« Tehran Teresa | Home | Caught Between A Rock And Christianism »

Democracy for the Middle East

March 08, 2004

Pity The BBC

A terrorist blows up an Israeli bus, Jewish flesh is strewn across Jerusalem, and who does the BBC sympathize with? Yousef, the father of the terrorist, of course. In other words, it's same old, same old at the troubled BBC. Here's the "justification paragraph" -

Yousef's story is a familiar one to many Palestinians. Forced from his Bet Shemesh home as a child he spent many years in Jordanian refugee camps before returning to the West Bank..

i.e. we all know that this poor fellow's home was stolen by the Jews. Many of us (including the Prime Minister's wife and a prominent Labor MP) have said that we might even become terrorists ourselves under such circumstances.

Britain's past being what it is, the inferior quality of its moral calculus shouldn't surprise us. The greatest band of thieves in history is surely more adept at burying historical truth than discerning it. These scoundrels couldn't care less how many hundreds of millions of Arabs, running how many dictatorships, have been trying to annihilate what comparatively minuscule religious minority for how long. Don't forget, today's pretenders to moral authority are but a few generations removed from the ones that profitably enslaved hundreds of millions of Chinese to opium. As Professor Richard Hooker writes:

The Opium War, also called the Anglo-Chinese War, was the most humiliating defeat China ever suffered. It is perhaps the most sordid, base, and vicious event in European history, possibly, just possibly, overshadowed by the excesses of the Third Reich in the twentieth century.

By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.

The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly moral official named Lin Tse-hs�. Deeply concerned about the opium menace, he maneuverd himself into being appointed Imperial Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to cut off the opium trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and cracking down on British trade in the drug.

He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely invulnerable to bribery and corruption, he had taken action against Chinese merchants and Western traders and shut down all the traffic in opium. He destroyed all the existing stores of opium and, victorious in his war against opium, he composed a letter to Queen Victoria of England requesting that the British cease all opium trade. His letter included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade and consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it should not export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to Lin, should only be in beneficial objects...

The English, despite Lin's eloquent letter, refused to back down from the opium trade. In response, Lin threatened to cut off all trade with England and expel all English from China. Thus began the Opium War.

War broke out when Chinese junks attempted to turn back English merchant vessels in November of 1839; although this was a low-level conflict, it inspired the English to send warships in June of 1840. The Chinese, with old-style weapons and artillery, were no match for the British gunships, which ranged up and down the coast shooting at forts and fighting on land. The Chinese were equally unprepared for the technological superiority of the British land armies, and suffered continual defeats. Finally, in 1842, the Chinese were forced to agree to an ignomious peace under the Treaty of Nanking.

The treaty imposed on the Chinese was weighted entirely to the British side. Its first and fundamental demand was for British "extraterritoriality"; all British citizens would be subjected to British, not Chinese, law if they committed any crime on Chinese soil. The British would no longer have to pay tribute to the imperial administration in order to trade with China, and they gained five open ports for British trade: Canton, Shanghai, Foochow, Ningpo, and Amoy. No restrictions were placed on British trade, and, as a consequence, opium trade more than doubled in the three decades following the Treaty of Nanking.

The illegitimacy if not sheer comedy of the UK's "broadcasting corporation" as moral arbiter is further revealed when one remembers that the royal icon of the rapacious, 19th century British Empire was Queen Victoria, whereas today it's the alleged rapist Prince Charles. To swerve Ernst Haeckel, it would seem to be a case of royalty recapitulating national character.

Notwithstanding the BBC's "reports", the truth about the Middle East is hardly about stolen Arab land (Muhammad's long in the tooth legions still believe they're the rightful owners of Spain) but much closer to what extreme left historian Benny Morris recently wrote:

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."

When the Arabs call off their losing war of annihilation against the oldest religious minority of the Middle East (i.e. the one that received, treasured and transmitted the moral laws under which Americans, if not the British or French, govern themselves) and focus instead on cultivating justice and prosperity at home, they may recover what no European journalist can offer them - moral legitimacy and self respect. Until then, expect more enraged Arabs and pitiable British sycophants.

Home . Posted by Editor at March 8, 2004 12:05 PM . DFME's new internet address is www.dfme.org

Comments on this post: