Iraq, 2005
An interesting exercise in journalism has always been the prediction of the future type columns that attempt to see into the next year or years with equal amounts of speculation and insight. This exercise has been largely absent when attempting to see what Iraq might look like after the next election, probably the most significant world development of the coming year.
Let's start with the easy stuff: the Shias are going to come out ahead in the elections, with their parties more or less under the influence or control of Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani, a leader with credibility as the most senior cleric of the Shias, and because of his work negotiating peace in Najaf. He helped nullify the Shia insurgency and has become the most influential Iraqi, outside of Allawi. Some in the press are worried that this will be a disaster because they believe Sistani is under the control of Iran. While sharing a common religion, the Shias have shown that they are Iraqis first on numerous occasions: They were on the front lines of the war on Iran and are seperated by race and physical geography. Of course, the realities of democratic politics also means that Sistani will have to placate his electorate if he wants to be re-elected and that means serving Iraqis, not the Mullahs.
The Kurds, for their part, will be pleased as they finally reach a viable place within the ranks of the ruling elite of the country. With smoothe diplomacy, they will see more autonomy transferred their way as they seek more power for their already semi-independent states. The federal government may seek to strengthen their hold over the areas by slowly incorporating Kurd security forces into the federal forces, and gradually moving more federal institutions into the area to make their presence felt. They might even pull a 'Karzai' by incorporating many of the independence leaders into the fold until they are confident they no longer need their help and simply be rid of them and appoint federal politicians from the Kurd areas when possible.
The Sunnis will be the hardest nut to crack, of course. How do you placate or incorporate them into a government when they are opting out of the elections? One possibility is that while some of the Sunni areas are left out (Fallujah, parts of Mosul), these areas are simply left behind while other areas compete for the largesse of the government. Politicians being politicians, the areas that have effective leadership will roll in cash while areas with little or no economic importance or political representation will be left with nothing at the federal government. For the Sunnis, their former mental association with wealth was supporting the violent autocracy, but under the new regime they will suffer without representation at the federal level. After some time, I predict they will see a correlation between democracy and wealth: areas that play ball at the federal level will get the cash, while those still holding out for some possibility that the Baathists will return and reward their loyalty will suffer. This depends on the ability of the federal government to spend at least some of the cash the US has offered. There needs to be a concerted effort to start spending more and more of the reconstruction funds made available by congress.
Predicting the when and how of the insurgency's end is a fool's game. The minds of the insurgents has to change before anything and former predictions of the end have been unfortunately pie-eyed false horizons. The election will not stop the insurgency, but for the US administration, their will be more deadlines created in the future (the date the new Iraqi administration takes office, etc) that will offer a public relations opportunity to give a definite end date.
International cooperation on Iraq will become key. The UN under Koffi Annan will be involved in the elections, as will some other western nations, opening a door to furthered cooperation. In a preverse form of blackmail, Koffi Annan will be under more pressure to cooperate with the US on Iraq with the implicite understanding that the US will not push the food-for-oil investigation that would see Annan and several other UN insiders who were intensely anti-American be forced in front of an international court. Ironically, it is possible they would have to go before the ICC, the very forum the US has abandoned. If the food-for-oil investigation is not going to force Annan to submit, the US might try to push several other failures of the UN under Annan's watch, such as the massacres in the Congo and Rwanda.
In attempting to save face and in an opportunity to mend relations with the US, the EU may step into the void as they have with Ukraine to offer a seperate and independent version of western democratization. The US and EU can play a form of good cop/bad cop in Iraq, where the EU can be the friendly western power, playing off the poor image of the US to further democratization. The PR message would be something like this "Democracy doesn't have to be Americanization; You can be like us in Europe....Psst: We don't really like the US either".
Whatever happens in 2005 in Iraq, it will begin and end with the elections. The overall success of democracy in Iraq may depend on the ability to secure funds from the US, along with the proper functioning of pork barrell politics. International cooperation by the UN and the EU would also go a long way to smoothing the transition from autocracy to democracy.
