Rant: doublespeak

[liv]

I don't intend to get political here. But I just wanted to pass on something that my brother Screwy pointed out a while ago in similar circumstances to today's. Next time you hear a politician saying
if we stop the peace process we give the terrorists what they want
(Tony Blair, today), be aware that he's talking nonsense.

If people are still getting killed, there is no peace process. You can't just go about saying, we will never let terrorists get in the way of the peace process; the "peace process" doesn't exist in the abstract. This is not peace; calling it peace is the worst kind of doublespeak.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I take your point, but one could rephrase it if we stop aspiring to peace &c. In my opinion, (in this case) there is at the moment neither peace nor much of a process that will lead to any peace.

On the other hand, I can conceive of a situation in which there is a political mechanism in process that does seem to be capable of stopping violence; such a mechanism (I would say) ought not to be voluntarily halted as a response to a single violent incident. Presumably Blair would have us think that he believes this is the current situation.

A

[liv]

Fair comment, A. It's reasonable to say, we won't give up on this peace process because of one violent incident. And of course at some level one has to hope that this particular violence will be the last.

But it's when you say, no matter what the extremists do we won't give up on the peace process, when you say (the original example was Ireland) the death toll from sectarian violence has been steadily increasing for the past several years, but the peace process is still intact, because whatever happens we won't let it affect the peace process, that it becomes ridiculous, insulting etc.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree, the situation must constantly be re-assessed in the light of all events, and any "peace process" doesn't exist as a separate entity from the general political reality.

I actually think there may be a case for continuing negotiations on certain issues regardless of any level of political violence - particularly if it does not seem like ceasing negotiations will prevent the violence.

A

[(Anonymous)]

That depends on the nature of the peace process. If there is something on the table with the moderates saying that they must attempt to control the hardliners that they are supposedly allied to as one of the conditions.

This is admittedly quite rough as a condition- but trying to drive a wedge between the opposing moderates and hard liners is seldom a bad idea.

After all, and to (probably mis-) quote Malcom X "The reason they talk to him [Martin Luther King] is that they don't want to talk to me"

Francis

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

“Peace means something different from ‘not fighting’... Peace is an active and complex thing and sometimes fighting is part of what it takes to get it.”

[ OK, I've stopped being tempted. ]

[liv]

OK, I've stopped being tempted.
*bows* Thankyou.

Very interesting comment. While I suspect that the standard political spin I'm complaining about is not based on anything so sophisticated, this is definitely thought-provoking.