Tag Archives: Justin Welby

Britain, Culture, Government, Immigration, Society

A moral victory for the Anglican Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury

MORAL AUTHORITY

Intro: The message from the pulpit is not just for Christmas

THE GUARDIAN’S editorial on Friday, 23 December, was a necessary narrative on the cruel policies being exercised by the UK Government on refugee rights.

One of the Conservative Party’s reliably belligerent MPs, Jonathan Gullis, took exception to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s excoriation of the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Mr Gullis discerned a troubling modern tendency to “use the pulpit to preach from”. After a challenging year, the Anglican hierarchy were afforded some light relief with such comments, laughter elsewhere in society no-doubt. The Archbishop, Justin Welby, responded that he appreciated the feedback and looked forward to advice on more appropriate pulpit activity. Lambeth Palace can be forgiven for indulging in some festive humour at Mr Gullis’s expense, as a sobering 2022 draws to a close.

The editorial team rightly point to respect for the late queen’s devout faith which has meant that the Church of England’s established status has never truly been brought into question. In the post-Elizabethan era, however, serious scrutiny now seems inevitable – especially in the context of wider constitutional and House of Lords reform.

That will become a necessary debate for another day. Right now, the presence of the lords spiritual at Westminster has clear benefits. At a time when the government is attempting to sell performative cruelty towards migrants as a form of humanitarian intervention, the Anglican bishops, led by Mr Welby, deserve considerable praise for insisting on telling it how it is.

Earlier this month, the archbishop’s annual debate in the Lords was used by Mr Welby who attacked the “harmful rhetoric” that is allowing asylum seekers to be dehumanised, referring to the inflammatory language of “invasion”, expressed by the home secretary, Suella Braverman. This followed a scathing Easter Sermon at Canterbury Cathedral by Mr Welby in which he denounced the Home Office’s offshoring plans as unworthy of “a country formed by Christian values”.

It is unsurprising, of course, that some Conservative MPs have taken umbrage at the ecclesiastical onslaught, accusing the Church’s clergy of ethical grandstanding. The archbishop was accused by John Redwood of fomenting political discord while offering no solutions. But in his Lord’s speech, the Archbishop of Canterbury explicitly identified the danger of loftily moralising without confronting the complexities that politicians are required to face. The bishops have rightly highlighted the need to expand safe, legal routes and by accelerating the processing of claims. The need to balance generosity and compassion with efficient control of borders has been acknowledged.

Nevertheless, in a certain sense, Mr Gullis’s reference to preaching from pulpits identified something important. The way the Church of England has spoken about refugees has indeed been profoundly moral, in a way that has dangerously eluded the secular political debate. Over the past year – amid arguments about deterrence, logistics, the cost of accommodation and deportations, and the speed of the asylum application process – the humanity of the individuals arriving on our shores has been almost lost to view. The citing of the illegal, indecent squalor at the Manston asylum centre in Kent – and that it should ever have been tolerated – is an indication of where that can lead.

By reminding us that “recognition of human dignity is the first principle which must underpin our asylum policy”, and of the need to “see the faces of those in need and listen to their voices”, Mr Welby’s Lord’s speech highlighted what must be the starting point of all refugee policy. This is not mere naivety, at odds with the real world. It is to ground our engagement with that world on an ethical footing. The Archbishop of Canterbury has performed a valuable public service in pointing that out to a political class that has lost touch with the basics.

Standard
Britain, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Middle East, Military, Syria, United States

The intervention by the West in the Islamic State on humanitarian grounds is a right one…

ISLAMIC STATE

Intro: The West must do all it can to prevent the creation of an Islamist semi-state

The Islamic State has become a serious threat, and one that has to be confronted. Its outlook is based on foundations that are medieval, aims which include the destruction of all other faiths and the imposition of Sharia law. The establishment of a caliphate, under which Islamists are ruled, is an overarching objective.

The military successes of the Islamic State have been remarkable. Its campaign has spread across large swathes of Syria and Iraq like a plaque, threatening Baghdad as Iraq’s capital and pushing towards the Kurdish homeland in the north. This advance has caused chaos and anarchy and has driven thousands of religious minorities from their homes under the threat of ‘convert or die’.

The resultant effect is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq, a threat to the stability of a fragile Middle East and a challenge to Western security. Islamist hardliners speak of ‘humiliating’ the United States with a pledge of ‘raising the flag of Allah in the White House’. The ranks of this violent and barbaric army include around 3,000 who are said to hold European passports.

The immediate reason why the outside world has to intervene is to help those displaced people turned into refugees avoid the threat of execution. Many are trapped in the perilous and harsh geography of Iraq and will soon die if aid is not delivered. The worrying comments of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has helped to create the conditions for the rise of the Islamic State, suggest we also have a debt to pay.

There remains, too, a much wider task facing the West. Preventing the creation of an Islamist semi-state that both destabilises the nations around it and provides a safe haven for the plotting of terrorist attacks elsewhere is central to the US starting air strikes in Iraq and by halting the advance of the jihadis. Britain is providing logistical support.

This difficult operation has to strike a careful balance. Act too cautiously, and the West may fail to provide sufficient help to those in most need. Get too involved too quickly, and recent history will soon be repeated, with our military being sucked into an unwanted and protracted conflict which could potentially make the West an even greater target for terrorist outrages in the future.

President Barack Obama has indicated that he sees this military operation as being a ‘long-term project’. In military terms, the situation will have to be monitored very closely to decide whether what we are doing is working and, if not, what should be done instead. Mr Obama has said that Iraqis themselves must take a lead.

Where the West’s action should certainly be unstinting and unsparing is in the provision of humanitarian aid. The US and Britain will hopefully do their best to help bring urgently needed supplies – food, water and medical supplies. The Head of the Church of England, Archbishop Justin Welby, is right in his condemnation when he speaks of an ‘evil pattern around the world’ where religious minorities are persecuted for their faith.

****

In response to the escalating situation in Iraq, three RAF Tornado fighter jets from RAF Marham in Norfolk have departed for the skies over Iraq. Their mission is to assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid to refugees who have fled in fear of the ISIS insurgents to the slopes of Mount Sinjar.

Technically, this is a humanitarian aid relief effort. No-one should be making the mistake of assuming this operation is in anyway routine. This isn’t an aid drop into a zone struck by a natural disaster, such as happens after an earthquake, but a relief effort that is dealing with the plight of retreating religious minorities. The military are dealing with a situation that is very much man-made.

The ISIS advance has demonstrated their brutality in the most sickening of ways. There are frequent reports of beheadings, crucifixions and the burying of people alive. Amongst those being targeted are the Yazidi, one of the most ancient Christian communities on Earth.

American air strikes against the militia of ISIS, and the UK aid operation that accompanies them, are aimed at saving thousands of lives that are in perilous danger.

Whilst the Islamic State is an organisation that is regarded by the West as the most deadly of destabilising forces in the region, we should also be clear that there are many who will see any US/UK involvement as a provocation. The RAF Tornados are fully armed, and have flown direct to a war zone.

****

It will be curious for many Britons, that – given the political sensitivity of UK military involvement in the Middle East – a British deployment has happened without a debate having taken place in the House of Commons. Parliament may be in its summer recess, but military operations in a war zone are exactly the kind of circumstances that could justify a recall. The last time the Prime Minister thought he knew the will of Parliament on a sensitive matter in the Middle East (on support for the rebels in Syria) MPs swiftly disabused him of that notion. If air strikes had gone ahead against President Assad of Syria, the sworn enemy of ISIS, the jihadists could have now also been in control of Damascus. That embarrassing foreign policy reversal was perhaps the most damaging in modern British political history, and has certainly marked one of the lowest points in Mr Cameron’s premiership.

It is apt to point out that this is a tinderbox moment in Iraq, a country still a long way off from being a coherent and sustainable political entity. War zones are, by their very nature and definition, places where the unexpected happens. ‘Mission creep’ will always be an inherent risk.

The questions are real, and not subjective rhetoric. For example, what would happen if British warplanes came under attack? Would they be justified in returning fire? What exactly are the rules of engagement? Any military action – however limited – must have defined objectives, a time limit and a clear endgame.

This demonstrates why it is wise for our political leaders to ensure they have the full backing of the country, through its democratic representatives, before they make a commitment in a conflict situation. The Prime Minister has, so far, not sought that endorsement.