The US Dollar: Currency Revolution
Sounding the alarm over the decrease in value over the US dollar has become de rigeur in many publications, including the Economist, which may still install a red alarm for its articles on the currency's deficiencies. But what is at the roots of this sensationalist bell ringing? But are the opportunities and threats to Canada, and other countries?
The first problem that has caught unprepared exporters off-guard has been the rapid decrease in the USD (US Dollar) value. If exporters had not been hedging their sales to the US, they would find that the sale they made last year while the Canadian dollar was in the 70 cent range has lost significant value. Without hedging, many exporters would be exposed to extreme currency risk. While this probably did not affect larger, sophisticated operations, many smaller operators were probably blindsided by the currency shift. In the long term, however, even large exporters will have to face up to the fact that Canadian goods are proportionately more expensive, and will probably only increase in value relative to the USD. According to the 'Big Mac' index, the CDN Dollar is still undervalued, and has room to run.
This means that in the near term, as Canadian exporters and manufacturers attempt to improve their products or productivity to offset the currency gains, the trade balance with the US will probably approach parity. Currently, there is still a monthly trade gap of $9 B. in Canada's favour.
It is not all bad news for Canadians of course. Previously, goods across the border that were too expensive, are now becoming more affordable. Canadians will have greater choice and a more competitive consumer market for their dollars, and that can only mean greater relative wealth for the consumer as they immediately get more bang for their buck. Apart from the obvious benefits for consumers, manufacturers, particularly those interested in the Canadian domestic market, will reap a whirlwind of opportunity as improved buying power means that they can finally buy high tech machinery from the US that can improve their own productivity on the cheap. While our trade surplus with the US may decrease somewhat, the Canadian productivity should go up, leading to higher relative wages for workers.
For the larger world, there is a bigger game going on with a very intersting dynamic between trading blocs. Obviously, Canada is the largest trading partner with the US, but other markets are emerging and are about to surpass Canada's top spot. The EU for instance, a massive economic bloc on its own, has had its own currency skyrocket in comparison to the USD. At 1.30, the EU is at a serious competitive disadvantage, and may see a flood of manufacturing jobs for export products be curtailed. With the current situation of massive unemployment in certain areas and demographics, the integrity of the EU itself is threatened as some members (ie: Ireland) see the central bank and Brussels as becoming an albatross around the neck of their economy. The EU may be forced to lower interest rates, and in turn add more pressure to a global housing bubble.
Britain also faces relative pressure to keep Sterling competitive,and will keep its rates low. For Britain, the country is between a rock and a hard place. London faces one of the worst housing bubbles on earth, as even London's suburb ghettos like Brixton and Sutton face prices in the stratosphere. If the interest rates stay low to keep competitive with the USD, the bubble will continue to expand and will become unstable and possibly dangerous. The policy choice between popping the bubble and destroying the competitiveness of the sterling is stark, and Blair cannot afford to walk a tightrope forever, as the longer the situation continues, the worse the fallout will become afterwards.
China for its part, is playing up its status as the world's workshop, as manufacturing jobs from the US float across the pacific and into the provinces of the mainland Chinese. With China's currency, the yuan, pegged to the USD, the US cannot improve its massive tade deficit with the emerging economy. Worse, as China buys up consumer goods and consumer product manufacturers stationed in the US (ie: IBM's PC division), the Chinese will be able to move more and more of the manufacturing off the continent. As the US attempts to keep the USD low against the EU to protect manufacturing jobs, the same jobs are being slipped out the backdoor to China. Ultimately, this is a zero sum game for the US: they cannot win against a competitor who keeps them at bay with a straight arm known as the 'pegged currency'.
This stiatuion is not necessarily going to stay the same forever. China's own currency is coming under ferocious pressure to either be revalued, or have its own interest rates increased to decrease the inflationary pressure against the pegged currency. Recently, China upped its own interest rates, and has continued to buy up USD to relieve pressure against the yuan. This phenomenon of an Asian country buying up USD to relieve pressure on their own currency is nothing new, and is widespread.
