An Interesting Contrast

A person courageously posting under the very rare name 'John' has placed (weirdly, on the 'Thucy did' thread with which it has nothing whatever to do) the following acid comment:

'What a shame he [me] lacks his brother's intelligence, and humanity. He is happy for a country of 80 million souls to live under tyranny so long as we can be absolutely sure that it will not affect our lifestyle and that we might have to contend with another economic block where the people of the Middle East might have something to say about what happens to them, the money that the region accrues in oil wealth, or about what operations are performed on their daughters.

'Despotism is by definition destabilising, democracy, even in Eastern Europe has given us a more stable future. His philosophy is one of ultranationalism, a sort of strange form of democratic fascism. "As long as the good people of Britain are all right, I am more or less immune to the suffering of others." Charming, and how very unBritish. Did I mention, un-Christian...'

I address the moral aspects of this elsewhere, but will touch on them again in this specific case. As for being 'unBritish', I should have thought that my opinions were entirely in the British tradition of placing our own national interests first. The Christian question is more complex. Are those who rejoice at the 'liberation' of Cairo certain that their cause will help their neighbours, here or there?

Much of the hostility to what I say rests on the view that universal suffrage democracy is itself so virtuous that any society blessed with it will be preferable to one not so blessed. Humph.

Can he tell me why he is so sure that the Cairo revolution will lead to a situation in which 'the people of the Middle East might have something to say about what happens to them, the money that the region accrues in oil wealth, or about what operations are performed on their daughters.' As for the reference to female genital mutilation, does he have any information on the attitudes to that of the 80 million Egyptian people themselves, their current government and (for example) the Muslim Brotherhood?

I am by no means sure that 'democracy' will greatly (or at all) improve the lives of those 80 million Egyptians, or that the gathering in Tahrir Square represents anything much beyond itself. Beyond the immediate removal of Hosni Mubarak himself (and what is so bad about waiting till September for this?) , it appears to have no united objective. (People should read Aesop's fables, not least the one about King Log and King Stork.)

Democracy was certainly no blessing in post-Communist Russia, where the word is now almost invariably pronounced as a sarcastic curse. It may be in Egypt, but I have no way of knowing for certain, and plenty of reasons for doubting it. Even if it does, then the strong feeling against Israel which is very powerful among Egyptians (I discuss this on an earlier posting) must play a part in it.

Nor do I have any clear idea of what this movement desires, or can achieve domestically or abroad. I do know that the existing Egyptian government (has 'John' been an active campaigner against it during the past 30 years at all? Or did he recently discover his concern?) reluctantly but effectively enforces one of the most important Peace Treaties in the world.

And I know that, were a new conflict (either overt or, more likely, informal and through the proxy of Hamas) to break out between Egypt and the State of Israel, the consequences would be severe for the entire developed world, not least because of the effects on the price of oil at a time of economic trouble. Egypt itself is not an oil power. But its continued stability protects other Arab powers (which do have oil) from instability, and offers a counterbalance to the increasing power in the region of Iran, not to mention the Suez canal which (however you pronounce it) remains important to the world economy even in the age of supertankers.

I do not quite know how 'John' has measured or proposes to measure my intelligence, or on what basis he claims I don't have any, or enough. I suspect my principal defect is that I don't agree with the views of 'John'. He may be the kind of person who assumes that anyone who disagrees with him is axiomatically stupid. I should suggest gently to him that this is not necessarily so.

As for my brother's humanity, I don't doubt it. But hold on a second. He longs for a better world, as do I, but in a significantly different way. The dilemma is rather well-stated here. Christopher's position, the idealist and utopian opposite to mine, led him to support (which he still does) the invasion of Iraq. This has indisputably led to a great deal of death and destruction, and to the creation of a far from universally beloved government in Baghdad, amid much economic and political disorder and decay and much bitter, homicidal sectarianism. This, obviously, wasn't what he and his allies set out to achieve. But that is exactly my point. Utopia can only ever be approached across a sea of blood (and in my view is never reached).

By contrast, we know what we have, and much as we dislike it, we also know that any attempt to replace it is at best uncertain.

Actually I think Washington had more of an idea of what would replace Saddam Hussein than we now have of what might replace Hosni Mubarak.

Does 'John' regularly dive headfirst into swimming pools in the dark, without checking that they contain water? This is the equivalent, in daily life, of the policy of urging revolutionary change in a country with no civil society, with an incoherent and largely unknown opposition. If you wouldn't do it in real life, my advice is not to do with other people's countries.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click here and scroll down.