Air strikes against ISIS positions, humanitarian aid drops and even arming the Iraqi Kurds are all options that could be justified if Turkish anxieties can be assuaged. But, as recent history has shown, a full military intervention is bound to have unforeseen and potentially calamitous consequences.

It was ill-conceived foreign intervention that led to the situation we have today in Iraq. The West must avoid making it even worse.

Standard
Arts, Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Transformational leadership is needed for a re-moralising of politics and society…

A NEED FOR THE MORALS OF POLITICS TO BE RE-EXAMINED

Intro: The desire for transformational politics is high given the moral challenges of today

We often hear people say that politicians are ‘all the same’, which infer a general objection to our technocratic, managerial political culture. During 2013, figures from outside the Westminster bubble unearthed a public yearning for leaders with the moral and ethical clarity to face many of our present woes.

The greatest need for moral leadership is at its peak during times of economic scarcity. The financial crisis of 2008 and the years of austerity that have followed have returned to the fore the ethical questions that were too often set aside and ignored during the pre-crash era. Political and economic questions such as, ‘How should limited resources be allocated?’, ‘What constitutes the good society?’, ‘What are the values that should underpin our economy?’, or, ‘Can individualism and the common good be reconciled?’ The public disillusionment with our political leaders and what their parties stand for can partly be explained by their direct failure to address these issues more convincingly. When politics is reduced to a game, and when party strategists continually seek to outmanoeuvre each other for short-term tactical advantage, it is unsurprising that the public turns away. The frequent cliché that they are ‘all the same’ is not an attack (as is often thought) on a perceived lack of policy divergence, but on the managerial and technocratic culture that political parties embody.

Behind such public apathy and disillusionment, there is a craving for answers to the moral challenges of our time and for national leaders who can at least attempt to provide them. The recent death of one of the world’s most respected statesman, Nelson Mandela, has made this even more so.

Noticeably, however, one of the trends of 2013 was the emergence of leaders outside the political circle who have shown considerable moral guidance. Pope Francis, for example, has revived his Church’s spiritual fortunes by reorienting it away from the conservative obsessions of same-sex marriage, abortion and contraception and towards issues of economic equality and social justice. Pope Francis has made a number of emblematic gestures since becoming Pontiff last March, including humble acts such as carrying his own suitcase, living in a modest hostel as opposed to the rich grandeur of the Vatican palace, the embracing of a disfigured man, and has communicated his vision of a church ‘of the poor, for the poor’. The moral denunciation by Francis of ‘unbridled capitalism’ has resonated all the more as a result of his church’s changing stance and position. After decades of steep decline, church attendance among Roman Catholics has risen significantly across the world, including in Britain too.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who was enthroned two days after the inauguration of Pope Francis, has, over the same period, reaffirmed the Church of England’s status as ‘a defender of the most vulnerable.’ He has openly condemned the coalition government’s welfare cap on benefits and for making children and families pay the price for high inflation, rather than the government. Mr Welby has denounced the usurious lending of payday loan companies and has been equally critical of banks in their desire to continually seek what is ‘legal’ and never what is ‘right’. Like Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury has demonstrated his Church’s values through deeds as well as words.

One need not share their faith to respect the moral clarity that both religious leaders have brought to issues of economic justice. There have been others, too, such as the comedian Russell Brand, who provoked a remarkably successful debate with his insistence that the solution to deepening inequality and rampant consumerism has to be primarily ‘spiritual’ and his declaration that profit is ‘the most profane word we have’, commanded public attention for almost a fortnight in a way few politicians can.

Whilst not standing for public election, neither the Pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury faces the same kind of struggles to reconcile competing interests as many of our politicians must contend with. The political class can learn, though, from how they have engaged with fundamental questions and how previously dormant debates have been actively revived.

Some of our more thoughtful MPs from across the political spectrum have recognised the need for a different kind of politics. Jon Cruddas, Labour’s policy review co-ordinator, for example, called for a ‘reimagined socialism’ in his George Lansbury Memorial Lecture in November. Mr Cruddas called for a type of socialism that is ‘romantic, not scientific; humane and warm; passionate yet humble’ and one that ‘pushes back against party orthodoxy, careerism and transactional politics’.

The re-moralisation of our politics and society remains a deep desire five years after the financial crash. In leading that transformation, we still await the politician who can inspire and provide the transformational leadership many people are now demanding.

 

Standard