimes, and need to be dealt with. Miliband’s views are the same, but he feels Britain should learn from the mistakes of Iraq: we can’t keep fighting the Middle East, the consequences are too dangerous.  So both men agree that Assad is wrong in using chemical weapons, and something needs to be done about it. However, Miliband feels Britain should not be bullied into acting in the same way as the USA, so blocked Cameron and weakened the PM’s reputation. Now, Britain will play no part in Obama’s upcoming intervention in the Syrian conflict. Is this the right outcome?

New York Daily News front page, 30th August 2013

The American press was clearly shocked by the news that Britain would not engage in military strikes on Syria, as seen on the front page of yesterday’s New York Daily News (above). Many commentators believe this signals the end of the “special relationship” between Britain and the US and the front page of The Sun this morning certainly repeated that belief (below).

The Sun front page, 31st August 2013

However, should British focus be on David Cameron or Ed Miliband, or should we be paying more attention to President Assad and Barack Obama? As Louise Mensch pointed out, while the British government was wrapped up in its own domestic politics, this international crisis was growing even more horrific. John Kerry, US Secretary of State, announced that estimates of Assad’s victims have now reached 1,429 people, 426 of those being children. This means that now more than 100,000 people are believed to have been killed in Syria since the conflict began in March 2011. As Kerry announced, the US is to push ahead with fighting “this crime against conscience, this crime against humanity”. It looks as it France will offer support, although Obama’s actions will be, in his own words, “a limited, narrow act” and will involve no boots on the ground. Importantly though, Obama has assured the world that he will continue his fight against Syria. Whether this is the best move or not remains to be seen. As the Daily Mail announced to Britain today that “Obama plans to blitz Syria without us”, all we can do is wait and see what happens.

A recent photo from Syria showing children killed by the chemical attacks.

I hope that Cameron will do his best to aid the situation in Syria. As the photo above shows, the conflict has reached the point where something must be done: Assad’s actions are very clearly war crimes. However, I am equally pleased that Britain will not offer military support in the campaign. Perhaps Labour is right, perhaps we should learn lessons from our past mistakes in the Middle East – we have fought dangerous dictators before and not always returned victorious. Assad may be a horrific tyrant, but is the answer to the problem really military strikes, or will this simply incur more unnecessary deaths of innocent people? David Cameron said he recognised that the British public did not want war with Syria, even though the disturbing, upsetting images and videos circulating the internet are particularly moving.

Moreover, should the Syrian problem be a political one or a humanitarian one? Did Miliband focus too much on ruining Cameron to see that the bigger problem was the loss of thousands of innocent lives? This argument is convincing but so is Miliband’s – why should we always do as the Americans do? Will the planned military strikes on Syria end Assad’s crimes or simply provoke him and increase them?

This post is full of questions, because I don’t know what I think. It is true that we have an already struggling economy that does not need to spend money on foreign policy like this. It is true that America can cope without us, and leaving them to face Assad alone does not make us suddenly enemies. It is true that we, the British people, do not want war with Syria.

However, it is equally true that while we are concentrating on Cameron’s ruined reputation, the death toll in Syria is still increasing. At times like these, I cannot help but remember Amnesty International’s Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1: “Everyone has the right to life”. Perhaps the USA has it right. Assad is a murderous thug who should be stopped, and perhaps he can be. I hope, for Syria’s sake, that Obama doesn’t need us, and his actions will put an end to this global crisis. And won’t Ed Miliband look silly then.

Farmers: literally feeding the future

Congratulations are in order for Ian Pigott, Hertfordshire farmer and opinion writer for the ‘Farmer’s Weekly’. As a farmer’s daughter myself I spend a lot of time reading the ‘Farmer’s Weekly’ over my breakfast, although as a self-confessed ‘townie’, it is rare that I have something to say on the matters that arise. However, Mr Pigott’s article in the latest magazine, published 16^th August 2013, was full of the eloquent anger and contained despair that I felt regarding the same topic. It was time to make my voice heard.

Mr Pigott laments the way that farmers are still, in 2013, treated with “condescension and curiosity”, and held in similar regard to a circus monkey. He had come across an article in a well-known broadsheet about the success of Tyrell’s crisps, and was disappointed to find that the author of the article, financial editor James Quinn, had concluded his piece, “not bad for the son of a potato farmer”. I too find issue with this comment as it suggests that the sons of potato farmers, or indeed any farmers, are expected to achieve very little, and although Mr Quinn almost certainly did not mean to cause offense with his comment, it is particularly disparaging to the farming community.

As Mr Pigott points out, farmers’ sons have shaped our world: Jethro Tull, Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, Norman Borlaug, Henry Ford and Johnny Cash – just a few famous names who have influenced our world, and all came from a farming background.

So why are the children of farmers not expected to do well? Or, more importantly, why are they not celebrated for what they do well? I don’t think it is just Will Chase, founder of Tyrrells crisps, who has made something from a farming background. Whether they have continued the family farm, established their own business, or branched into new enterprises, every single farmer’s son or daughter should be celebrated. Farming is essential to our world. We cannot feed our children without hard-working farmers, and Mr Quinn would do well to remember that.