This brings us to the dynamic between Asia and the US: The trading relationship that has ultimately supported the US' bad habits. During the Asian crisis in 1997-8, the USD was the only currency worth obtaining. Countries began getting rid of their own currencies to buy up USD to maintain their worth. This death spiral of currencies spread across Indonesia and most of Asia, causing havoc with their economies.
These countries made it policy to continue the purchase of massive amounts of USD after the crisis to ensure they had a safeguard in case of a currency meltdown. In the case of Japan and China, these countries used the USD as a safeguard to ensure pressure on their domestic currencies would be decreased. The idea behind the purchase of USD, is that that the US' credibility and the strength of the dollar would keep the relative value of the US currency would remain high. This faith in the USD now means that for every business day, the US requires 2.6 B in USD be bought to keep the US government solvent. For the time being, there is still a market for the US debt, meaning that the US can keep its up high spending without having to account for its higher risk with higher interest rates.
The result has been a disaster for American fiscal conservatives. The government is able to spend vast sums of money well beyond its means on the premise that 'deficits don't matter', while the currency markets still temporarily back up this delusion by continuing to buy the USD. As terrible consequence of this unfortunate problem, the American consumer is afforded lower interest rates which they use to buy foreign goods at Walmart (a huge importer of foreign goods) exasperating the trade deficit problem, but also ramping up the enourmous consumer debt of the nation as well.
The problem for the US government, currently flying high on hubris and intellectual arrogance, is that this situation is not static. There might be short term inertia towards changing the world's standard currency, but in the long term the situation is intensely dynamic. Just as gold, the pound, the dinar, and other currencies owned the world's respect for a time, their time came came and passed. And just as these currencies encountered a perfect storm of problems that heralded the end of their monetary supremecy, the USD may well be entering its own hurricane of challenges.
One of the key challenges will be the emergence of China. By itself, China's ascendence onto the world's stage does not mean the end of the USD, but some of the factors that are accompanying its rise will certainly be detrimental. For instance, the EU has decided to drop much of its arms embargo against China, heralding a new era of trade between the two trading behemoths. China's increased trade with the EU will mean that the EU's relative importance will rise, and China's choice of holding 400 B in USD will change. Even now, China is increasing its holdings of the Euro. As an investment, the Euro is smarter, as its value is only increasing relative to the USD. If trade with the US is a priority, holding Euros until the date of payment will result in huge exchange gains if current trends continue.
There are also a multitude of coming problems that could end the reign of the USD in a hearbeat. A military showdown in the Pacific over North Korea or Taiwan could precipitate a flood of USD on to the market as investors instantly find the Euro more safe as the US trade with the Pac Rim would drop immediately. China could attack simply by dropping its reserves immediately into the lap of the US government and run. Since 9/11, the USD has appeared more and more vulnerable to speculation and one more attack might mean a run on the bank by foreign investors.
Or the end could come by attrition, as the US government simply decides in ignorance that the deficits (which will continue until at least 2009) will simply become a fact of life. As Republicans have consolidated their hold on the Senate, House and Executive office, the chances of spending bills being vetoed becomes relatively less and less. The interest rates will have to increase eventually, and the markets will simply start dumping the currency, slowly and surely.
The fallout for the American consumer and government will be horrendous. As interest rates permanently rise, the borrowing costs will rise exponentially meaning that the US will have to spend more money for their risky prospects, and meaning more money will be spent on financial institutions rather than on the purchase of goods that might increase productivity, decrease costs or save labour expenses. As much as any economic downturn, the rise of the interest rates coupled with hardcore inflationary pressures on the dollar as they flood the markets might mean a return to the seventies style staglation.
There is a very real possibility that the US government's policies will bring some dark days economically.
