Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Go on, boycott America

Peter Wilby

Published 27 August 2009

. . . on Lockerbie, knighthoods and the futility of Richard Dawkins

As it happens, I think Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was innocent of the Lockerbie bombing. But that is beside the point. The Scottish justice system thinks he is guilty. Unless you want to avoid the truth coming out during an appeal or to ingratiate yourself with Colonel Gaddafi, therefore, the arguments for the Libyan's release are weak.

You show compassion to mass murderers by treating them humanely in prison and offering them medical treatment. Allowing them a "good death", surrounded by their nearest and dearest, naturally hurts the victims' relatives, who never had a chance to say a formal farewell.

But what seems most astonishing is that British politicians failed to anticipate al-Megrahi's welcome in Tripoli. To most Libyans, he is the victim of an enormous miscarriage of justice. Compare his reception to the welcome we give hostages released from the Middle East. Or compare it to the parades for soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, taking part in wars and occupations that have killed far more civilians than died in the Lockerbie bombing. Whether Libyans think al-Megrahi is innocent or guilty, they are bound to regard him as a hero. Our politicians seem to lack any understanding of how Arabs and Muslims view the world in general and us in particular.

One can think of many reasons to boycott American goods: for example, the country's record of bombing and invading other countries; its support for violent attempts to overthrow left-wing governments; its use of torture and illegal detention; the support (among a large section of its population, including some leading politicians) for the IRA during its bombing campaign. But anyone who proposed such a boycott would be accused of diehard, irrational, unforgivable anti-Americanism. Now, after the release of al-Megrahi, some Americans want to boycott Scottish goods. The French received similar threats when they declined to support the Iraq invasion. President Obama has only partially lifted the embargo on Cuba: yet the cold war ended 20 years ago and the regime, while tyrannical, is hardly the worst on the planet.

Americans can be extraordinarily vengeful when crossed. They expect the deference that imperial powers usually receive from their subjects. I see no reason to revise my advice to readers in a leader for this magazine in 2003: "Nobody should apologise for being anti-American . . . wear the badge with pride."

***
I see Richard Dawkins has written yet another book, this time defending evolution and comparing creationists to Holocaust-deniers. I shall not be reading it. I do not see the point of Dawkins. Has anybody ever been persuaded to renounce God or dismiss Genesis as a pack of lies by reading Dawkins? I suspect his books are bought almost exclusively by those who already agree with him.

In the mid-1990s, when I was editor of the Independent on Sunday, Dawkins offered to write a demolition of astrology and horoscopes. Since the pending issue was on New Year's Eve and Dawkins is always a sellable name, I commissioned and published it. Never had I seen such esoteric knowledge, scientific rigour, polemical power and fine writing wasted on such flimsy targets. No doubt IoS readers enjoyed the piece, but I'd be surprised if a single one thought anything like "Well, knock me down with a feather duster! I always thought horoscopes were absolutely reliable. Now, thanks to Dawkins, I know better."

Dawkins does not understand that, at least in Europe and America, people read horoscopes because they are fun. Similarly, they cling to God and the creation myth because they are comforting, and provide a simpler, less counter-intuitive explanation for the world than evolution. Dawkins's mastery of rational argument did not put astrologers out of business and will not shut the churches either.

I know lots of people who read horoscopes, but none who act as though they believe them. Nor do I know any churchgoers who act as though they believe in the Bible. That point was brought home to me by a statistic that emerged from the heated debate over Obama's health service reforms: almost half of all American health-care spending occurs in the last year of the patient's life. I would guess that the figure for spending in the NHS is similar. Yet most Americans still claim faith in God and go to church regularly. If they take Christianity literally, this earthly existence should surely be unimportant to them. My grasp of theology is imperfect but I would have thought that, instead of struggling to hold on to this mortal coil,
they should be preparing themselves for divine judgement or looking forward to paradise.

***

Will Andrew Flintoff get a knighthood, as Ian Botham did? I hope not. Flintoff has turned in some fine performances for England, particularly in 2005, but his overall record is mediocre, largely because he took so long to recognise that sporting achievement requires discipline and dedication. Botham was one of the great all-rounders in cricket history who, in the Ashes series of 1981, three times conjured victory from a seemingly hopeless situation.

Botham never received the adulation from England fans that Flintoff enjoys. This was probably because he lacked Flintoff's winning smile and his cuddly, giant teddy-bear qualities. Moreover, he was associated with cannabis in Lincolnshire, adultery and punch-ups in Australia and insults in Pakistan, which he described as a place where mothers-in-law should be sent. But we should not forget the hundreds of miles Botham walked to raise funds for charity, nor the solidarity with his Somerset teammate Viv Richards which persuaded him to spurn lucrative offers to play in apartheid South Africa.

Flintoff has cultivated a laddish image that allows him to pose as the people's hero. I suspect the big difference is that the PR advice to cricketers is now more sophisticated than it was in Botham's time.

Peter Wilby was editor of the New Statesman from 1998-2005

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

7 comments from readers

Gerry Myer
27 August 2009 at 11:01

Classic Wilby, spot on with each of his 3 topics (although I cannot share his enthusiasm for leather on willow).

It is unlikely that Kenny McAskill would have released Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had his guilt been in no doubt. At worst al-Megrahi was but a cog in the wheel of a guilty group and was made a whipping boy for Colonel Gaddafi; at best the PanAm atrocity was not a Libyan plot. Americans never learn; it is precisely because they try to influence, dominate and exploit everything on this planet that they are so loathed by much of the world.