Mr Pigott, on the other hand, should be praised for his dedication to future farmers. As the founder of Open Farm Sunday, he is clearly passionate about promoting farming, and so he should be. The National Federation of Young Farmers’ Club goes from strength to strength and as former JLS band member Jonathan ‘JB’ Gill recently announced he is to start farming upon his retirement from the band, farming might be seen, finally, as the rewarding, enjoyable job it is.

As a farmer’s daughter myself, I hope that whatever I do for a living, I remember and stand up for my roots and my farming background. It’s time that farmers were taken seriously. The view that farming is a backward profession for peasant families is one that, hopefully, should be long gone. Farmers nowadays are entrepreneurs, biologists, chemists, vets, engineers, managers, buyers, sellers, presenters, and in the case of Mr Pigott, journalists. While the uniform might not be as clean and the coffee not out of a Starbucks takeaway cup, farmers deserve the same amount of respect as their journalist peers. Mr Quinn should be ashamed of himself as he conforms to old-fashioned, out of date stereotypes about farmers. Maybe if he had done a bit more research on “Will Chase, Herefordshire farmer”, he would have seen farming as it really is in 2013: a community of men and women with incredibly diverse skills, proud of their heritage and their farming ancestors.

The Modern Monarchy: Will It Survive?

As leading royal historian David Starkey noted as soon as baby George was born, the royal family is adapting. He believes, even hopes, that when Charles is King, the House of Windsor will be a smaller, tighter unit. Starkey celebrates the new royals, for their staunch support of tradition as well as a refreshing commitment to change. The updated succession laws mean that there is no longer any need for a large extended family, and the glamour of Kate, William and baby George has only added to the revival of public interest in the royals.

I believe, as do many, that this interest was sparked by Diana, Princess of Wales. The people’s princess, she epitomised timeless style, charisma and compassion. Dancing with John Travolta, picking her way through potential active landmines, and speaking to the press with that characteristic honesty that so irritated Buckingham Palace, Diana was the first ‘real’ royal. She was beautiful, fragile, stubborn and human. Her marriage broke down like countless others, and she spoke frankly of her battle with depression. Her infamous comments about her “crowded” marriage of three people – referring to Charles’ love for Camilla Parker-Bowles – helped form the public opinion that is so positive towards Diana and her sons, and often frosty towards Charles, with whom the public appear to have adopted a ‘forgive but don’t forget’ policy.

When Catherine Middleton, known affectionately to us all as Kate, stepped onto the scene, opinion was initially unsure, perhaps a little wary of this newcomer, but as she stepped out of hospital with her baby son cradled in her arms, she must have felt herself the wave of love and warmth generated by the crowds of well-wishers. She was quite clearly the public’s new favourite, exuding the glamour we had all craved since Diana, and her dresses, often affordable, high street designs, prove this as they still sell out immediately after she wears them. It is clear to anyone that today’s Great Britain belongs to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge; like Mo Farah or Clare Balding, they are seen to epitomise our nation, and represent everything that is great about Great Britain.

The big question, therefore, is will the monarchy survive? Has it seen it’s hey-day, or will a public desire for tradition keep it afloat for many years to come? Peter Hitchens, in the Comment section of The Mail on Sunday, writes that “the Windsors will be history soon”, and his argument is convincing. He points out that no political party supports the monarchy, few still hold on to the idea that the monarchy is divinely chosen, and many countries in Europe are now governed as republics: a monarchy appears to be a dying breed. The Queen is, as Hitchens puts it, “the nation’s favourite grandma”, but writes that this popularity is personal to her, and will not pass on to Charles. I find that here, I have to agree with him. Kate, William and the new baby, with their personal family portraits taken by grandfather Michael Middleton, are popular enough now, but for how long? Will the Great British public tire of the monarchy soon, and will the whole institution, as Hitchens believes, come to an end?

Like Hitchens, I am a keen monarchist, but possibly, although the arrival of George Alexander Louis of Cambridge is the start of a new chapter for the royal family, it is one in which they feature less and less. In 2012 we all celebrated with the royals the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, but as for the next 60 years, we will have to wait and see. Will the monarchy survive the next decade, the next century? We cannot be sure right now, but what can be seen is that opinion appears to be mixed: we love our royals, but can we see, in them, a bright and shining Great British future?

Tales of a tourist

Managing Madrid with Spanish limited to merely sí, no, and gracias should have been tricky, but I found the Spanish to be incredibly friendly and helpful, and often just pointing at a map or stumbling over the impossible-to-properly-pronounce place names was enough for me to find the tourist destination we were headed for! Credit to the Spanish for their willingness to help, even when their English is just as bad as my Spanish.

My time in Madrid saw visits to the Estadio Santiago Bernabéu, home of arguably the best football club in the world: Real Madrid (their claim, not mine!). It was particularly impressive, even for a non-football fan! Also worth a visit if you are ever popping by was the Palacio Real, the Buckingham Palace of Madrid and although the royal family prefer not to live there, the palace is often open for official state occasions. The beautiful décor and rich history were fascinating, and everyone loves pretending to be a royal princess/prince for the day, no?