A Warm Embrace: Intellectual Incest
In the process of categorizing one thinker, any critic or observer has to use almost a shorthand approach to label anyone else. Where do does this intellectual stand on any one issue? Where do they stand in an overall sense? Inevitably, the process gets messy when the observer attempts to compare themselves to their subject: How can I objectively observe someone else's work when I profoundly disagree with them? The problem will stick with the reader of observer of another's work. There has to be a rationalization of the observer's point of view as they observe a reasonable argument from an opponent. In short, they are challenged by an opposing viewpoint.
The observer of an opponent's position will feel as though they are threatened, inferior for having their illusions shattered, or cornered and defensive. The reaction is natural: although not explicitly stated, the difference of opinion means that someone believes your thinking to be flawed. It becomes almost personally offensive for some observers to read, think about, or consider the opposition's position on any one question. Take the issue of abortion, easily one of the most divisive topics in modern politics. If you are pro-choice, you may be instantly branded a child killer and an amoral psychotic by opponents. Conversely, pro-life boosters are almost instantly labeled intolerant fundamentalists by pro-choice forces. There are a list of hot button issues that cannot be dispassionately debated in such an atmosphere because of the instant vilification of both sides. An attempt to reach out to the other side's point of view is almost inimicable to the make up of the opposing forces. Each side may organize into lobby groups, pressuring a government to side with one side, or undermine the other. Heated exchanges in the public sphere, on the news, on panels or (less and less likely) the university result in few constructive dialogues.
The organization of like minded individuals is nothing new. Of course there is strength in numbers. Of course there is reassurance from knowing that your individual viewpoint is not the only one. But this reassurance of being 'one of many' is also a cause of concern. What if you only hear your own viewpoint reverberrated back to you? If the only viewpoint you might hear is your own, but just repeated by another person?
The response to this is instant comfort. Any one thinker can feel at ease knowing that their viewpoint is shared, and reinforced by others. There may be even a sense of invincibility to the thinker: Of course my viewpoint is correct. Others share my views, and they are intelligent and reasonable. In fact, it is possible that I am simply repeating what a majority of individuals believe. If so many agree with myself, it is a sample size worthy of a majority of individuals. Challenging viewpoints of an opponent will seem to glance off the solid armour or reinforcement and reassurance. Opposition may become unnecessary. Therein lies a problem of the thinker: the tool that kept them sharp, is no longer used. Ideas, once battle-hardened and shaped by an opponent's attacks and volleys are not utilized.
What possible thinker could embody such reasoning? Beyond challenges? The answer: all of us. Take a look in the mirror.
A sample of the modern thinker's reading material will show a stunning tunnel vision. The left reads Chomsky, Begala, and Moore. It eats up dissenters from the Bush Cabinet. It revels in the self righteousness of Hollywood. Its writers track the daily rants of the Daily Kos and Moore with zeal and secretly indulge in Z-Net and Indymedia. The right, for its part, has turned a blind eye to the obvious problems with the Bush administration, valuing its ideology over competence, the problems with its foreign policy, and the willingness to forgive dictators who will tow the party line (Musharaff).
Sample the reading lists of both the left and right, and you will find only like minded individuals as their favourites. There is no perceived value in their opponents, and with only your echo chamber, the writing and views of some have traveled well beyond the mainstream, and into fanaticism. Without the safety net of the opponents to keep viewpoints sharp and concrete, ideas and views have made an unfettered journey to the outer reaches. Where 'mixed company' might once held us together as a cohesive unit that simply 'agreed to disagree' and would 'fight for your right to disagree with me', now there is an instant, repulsive reaction to differences of the other.
Moderating Elected Radicalism
A question hangs over news reports from the middle east, typically posed by anonymous 'critics' and repeated ad nauseum in the columns of North American papers:
'Does the US and the West as a whole really want democracy in countries that might elect Islamists?'
