World of Opinion
On pecking order George Orwell was right about pigs. But he sold the chickens short.
In Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” the pigs lead a revolt to overthrow their human oppressor and take over the farm. Chickens are far down the pecking order, so to speak.
New research by British scientists indicates that non-fictional pigs are, indeed, pretty bright, despite their propensity to wallow in filth. Just as Orwell suggested, pigs demonstrate “cunning” behavior, use aggression to establish a social order, and can exploit colleagues to obtain food. Maybe Orwell’s swine were onto something when they declared that “some animals are more equal than others.”
But the same researchers say chickens aren’t the dumb lackeys Orwell described. They are more akin to the industrious poultry from the animated film “Chicken Run,” who build an airplane and quite literally fly the coop. It seems chickens learn from each other, can adapt their behavior and can navigate.
All of which suggests that while Orwell was right in putting his pigs into political office, he missed the mark with chickens. Given their seeming intelligence yet their propensity for laying eggs, perhaps Orwell should have made chickens his civil servants.
On President Bush and Iraq:
It is not necessary to be a rocket scientist to understand that George Bush and Tony Blair are in trouble over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The problem is not military, not yet at least; it is political. Every time the two men pronounce that Saddam Hussein poses an urgent threat, they are asked for their proof. And every time, as again at the weekend at Camp David, they fall back on assertions and claims, suspicions and half-baked half-truths. The International Atomic Energy Authority, for example, has not issued a “new report” (Mr. Bush’s words) on revived Iraqi efforts to acquire a nuclear bomb. It has merely published some commercial satellite photos of new construction at WMD-linked sites that were dismantled during previous UN inspections. “We have no idea whether it means anything,” says an IAEA spokeswoman. The worrying thought is that neither, in all probability, does Mr. Bush. …
And yesterday’s report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, like similar independent and official compendiums before it, is not much help. That Iraq retains elements, possibly deployable, of its pre-1991 biological and chemical weapons stockpile is not in dispute. That it has a few, not very impressive short-range missiles is generally agreed. But that it is any closer to joining the nuclear club than it was in 1998, when the UN pulled out, is unsupported by a shred of new evidence. Indeed, the IISS study suggests Saddam may be further away from this goal than he was before the Gulf war began.
There are many “ifs,” of course, particularly the fear that if Iraq obtains fissile material from abroad, it has the expertise to fast-forward thwarted nuclear ambitions. The way to prevent such scenarios is a big push, parallel with resumed UN inspections in Iraq, to promulgate and enforce the moribund fissile material cut-off treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the biological and chemical weapons conventions, all of which anti-WMD pacts Mr. Bush has at times ignored, scorned or undermined. Greater urgency should also be afforded last June’s G8 anti-proliferation plan and international cooperative threat reduction programmes on the Nunn-Lugar model. This is the best, multilateral way to halt WMD proliferation, not just in Iraq but across the globe. This, not Iraq alone, is the real threat and the real challenge.
On Switzerland joining the U.N.:
Finally. The fact that Switzerland is joining the United Nations is naturally a very minor event for the world. But for Switzerland it’s a big step.
For it will be taking a seat in the General Assembly that – as an important financial contributor and active-passive member – it has long deserved. The step from observer to member corrects a mistake that was made in 1945. Back then, neutral Switzerland was not welcome in the United Nations. It was seen as a nation that benefited from the war and a suspected Nazi collaborator. …
Now Switzerland is in the United Nations, but it has not yet reached its goal. Having a seat and having a voice are not an end in themselves. The new possibilities offered by full membership must be used to work toward the goals of Swiss foreign policy. To make Swiss entry work toward a peaceful and just world in the United Nations requires additional measures and laws in Switzerland. It requires an increase in development assistance, the expansion of support for peace and a concerted effort to promote human rights and humanitarian law.
Switzerland has experience and proposals to bring the United Nations in these fields. But it must not be continually glancing nervously at its neutrality. It must forge alliances with other countries of good will and made its voice heard clearly – especially now, when world peace is in acute danger and a friendly power wants to rise above the law.
On 9-11:
Many people blame the United States for promoting the economic globalization that they believe is widening the gap between rich and poor nations and rich and poor people. If terrorist organizations are to be eliminated, the circumstances that foster them must also be eliminated. The U.S. State Department made an initial step in that direction by convening researchers to study why the United States is hated in other countries.
Many see the Bush administration’s single-minded pursuit of Iraq as something of a throwback to the self-reliant spirit of frontier times. But the vigilante attitude is losing ground even in the United States.
America’s anti-terrorism strategy must be revised in keeping with changes in public opinion at home and abroad. We hope that in such change, the American people will recover their social tolerance in place of the present inhospitable attitude.