Finally, a must-see in Madrid is the Museo del Prado. Free entry weekday evenings meant the queue left me a bit dizzy but two hours later and it was the rooms and rooms of art making my head spin. Quick apology to any serious art lovers, I’m no art critic, but personal favourites included:

El jardin de las delicias (The Garden of Earthly Delights), El Bosco (Bosch)

 

 

I half hoped that I would be the woman to finally crack the secret of this painting, but when I arrived at it, it was clear there was no chance! A small crowd had developed around this masterpiece – the first time I have ever seen a crowd in an art gallery, famed for being such open, empty spaces! – and the complex painting left me reeling. Rich in colour and full of life, this painting is surely better described as a labyrinth, but I instantly knew why it has been loved, and will be loved, forever.

Pinturas negras (The 14 Black Paintings) especially Perro semihundido (The Dog), Francisco de Goya

Painted when in Goya’s last years, these paintings depict an artist troubled by a fear of insanity, demise and impending death, with a particularly bleak outlook on life. The lightest of all these very dark and disturbing paintings, it is the lightness, and the choice of such a ‘happy’, bright colour for the background, that makes this painting, for me, the most unsettling of them all. What appears to be just a dog and is only revealed by its title, I still cannot decide whether I love this painting or hate it, and hate Goya for painting something so horrifically desolate and disquieting.

The Agony in the Garden, Titian

 

In all four of the apostle’s gospels, they write that moments before he was seized by Roman soldiers, Christ spent time praying in an orchard on the Mount of Olives with his friends. Usually this image includes Christ in the foreground, but Titian places him at the top of the painting, below him only darkness – it is hard to make out the rest of the painting. This type of painting is known as a ‘nocture’, where there are few, highlighted light sources, and was a very popular type of painting in the 16th century, when Titian completed this work. The pain and suffering of Christ is depicted in the darkness of the painting, where he is a beacon of hope and future happiness as the only light source in the image.

The Three Graces, Peter Paul Rubens

 

 

These three women represent Aglaia, Euphrosine and Thalia, who, according to Hesiod’s Theogony, were pure virgins born of one of Zeus’ affairs and living with the gods. For me, this painting is full of life, and quite clearly represents the artist’s state of mind at the time he painted it: having recently married, Rubens was feeling particularly in love, and the figure on the left bears resemblance to Hélène Forment, his second wife. The classical suggestions and warm colours make this painting very different to Goya’s troubled black paintings, but equally as beautiful.

Professor Stephen Hawking and orange juice

The inspiration for this blog came, I suppose, from the following quote, made famous by the legendary Professor Stephen Hawking:

‘Look up at the stars, and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious.’

Though not much of a scientist, I liked the idea of knowing more than what was easy, safe and accessible information. I believe that to be curious, to be interested, is to be interesting. I dare you to look up, right now. If it’s a ceiling you see – stare at it. Notice a pattern you hadn’t seen before, or just enjoy the simplicity of nothing. If you are outside, even better! Wonder about the clouds. Maybe you know how they are made; maybe you couldn’t care a bit, but enjoy them. When I originally wrote this, on pen and paper (due to limited Wi-Fi access on holiday!), it was late afternoon in Madrid and the sky was simply stunning. Bright blue, with clouds – not too many, not too few – slowly passing me by. And I felt like the luckiest girl alive, just because of the view. But let’s not get too sentimental – my friends say it’s bad for me...

The Professor Hawking quote was introduced to me by my secondary school Headmaster, who was quite clearly equally influenced by it, as he used it on several occasions. I hope you too, wherever and whoever you are, feel that you have the ability to be curious. It makes the world so much more fun!

If I am honest, the short term cause of this blog was a glass of orange juice. Random, I know. But I am a huge fan of orange juice and this glass surpassed every other glass of the stuff I have ever had. It was fresh orange juice from Café Pino, and for the first time in my life, the juice tasted like real oranges! It went straight onto my list of the best foods I have ever tasted, which reads: my sister’s homemade raspberry cheesecake, any cake my mum makes except coffee and walnut (sorry mum!), pink lemonade from an American-style restaurant in Singapore, and the grilled chicken sandwich and chocolate fudge cake for pudding from the Blue Beach restaurant, Cyprus.

The reason that the orange juice is the cause of this blog, more to the point, is that I remarked to my mum and aunt that I felt like I needed to share this amazing orange juice with the world(!) and my aunt replied, Why didn’t I start a travel blog? And I suppose that I realised that I had to start blogging, and I had to start soon. For years I have blamed exams and coursework for my online absence, but having left school now, and with no holiday homework, I finally have the time to blog, and so… Here goes! This is start of my blog, and it is very exciting and very scary at the same time.

To the few people who have read this, thank you for helping make my dreams come true. My first words are now yours to enjoy, and thank you for taking the time to be curious with me.

God bless

x