We have had some anomalies recently.
For instance, Mr Rees-Mogg is against Islamophobia
in Britain - and yet bore without undue trouble the alliance of the Democratic
Unionist Party with the party to which he and many Roman Catholics belong, no matter about its
past history against Catholics in Ireland.
And , during the Twelfth of July demonstrations
we talk a lot about the battle of the Boyne that King
William won in 1690 but little or nothing about
the Battle of Landen in 1691 which King William lost, or about General
Sarsfield who ambushed an English army
near Limerick in 1690 and blew their armour to bits, or about two battles
around Athlone where William won one and
lost one on his way through Ireland.
And , while we don't expect every Orange march to start
with a toast to the Pope who in 1690 sent a band to play and wages to pay to
William's soldiers and whose Vatican songsters sang a hymn of triumph and
divine thanks for William's victory at the Boyne, we might perhaps fill in some neglected details of our
history. After all if the Catholic Church could give Mrs Margaret Thatcher the
highest award a modern Pope could offer her
, why should every Orange march not begin with a toast to the Pope of 1690 who
was so generous? Fair's fair.
Of course,
on the other hand, a long time elapsed between the Boyne battle (1690) and the
founding of the Orange Order (1791)
and people forget. Another anomaly.
And , there was surprise at the remarks a British ambassador made in his recent frank opinion about USA politicians and politics . But shouldn't
we all accept that an ambassador's job
is to tell the government what exactly he or she observes and thinks while the job? That is what an ambassador - a kind of polite spy in some ways - is supposed to do.
Not long ago
it was only when newspapers revealed it
that we learned anything about what officials say privately to their
governments . Nowadays we are finding out much more ourselves by searching
archives to see what was really said and done to us. And apart from that there
are people who don't believe in official
secrecy when anybody is hurt by it. We are sometimes surprised by what officials
say to their governments about us behind our backs; the anomaly is that we talk
about freedom of speech and still do not like it when such freedom is revealed
between diplomats and their governments. There seems more emphasis on faulting
the diplomat who was doing his job than on the whistleblower who probably wasn't.
Much of what
passes between people at diplomatic or other
official level is little better than
gossip, sometimes at, between, before or after a good meal. Personally and
collectively we have all suffered from it. A few anomalies like that recent USA
ambassador's may have a bit of good in
them, a kind of useful sting in their tale !
If a foreign
government has "a very special relationship" with
your government but , in your considered opinion, is "dysfunctional
, inept " do you not have a duty to
the government that employs you to tell them the truth as you see
it ?
You do.
But you may lose your job if you do.
We get used
to anomalies perhaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment