Challenging the rhetoric and the actions which underpin Nato. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Nato stands for bombed-out Afghan schools, not Obama grinning for photo-ops

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, explains why she has been protesting the arrival of the Nato Summit in Newport.

If you’ve been in Newport and Cardiff over the past week, you might have thought you’d entered a warzone.

As Nato warships drifted ominously into the harbour and US Osprey and Nighthawk helicopters thundered in the sky, above mile after mile of steel fencing, disgruntled residents were left taking to Twitter to complain about their desks shaking at work. "The amount of helicopters I have heard today makes it sound like we’re at war,” one said.

Here in the UK, we can view this dazzling array of weaponry with whimsy: with sardonic takes on social media.

But the sophistication of this security apparatus in Wales is a world away from the carnage in Afghanistan: a country left in ruins by a Nato-led force. Here, these same helicopters really do fly over a war zone. They fly over a country which has seen tens of thousands of its men, women and children killed. They fly over shattered institutions, a foundering security force, a state rocked to the point of collapse.

And that is what Nato stands for. It’s not Barack Obama grinning for a photo-op in a Newport school – it’s the bombed-out ruins of an Afghan school providing the only playground for local children.

Formed in 1949 as a "defensive" alliance, Nato prompted the creation of the Warsaw Pact. But while the end of the Cold War in 1990 may have meant the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, it was the beginning of a new era for Nato.

This "defensive" alliance decided to take on "out of area" operations. Sometimes "the best form of offence is defence", isn’t that how the saying goes? Defence through killing tens of thousands in Afghanistan? Defence through the bloody chaos in Libya, where militias compete in an all but lawless land? Few can now argue that these interventions have contributed anything to global security.

And of course there is Ukraine, which is set to be the primary item on the agenda at the Nato Summit in Newport. It is clear there is no military solution for the Ukraine crisis – from whatever quarter it comes. But few can deny that Nato’s insatiable expansion into eastern Europe has contributed to heightening tensions around Russia and Ukraine, raising the spectre of a new Cold War. Is it any surprise that Russia feels threatened? Do we really need to spell out how the US would react to a Russian-led military alliance pulling up at the border in Mexico?

For the past week, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has been working with partners in Europe and beyond to not only protest the arrival of the Nato Summit in Newport, but also to challenge the rhetoric and the actions which underpin it.

The No To Nato Counter-Summit was held in Cardiff and Newport last weekend. It saw peace campaigners and activists from across Europe, the US, and Russia come together to discuss alternatives and diplomatic routes towards true global security.

And the weight of the peace movement has been never been clearer. A potentially disastrous bombing campaign in Syria was averted last year, when more than a decade of protest against wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond hung heavily over the Parliamentary vote. A humiliated David Cameron was forced to abandon military action. The atrocities of the civil war in Syria are all too clear, but let’s not delude ourselves that bombing in favour of the rebels would have solved anything. Many of those who called for bombing in August 2013 are now telling us that we should be aligning with Assad to counter the barbarism of Islamic State. What a difference a year makes.

Back in Newport, the peace movement today prised open the gates of Fortress Nato. A delegation from the No To Nato protests was allowed through the steel fence to hand-in letters and messages of opposition to Nato. A symbolic act, of course, but one which shows the real strengths of the peace movement and its ability to actually shape politics in our country.

Tens of millions around the world oppose Nato’s interventionism, its expansionism and the fact that US/Nato nuclear weapons are hosted on European soil – in countries with staunchly anti-nuclear public opinion like Germany, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. It is only through persisting with campaigns which call for political solutions over military actions, for diplomacy over air strikes, and for peace not war, can we hope to achieve real and lasting global security.

Kate Hudson is general secretary of the CND

Getty.
Show Hide image

Just face it, being a parent will never be cool

Traditional parenting terms are being rejected in favour of trendier versions, but it doesn't change the grunt-like nature of the work.

My children call me various things. Mummy. Mum. Poo-Head. One thing they have never called me is mama. This is only to be expected, for I am not cool.

Last year Elisa Strauss reported on the rise of white, middle-class mothers in the US using the term “mama” as “an identity marker, a phrase of distinction, and a way to label the self and designate the group.” Mamas aren’t like mummies or mums (or indeed poo-heads). They’re hip. They’re modern. They’re out there “widen[ing] the horizons of ‘mother,’ without giving up on a mother identity altogether.” And now it’s the turn of the dads.

According to the Daily Beast, the hipster fathers of Brooklyn are asking their children to refer to them as papa. According to one of those interviewed, Justin Underwood, the word “dad” is simply too “bland and drab”:

“There’s no excitement to it, and I feel like the word papa nowadays has so many meanings. We live in an age when fathers are more in touch with their feminine sides and are all right with playing dress-up and putting on makeup with their daughters.”

Underwood describes “dad” as antiquated, whereas “papa” is an “open-minded, liberal term, like dad with a twist” (but evidently not a twist so far that one might consider putting on makeup with one’s sons).

Each to their own, I suppose. Personally I always associate the word “papa” with “Smurf” or “Lazarou.” It does not sound particularly hip to me. Similarly “mama” is a word I cannot hear without thinking of “Bohemian Rhapsody”, hence never without a follow-up “ooo-oo-oo-ooh!” Then again, as a mummy I probably have no idea what I am talking about. If other people think these words are trendy, no doubt they are.

Nonetheless, I am dubious about the potential of such words to transform parenting relationships and identities. In 1975’s Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich describes how she used to look at her own mother and think “I too shall marry, have children – but not like her. I shall find a way of doing it all differently.” It is, I think, a common sentiment. Rejecting mummy or daddy as an identity, if not as an individual, can feel much the same as rejecting the politics that surrounds gender and parenting. The papas interviewed by The Daily Beast are self-styled feminists, whose hands-on parenting style they wish to differentiate from that of their own fathers. But does a change of title really do that? And even if it does, isn’t this a rather individualistic approach to social change?

There is a part of me that can’t help wondering whether the growing popularity of mama and papa amongst privileged social groups reflects a current preference for changing titles rather than social realities, especially as far as gendered labour is concerned. When I’m changing a nappy, it doesn’t matter at all whether I’m known as Mummy, Mama or God Almighty. I’m still up to my elbows in shit (yes, my baby son is that prolific).

The desire to be known as Papa or Mama lays bare the delusions of new parents. It doesn’t even matter if these titles are cool now. They won’t be soon enough because they’ll be associated with people who do parenting. Because like it or not, parenting is not an identity. It is not something you are, but a position you occupy and a job you do.

I once considered not being called mummy. My partner and I did, briefly, look at the “just get your children to call you by your actual name” approach. On paper it seemed to make sense. If to my sons I am Victoria rather than mummy, then surely they’ll see me as an individual, right? Ha. In practice it felt cold, as though I was trying to set some kind of arbitrary distance between us. And perhaps, as far as my sons are concerned, I shouldn’t be just another person. It is my fault they came into this vale of tears. I owe them, if not anyone else, some degree of non-personhood, a willingness to do things for them that I would not do for others. What I am to them – mummy, mum, mama, whatever one calls it – is not a thing that can be rebranded. It will never be cool because the grunt work of caring never is.

It is not that I do not think we need to change the way in which we parent, but this cannot be achieved by hipster trendsetting alone. Changing how we parent involves changing our most fundamental assumptions about what care work is and how we value the people who do it. And this is change that needs to include all people, even those who go by the old-fashioned titles of mum and dad.

Ultimately, any attempt to remarket parenting as a cool identity smacks of that desperate craving for reinvention that having children instils in a person. The moment you have children you have bumped yourself up the generational ladder. You are no longer the end of your family line. You are – god forbid – at risk of turning into your own parents, the ones who fuck you up, no matter what they do. But you, too, will fuck them up, regardless of whether you do it under the name of daddy, dad or papa. Accept it. Move on (also, you are mortal. Get over it).

Parenting will never be cool. Indeed, humanity will never be cool. We’re all going to get older, more decrepit, closer to death. This is true regardless of whether you do or don’t have kids – but if you do you will always have younger people on hand to remind you of this miserable fact.

Your children might, if you are lucky, grow to respect you, but as far as they are concerned you are the past.  No amount of rebranding is going to solve that. This doesn’t mean we can’t change the way we parent. But as with so much else where gender is concerned, it’s a matter for boring old deeds, not fashionable words.

 

 

 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.