This 'hypothetical' question insinuates that radical Islamists will carry out their agenda once they gain the reigns of power. Often, it is cited in the case of Saudi Arabia, a politically repressed and violent kingdom. A kingdom, it is often noted, that is rich in princes and oil, but low on opportunity, political freedom, and equality. The kingdom is also the exception to one 'rule' of terrorism: "Terrorism is a product of poverty". Northern Ireland, Saudi Arabia, and Spain were and are fairly wealthy in one form or another, and the terrorists from these regions have all been relatively well off individuals. If this law were in fact true, sub-Saharan africa would be the hotbed of international terrorism, and Tanzanians would be under considerably more scrutiny at the airport.
What political scientists are slowly coming around to see, is that terrorism is not simply a matter of economic conditions, but a matter of 'political freedom'. Typically, a political leader in a politically free society will be able to talk openly about ideas or movements that they have come to believe in. If a leader has proposed these ideas, they have probably been tested on a focus group of the leaders' constituents or party, and have garnered some support on their merits. This same leader might put these ideas to the general population to see if they will fly. After a hearing, columnists, writers, community leaders and politicians will debate the issue or idea. Whether the criticism is politically motivated or not, the idea will receive a hearing in Parliament and the court of public opinion will issue a ruling. Perhaps the issue or idea will be put down, discarded, modified or taken into consideration. The issue of 'tax cuts' in the late 1990's is a prime example. In a push from western provinces and from some quarters in Ontario, the Alliance (with support from the National Post) made a real push for tax cuts for a tax weary public. The public, in general, was behind the idea and the Liberals subsequently implemented many of the cuts in their pre-election goody bag.
While the idea was not able to win an 'election' for the Alliance, mainly because the Liberals actually implemented the tax cuts, the Alliance felt that the fact that because they had successfully argued for the cuts, they had served their constituents. They took pride in the fact that their ideas had been included in a public debate and had shown to have merit.
In countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, these debates are not possible. Instead of discussing 'tax cuts', however, there is a push amongst many quarters for radical change to a more conservative state, but these are thwarted amibitions. So, instead of having a public debate, the public is told time after time, that the status quo is the only option. The unopposed ideas of opposition forces are not debated, and so ideas take on a mythical status: Utopia can be achieved if only the government was toppled or a caliphate imposed. If we were in power, we would change everything, and a more perfect state would exist. Without a discussion or public hearing, imams and militants have a free pass on debating the merits of their ideas.
So what would a democratic election in Saudi Arabia look like? A shock to Militant Islam. Instead of finding their ideas are intellectually superior, they might find that reason and logic deem their political persuasion inferior. Liberal moderates might not win, but they would offer change and possibly convince Islamist leaders that what they believe might need moderation. This is typical of any discussion of ideas: two sides honestly exchange views, and attempt to persuade the other side of their merits. If both sides are being honest, they might admit that they are closer to their opponent's position after such a debate.
Supposing that Islamists do gain power, like they have in Turkey: are they going to stick to their radical agenda? Iran, for its part, has given up on reform for now, having lost faith in the power of their democratic reformers. Their country, despite evidence suggesting opposition, is on a massive suicide bombing mission of Israel. Its leaders have stated every few months or so, that a nuclear attack on Israel resulting in the total anihilation of Iran would be worth the cost because Iran is statistically such a small proportion of the overall world muslim population. Would such actions be possible under a democratic regime? Well, unless the entire electorate is willing to go on a massive suicide mission, the answer is no. Of course, even in Palestine, the home of such barbarians, the Palestinian territories would not want to kill themselves whole hog to see Israel go under. Most of the diehard suicide bombers themselves pull out of such missions because of basic human decency and a will to live.
The moderating force in democracy is not an internal mechanism that keeps leaders 'honest', or 'doing the right thing'. Democracy moderates the actions of leaders because they realize that a majority of the population must feel they are being served by their government. If not, the government will not be sticking around very long. Saudi Arabia, it is thought, would be a disaster if a democratic Islamist group were to take over the helm because they would 'cut the oil supplies off'. Is the west to believe that the Islamists would not be politicians? How would they get slush funds to coax the representatives from Jeddah into a coalition to keep burkas in the classroom? How would they fund the construction of glorious fountains in the presidents' riding in Mecca?
The truth in Turkey, will be the truth in other nations: the outrageous amibitions of the leaders will be tempered by the need to bring home the bacon to the people. Democratic nations demand competency, results and improved living conditions for the electorate. They re-elect leaders on these criteria.
Other than the electorate, and free debate that moderate parties, there is one massive force that democratic nations face: other democracies. Voters are free to live in other nations, with the best and brightest being the most mobile. If they feel that other nations are doing a better job, they will move. It is a competition amongst the free that keeps a nation on the straight and narrow. Under a free Saudi Arabia, its people might feel that their neighbour Iraq is doing a better job with their health care system (okay, we're talking way down the line here) or that the are keeping income tax to a minimum, etc. This competition increases pressure on nations to provide opportunity for their citizens.
Similarly, in this competition and in the name of self interest, other nations place enourmous pressure on other democracies to cooperate. Turkey has come under pressure to conform to certain economic, social and international laws with the promise of becoming a full EU member. Recently, controversial conservative muslim legislators had their own laws undermined by EU nations, stating that their new laws would delay entry into the EU. Islamists, of course, might hate Christianity, the EU, the west and the freedoms in those nations. But they would hate even more to be kicked out of office.
Ultimately, the open dialogue and political freedom coupled with the interests of the people, other nations and the invisible hand of the market all play a part in keeping radical agendas sidelined in an honest and democratic political system. There is nothing to fear from a democratic muslim state, but much to fear from a country of one official voice, where smouldering hatred and unopposed ideas of revolution fester.
The Militant Imam of Northern Ireland
In the late 1950's, the labour movement amongst the poor of Northern Ireland was spreading. Like many trends from America, 'organized labour' had taken a while to reach the shores of the Eire's Rock. Hot on the heels of this godless phenom, were the ideals of equality and civil rights. If the influence of democratic socialism reached Northern Ireland, workers would focus on organizing in greater numbers against their employers, and for religious leaders on both sides of the North's great divide, that meant Protestants and Catholics joining together to put aside ancient grievances and start working productively. They may even turn away from that all encompassing and domineering mother that had a vice grip on their lives-the church. It was a pivotal crossroads for the Northern Irish: they could put down their weapons and realize their common enemies that kept them divided, or they could trod down the beaten path of armalites, direct rule, sedition, sectarian violence and barbed wire.
Sensing an opportunity to counteract the sea change, Reverand Ian Paisley stepped into the void and struck a new course for the Protestants of Northern Ireland. As the Guardian recently reported:
Dr Paisley began in politics in 1959 by forming the Ulster protestant association to prevent Belfast's dockworkers from being seduced by Gerry Fitt's Marxism.
Countering the socialist cause with appeals to loyalty to the country, God and King, Paisley started his march against the social changes that had overwhelmed the west. The church, while bringing in tourists and their dollars to France and all over Europe, had taken a beating by Camus, Satre and the war in general: How could God exist if he allowed World War 2? Paisley and the North, were insulated from this sentiment in some ways. The Irish had in fact been shamefully sympathetic to the Germans because of their shared animosity for the English, and had stayed neutral during the war. Other than bringing some conscripts to the action, the Irish had blissfully missed most of the action and fallout. As a result, they also missed out on the soul searching and introspection that most of Europe went through. For the Northern religious leaders, they could breathe a sigh of relief: If they could stem the tide of secularization from the continent, they could surely repel the civil rights movement and social change from the United States.
Paisley, sensing a momentum, found a guiding light and a pride in taking on this menace. Concentrating on proselytizing the most vulnerable group, at risk of falling to socialism: the working poor. In Northern Ireland today, the most militant areas on both sides of the religious divide are from the most dilapidated neighbourhoods. Like fundamentalist leaders in other countries fighting a similar battle, Paisley immunized the poor from the spreading liberalization by appealing to their mortality, their ignorance, their baser instincts, their god and their pride. If nothing else, they could be proud of their Protestantism. Why would they join up with Catholic workers? They worship a devil, and show reverance for the Pope. Or, as Paiseley put it, "I denounce you, Anti-Christ!" he screamed at the Pope during a session of the European Parliament during the Pope's address.