Question: How many NS readers can name the man who in 1988 brought down an airliner following its normal route on a scheduled flight, so killing 290 passengers? Here’s a clue: when he returned to his native land he was welcomed as a hero. Answer: Captain William C. Rogers, the irresponsible and incompetent c/o of USS Vincennes.

Whilst I believe that the harm done by religious beliefs throughout the world far outweighs the good and that, more than any other factor, religious bigotry is likely to precipitate a premature end to our species, I am invariably disappointed by Richard Dawkins’ TV performances which must be much less effective in affecting public attitudes to religion than is the derision for such superstitions expressed in the media by entertainers and comedians.

Paddy Patterson
30 August 2009 at 16:31

"I do not see the point of Dawkins."

Dawkins gives lots of useful data and reasoned arguments in his books.

TJ_Lives
31 August 2009 at 17:07

While there is indeed a tiny handful of Americans who are members of "boycott scotland" facebook groups or have vocalised their anger at the UK on the boycott scotland website, I think you'll find it is a tiny fringe minority who have no influence on any political leaders or society at large. In fact, you'll find that a significant majority of the members of "boycott scotland" facebook groups have only joined to deride those who support anti-scottish measures being taken. Certainly no publications such as the New Statesmen are being used as pulpits for xenophobia in the United States.

After a formal investigation it was decided that Captain Rogers acted in a prudent manner based on the information available to him, and the short time frame involved. Maybe you don't agree with this verdict, but I doubt that most of us have been in a position where other men's lives have hinged on our ability to be quick and decisive. Additionally, his family's mini-van was blown up with a pipe bomb less than a year afterwards.

Regarding Dawkins and religion: When he gives an anti-religion speech in Mecca, he will have my respect. Until then he is no better than any ayatollah who seeks to force his views on others.

Gerry Myer
01 September 2009 at 11:35

The”formal investigation” to which T J Lives refers was a whitewash described by Newsweek magazine as ‘a pastiche of omissions, half-truths and downright deceptions’ following its own independent probe. Newsweek’s description of ‘an overeager captain, panicked crewmen and a cover-up’ fits well with the view of the behaviour of the Vincennes held by Captain David Carlson, c/o of the nearby USS Sides, who had witnessed previous examples of Roger’s hot-headed actions. The relevance of T J Lives’ comment about Captain Roger’s mini van escapes me. Unfortunately T J appears to be a stereotypical Yank whose mantra is “My Country, right or wrong, My Country”, a genre particularly common in states such as Wyoming. The double standard is their bread and butter.

TJ_Lives
01 September 2009 at 16:37

I take offense to the term "Yank" and have never set foot in Wyoming in my life.

I never once said "my country, right or wrong, etc." but your philosophy of "blame America, no matter the issue it is America's fault" seems to be in line with that of many articles in this publication. I don't know what your connection is to the US Navy and its culture or where you got the idea that the New Statesman is an authority on military investigations but your comment that "Americans never learn; it is precisely because they try to influence, dominate and exploit everything on this planet that they are so loathed by much of the world" and the broadness of your brush leads me to believe that nothing will dissuade you from your doubtlessly comfortable viewpoint.

I brought up the pipe bomb incident because I assumed that many other people would also be familiar with this attempt on Capt Rogers's family's lives just as they are with his mistake regarding the Iranian passenger jet. I don't allocate my sympathy purely based on nationality as some people seem to.

seculardemocrat
01 September 2009 at 20:16

Re: Prof. Dawkins.

I smell sour grapes Peter Wilby. Professor Dawkins has made a fortune out of his writing. So to what purpose do you wish that he would put his admittedly considerable literary talent? He has said repeatedly his target is not the ultra-religious but the "tolerant" nominal Christians and Moslems. He wants these complacent waverers to move to a more skeptical position and thereby deny the power seeking religious extremists the middle ground.

I, for one, wish him well.

Cormac
06 September 2009 at 00:10

Ironically, Mr Wilby, the reasons you cite for boycotting America can be used to boycott Britain.

Remember your nation's stealing of the Faulklands from Argentina? Or your continued occupation and oppression of Ireland?

Straight trade: America will get out of Iraq and Afghanistan when Britain gets out of Ulster. Deal?

Furthermore, Britain itself has also overthrown democratic governments, in Iran and Egypt in the '50s, and has murdered millions of civilians in N. Ireland and the Falklands, then had the nerve to move it's own citizens to those locations and hold "democratic" elections to ask the populace who should rule.

Not to mention your nation's implicit responsibility for WW2 by enforcing the Versailles Treaty and creating the resentment among Germans that allowed Hitler to be elected. Which reminds me, do you consider the removal of Hitler from power in '45 to be "overthrowing a democratically elected government"? Chavez, the Castros, Kim Jung Il; all are "little Hitlers". What surprises me is that, after Munich '38, anyone takes people like you seriously.

And of course, there's Britain's proud record as the creator of modern racism (Houston S. Chamberlain). It was also your ancestors who supported the slave-holding Confederacy. Your ancestors created concentration camps and state genocide in South Africa and India.

America will never come close to the heights of racism, mass murder, and anti-democratic foreign policies that Britian has pioneered in her not-too-distant past. Don't act so high and mighty.

Britain either instigated or reigned supreme in all the actions you condemn America for allegedly doing. Oh to be a British liberal; never knowing reality.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Peter Wilby

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes a weekly column for the NS.

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker