Posted on

Why I signed a petition against President Trump making a State Visit to the United Kingdom

A letter to my MP

Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom

 

Dear Mr Cunningham,

I have recently signed a petition calling on Parliament to consider withdrawing the invitation to President Donald Trump to make a state visit to the United Kingdom. I understand this petition, which to date has over 1.8 million signatures, will be debated in Parliament on 20 February. I would urge you to support this petition.

Since coming to office in January, President Trump has shown himself to be totally unsuitable as a world leader. The policies he has sought to implement through executive actions have been damaging to his own citizens as well as more globally threatening to world security, justice and human rights. In my view these executive actions betray deep-seated attitudes in the President which pay little regard to human rights, respect for all peoples, or care for our global environment.

In particular, his executive order of 27 January temporarily barring people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the USA, along with an indefinite ban on Syrians from entering, appears ill-conceived and inflammatory, and his response to a judicial ruling on the order betrays an attitude of disrespect for due processes of law. Similarly, his executive orders on building a wall along the border with Mexico, and withdrawing funding for sanctuary cities could seriously contravene the basic rights to free movement of many people.

His presidential memoranda approving the construction of two oil pipelines shows a disrespect for the rights of his own indigenous populations, along with his recognised denial of the impact on the environment of the continued use of fossil fuels.

Furthermore, his statement that he considers the use of torture acceptable is a blatant contradiction of the Geneva Conventions and a serious threat to human rights.

It seems to me that these and other executive actions are not isolated aberrations, but betray deep-seated attitudes that were apparent both during the election campaign and since taking office: attitudes of disrespect for women, foreign nationals, those of other religions, and indigenous peoples. I, along with many other people in this country and around the world – including his own citizens in the USA – find such attitudes deeply offensive, divisive and potentially dangerous in a world leader.

While I recognise that, as Head of State of the USA, it is important that our government works with President Trump and with his government, I am deeply concerned that he is being invited to visit the UK on a state visit. Such a visit, hosted by our Queen, who has been a true world leader for human rights and respect for all peoples, would in my view be totally inappropriate. It would place Her Majesty in a compromising position, and would appear to endorse and lend approval to President Trump’s policies and to the underlying discriminatory attitudes.

I hope therefore that you will lend your support to this petition and urge the Prime Minister to withdraw the invitation.

Yours sincerely

 

 

Dr Peter Sidebotham

 

Posted on

The leader of the free world?

Last week a reporter on the BBC news referred to the President of the United States as ‘the leader of the free world.’ The phrase was used somewhat derisively, but nevertheless, to my mind, betrays some fundamentally flawed assumptions that date back to its first use in the years following World War II, and, I suspect, remain quite widely held assumptions in many democratic, capitalist societies.

 

Assumption 1: Leadership is something conferred by virtue of position

I accept that the president of the United States, by virtue of his position, holds some leadership responsibilities within the United States. There are some things which only the incumbent of the White House can do. However, holding such responsibilities does not necessarily make that person a leader, and it certainly does not confer any leadership status beyond the United States. True leadership is earned, not conferred.

A leader is only a leader if others follow. And to achieve that the leader needs to be a person of integrity, vision, courage, compassion, and humility. To the extent that the president of the United States demonstrates any of those qualities, I would be prepared to attribute some leadership to them. Without such qualities, no matter what he, or anyone else, claims, he is not my leader nor a leader beyond those in his own country who have chosen to follow him.

 

Not the cry, but the flight of a wild duck, leads the flock to fly and follow. —Chinese Proverb

 

The same would apply to whoever sits in the Oval Office, as indeed to any other head of state or other prominent person. Unless and until other nations, heads of state and individual citizens of the so called free world choose to follow the US president, he is not, and never can be, ‘the leader of the free world.’

 

Assumption 2: Leadership is conferred by size, power and wealth

While the issues around assumption 1 have been thrown into sharp relief by the character of the current incumbent of the White House, this assumption is far more subtle, and I suspect more widespread.

According to the World Bank, the United States of America has a population of just over 320 million, exceeded only, but quite substantially, by China and India. Its Gross Domestic Product is 18 trillion US dollars, over 60% larger than the next highest country (China), and greater than the whole of the European Union put together. In terms of military strength, the USA has 1,381,250 military personnel, again only exceeded by China and India, but closely followed by North Korea and the Russian Federation. According to the Arms Control Association (www.armscontrol.org) the USA has 6,800 nuclear warheads, 45% of the world total and only exceeded by Russia.

So on population, wealth and military strength, the United States ranks within the top 3 countries of the world, and far exceeds all other countries in terms of its GDP.

But does that make it the leader of the free world?

Are size, wealth and military might really the values to which we look for our leadership?

Or, to put it another way, domination, greed and brutality?

It seems to me that, without even recognising it, we have bought into a mentality that assumes that might is right, whether that is in size, wealth or strength. And in doing so, we legitimize bullying and a disregard for the rights of others.

 

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth – Jesus Christ

Assumption 3: We (those purportedly in the ‘free world’) determine who is and is not part of the ‘free world’

As far as I can tell, the concept of ‘the free world’ was introduced during the Second World War to refer to those countries fighting against the fascist ‘Axis’ powers (Germany, Italy and Japan). During the Cold War, the term shifted to refer to non-communist countries. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the free world refers to ‘those countries whose governments have been chosen in free and fair elections and whose people have full human rights.’

But who are we to determine which countries truly are or are not part of that ‘free’ world? Would that include a country with a democratically-elected communist government? Does it exclude countries where religious prerogatives determine the course of government?

Perhaps, though, one of the biggest difficulties with this assumption is the implication that all peoples living in our self-determined ‘free world’ are free and enjoy full human rights.

I wonder how many of those now to be denied health insurance would say they enjoy free and full human rights, or those 2 million or more incarcerated in US prisons, or the residents of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation?

And perhaps there is an even deeper, more subtle assumption here. Even without flagrant disregard for human rights, am I, in my country, surrounded by advertising, my choices controlled by corporate giants, constrained by a culture that values wealth and aggressive ambition, also truly free?

 

 

An alternative view of leadership

In an interesting twist of words in different contexts, the BBC made a policy decision to refer to the group that calls itself Islamic State as ‘So called Islamic State’. In a similar vein, perhaps the president of the United States could be referred to as the ‘so called leader of the so called free world.’

But rather than acquiesce even that far to these flawed assumptions, I would much rather see all of us thinking in terms of the whole world and all humanity, not just our own little, self-defined corner of it. And I want to be someone who helps create an alternative view of leadership: one that respects all those who truly embody values of integrity, compassion, justice and humility.

So how about a movement to identify those values we truly want to promote that will lead to all people being free? And how about starting with recognising and affirming those people in whom we do see those values?

 

Posted on

Seeking peace, justice and wellbeing: why I believe we should stay in the EU

I have just returned from an inspiring 3 days at the Soria Moria conference centre in the hills above Oslo. Over more than ten years now I have had the privilege of joining a supportive and pioneering group of practitioners, academics, bereaved parents and support groups from Scandinavia, Europe and further afield for this conference on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). I always come away with new ideas and fresh enthusiasm, having heard from others about some of the latest research, discussed challenging cases, and considered how we can best work to support families and prevent the horror of unexpected child deaths. There is a spirit of collaboration, humility and learning that pervades the conference and I have no doubt this has led to some major advances in our understanding and direct benefits to children and families around the world.

The conference centre at Soria Moria takes its name and logo from Theodor Kittelsen’s dramatic painting of the poor boy, Halvor, knapsack on his back, gazing off into the distance, far, far away where Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold: a vision of a brighter, better future.

Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold - by Theodor Kittelsen
Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold – by Theodor Kittelsen

 

The EU referendum

So what has all that got to do with the forthcoming referendum? Perhaps because the spirit of collaboration, humility and learning I have experienced at Soria Moria captures so much of how I think we should be living together in our increasingly globalised society, and that the vision of a brighter, better future captured in the fairy tale of Soria Moria embraces some of the key values that I believe should underlie our considerations of whether to leave or remain in the EU: values of peace, justice and wellbeing.

“The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.” – Treaty on the European Union

 

Peace

Since the end of the Second World War in 1945, we have experienced an unprecedented 70 years of peace in Europe. While that peace clearly cannot be attributed solely to the presence of the European Union, it seems to me that the formal agreements forged between the constituent countries have at least contributed to that peace, and certainly have done nothing to undermine it. We are blessed by an incredible level of security and safety in our countries, and I am grateful to all those who contribute to this. And there are very real threats to that security, not least the ongoing threats of terrorist groups who operate across all borders, as well as potential threats from nearby countries. It seems to me that a united Europe is a much stronger counter to those threats, with all the advantages of shared security, information transfer, and collaborative rather than competitive security forces.

“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.” – Treaty on the European Union

 

Justice

The very basis of the EU, as stated up-front in the Treaty on the European Union, is respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These are values to which all of us should aspire. It worries me when our government talks of opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights, as though we are somehow above respecting such rights. It seems to me that our membership of the EU has helped promote rights for children, women, workers, minority groups, and those who are most vulnerable. We need to continue to fight for justice and equality and should welcome and work with all those who share such values.

Justice extends too to our planet, and care for the environment. Here, too, it seems that the EU has been a significant driving force in promoting environmental sustainability, green energy, and care for creation. Once again it seems that we are in a stronger position to promote that in a united way.

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” – Treaty on the European Union

 

Wellbeing

Much of the debate between the two sides in the referendum seems to have focused on the economy, with both sides promoting scare-mongering predictions, based on rather tenuous speculation. I think this is a great shame, as economic wellbeing is just one part of wellbeing, and so much is uncertain either way. It seems to me that the only certainty is that if we leave the EU there will be a period of economic and political instability during which fresh treaties and agreements will need to be made with each of the other member states. The only people likely to benefit from this seem to be the already wealthy bankers, stockbrokers and lawyers.

Nevertheless, economic stability is a component of the EU treaty promoting a social market economy, employment, social progress, and free trade. Again, these seem to be worthwhile goals.

But there is so much more to wellbeing: healthcare, education, research, diversity, culture. All of these are promoted within the EU treaty, and it is hard for me to see why we should argue against them.

“The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.” – Treaty on the European Union

 

So, motivated by what I consider to be basic values of justice, peace and seeking the common good, for ourselves and for our neighbours, I will be voting to remain on the 23rd June.

 

“In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.” – Treaty on the European Union