Paisley not only gave religious justification for violence against Catholics, he incited it. During the height of the civil war movement in Northern Ireland, an event (a precursor to the Bloody Sunday Massacre) involving Paisley came to pass. In 1968, in a Sharpton-esque speech that incited clear and present danger, Paisley convinced 500 Protestants to attack and loot Catholic homes. He justified his actions, explaining that:
"Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners; and the massive discrimination in employment and shortage of houses for Catholics were simply because they breed like "rabbits" and multiply like "vermin".
Not coincidentally, memberships in the Catholic Irish Republican Army spiked during this period. Similarly, the loyalist Ulster Defense Association began its own operations, cashing in on the fear of Catholic equality and the fire and brimstone speeches from the pulpit by Paisley. In five year period in the early seventies, the UDA murdered 600 Catholics in cold blood. Freddie Parkinson, a leader of the UDA in later years, stated that Paisley was:
"a tarantula who spreads the venom of further conflict and has been a major contributor to our prolonged tragedy."
The inference here is that Catholics were only one of many victims of his hatred. The Protestant community itself was a major victim of this 'venom', to be sure. Reverand Paisley was a respected religious and secular leader who had taken advantage of a people's god fearing vulnerability and abused their trust to no end. Like any abusive relationship, the abuser suffers just as the abused does. Already at odds with a violent past and colonial misdeeds, the Protestant community already carries considerable baggage. They are ridden with guilt, debased by their actions, have suffered by Catholic retaliation, and driven by self-loathing.
Like religious leaders in all areas of the globe, Paisley has abused the fear of the afterlife to conquer his mortal enemies. The poor of Northern Ireland were divided and conquered on his watch and with his blessing. Like Cardinal Law, like priests and bishops of the residential schools, like Richelieu, like the Spanish Inquisition, like the Salem Witch trials, and not unlike several other historically tragic movements, Paisley is the latest incarnation of the charismatic leader who identifies an enemy to attack and to divert attention away from real problems. He offered bread and circuses, misdirection, and a cure-all for the Protestant Northern Ireland: Kill the Catholic leaders, invade their country and convert them. There is an earthly salvation for your present torment, and an outlet for your rage: use your frustration to acheive a noble religious goal. God will forgive your actions if they are in his service.
His message is eerily similar to the one found in the dark recesses of the Muslim world. A religious leader whispering into the ear of the poor and vulnerable: if they will only do his dirty work, they can be saved.
Certainly, Reverant Paisley is not the only responsible figure in Northern Ireland. As a wise man once said "Throw a rock in the air, you'll hit someone guilty." But certainly, his continued presence and influence is disturbing. This is the man that holds the talks for peace in his hands, with his large voting bloc of the loyalist DUP party in his grasp.
The silver lining has been that there has been an uneasy peace in the North for years, and with this peace Paisley's ability to incite violence grows weak. A generation may go by that never knew sectarian violence in the North, never knew an uncle that was killed by the British Government or an IRA henchman, and never knew the mob violence that destroyed their homes. The memories of these deeds will fade as long as the violence stays dorment. History, sectarian violence and lynch mobs may disappear from living memory, and a fresh chance to throw down the cross that all the Irish bare will present itself. It is at that moment of opportunity, they may have a sober look at the true cause of their painful shared experience.
For now, amongst the crumbling tenements and walls of West Belfast's poor, a brand new structure rises, soaring ten stories above the ghetto, boasting a glorious steeple that dominates the blood red sky. The houses below, are small and trembling before an ever present and watchful alter: their crutch, their father, their justification, their love, their guide, their hope, their lifeline, their drug and their curse.
