MEMES OVER GENES

UKRAINE: THE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL QUESTION " The fundamental moral question, " Elon Musk informs us, " is this: How many more years of death in trenches and billions of dollars of corruption do you want? " It's a good question: the war has been going on far too long. But fundamental? I beg to differ.  To begin with, it really isn't a moral question - it's a purely practical one. The conflict in Ukraine has plainly become a bottomless pit of lives and money - that's not in dispute. Whether the means used thus far to win the battle have been effective in terms of blood and treasure is certainly a question worth asking. But it's a question better answered by strategists and accountants than moralists. The question anyone concerned with moral issues should be asking is quite different: Is this a battle worth fighting ? That's the really fundamental question. Here the lines are clearer. What is Ukraine fighting for ? Is it fighting to obtain more ter...

  VIGILANCE IS WHAT WE NEED, NOT VIGILANTES " The price of liberty is eternal vigilance " is a famous phrase, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson  –  though it seems doubtful that he actually said it. But a similar sentiment has been repeated by many others since  –  perhaps no more powerfully than by the abolitionist  Wendell Phillips, who gave the proper  context for the expression  in a speech  to the  Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society  in 1852 : "(because) power is ever stealing from the many to the few ." And that is the story of human civilisation, right there. If all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then the only way to free ourselves from the atavistic law of the jungle  –  that "might is right" –  is to enact laws that restrict what those in power can do. Why does that matter? Because societies can only grow effectively through the open exchange of ideas in an environment free from fea...

  WHY ARE WE SLEEPWALKING INTO ARMAGEDDON? Russia's President Putin has now said that if NATO forces assist Ukraine by providing long-range missiles that can strike deep into Russia, it will mean the NATO allies are at war with Russia, and he will respond in kind. And without any other framing context, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and NATO has no business in getting involved beyond the ancient code of war: act in your own interest; might is right.  But in the context of war with Russia, this is the counsel of fools. Russia is a nuclear power, and although it has thus far hesitated to use nukes, there is no doubt it would do so if it ever felt its territory and defence capabilities were being seriously threatened. And even if the current conflict only continues on a tit-for-tat basis, NATO cannot defeat Putin without risking the ultimate option, and bringing on Armageddon. So why are they playing this dangerous game, one that cannot be won...

The signing of the UN Charter in San Francisco, on June 26, 1945 As Russia's invasion of Ukraine rolls into its second grim year, we should of course recognise and applaud the extraordinary efforts and sacrifice the Ukrainians have made in defending their country. If there is any glory to be had in such a brutal and unforgiving conflict, it most certainly belongs to them.  But we should also recognise and deplore what has not been achieved. Despite warm words of support, the international community has been dilatory in its response, and incremental in its actions. Russian aggression has not been stopped, and the war looks set to drag on, at great cost to Ukraine. Though buttressed by supplies of 'lethal aid' from the West, the Ukrainians have largely been left to fend for themselves. Their allies are not dirtying their boots on the ground.  If this were business as usual, just another regional squabble between neighbours over territory and resources, that might be understan...

Results of the UN General Assembly vote on the aggression against Ukraine, March 2, 2022 As social and mainstream media go into overdrive with ever more frenzied speculation about how the Ukraine crisis might best be resolved – or even just what could be sensibly done to help – there is one conspicuous absentee from the parameters of the discussion: the United Nations. Almost all the talk focusses on what response ‘the West’ or NATO might make, and under what circumstances, and yet to the extent that this would bring regional actors into conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, there's an understandable hesitance to press the case. And rightly so: neither the West nor NATO has any more right to take matters into their own hands than Russia does in invading Ukraine. That's important, because if we want to avoid escalating this into a full-scale war, we need to be clear about the rationale for making any intervention. Though a case can certainly be made that both the US and the UK...

The General Assembly of the United Nations adopting the 'Uniting For Peace'   Resolution 377 A (V), o n 3 November 1950 [Note: The following is an extract from the last chapter of my book  SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human , originally written with the terrible events of the Syrian Civil War in mind (another truly international crisis). However, it applies equally to what is happening now in Ukraine. Executive summary: The UN has the power, the means and the responsibility to stop the war in Ukraine. To do so would be an act of peace, not war.] The UN was set up with the best of intentions. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the victors of the struggle felt the need to do something to prevent another world war from ever happening. The UN Charter, the founding document of the United Nations, was created for that sole purpose, and 193 countries of the world are now signatories to a legal agreement, in which they pledge to “ maintain international peace and s...