Oct 27, 2003 4 min read

Get well soon, Mr. Blair. That is overwhelmingly and properly the main thing. Yet our culture cannot leave it at that. Some of yesterday’s headlines and bulletins went seamlessly into a political obituary mode not justified by the known facts. The doctors who treated Mr. Blair said his supra-ventricular tachycardia was a relatively common condition and was easily treated. … Although we have not yet reached American levels of obsession with perpetual youth, we seem increasingly to expect our political leaders to be on the young side of middle-age, photogenic and healthy. Every part of this is absurd and dangerous. Infirmity, ill-health and aging are part of the human condition. They do not prevent a person from continuing to work in other spheres and there is no reason why politicians should be any different.

Sixty years ago, this country was led through five years of total war by an old man who, while in office, successively suffered a heart attack, pneumonia, exhaustion, heart fibrillation, lung trouble and fever, who drank heavily almost every day and who was prone to clinical depression. Of course, a Churchill comes among us only rarely. Yet the savior of the nation could not have survived politically today, because we have unrealistic expectations about political leaders’ health and because we always sensationalize any problems that occur. It is not self-evident that modern nations are better led by men and women in their 40s and 50s than by those in their 60s and 70s. As a society, we have to relearn the need for some public figures to be old and infirm, even while others remain youthful and fit.

On the consequences of the war on terrorism,

It must now be clear to most people that the so-called war on terrorism includes big risks for both civil rights around the world and international stability. At the same time that Russia now seems to be ready to follow the path of the United States and introduce “pre-emptive attacks” in its declared war on terrorism, a new U.N. report about the Arab world, “Arab Human Development Report,” points out that Arab leaders also use “the war on terror” to restrict the rights of its citizens. It is not so much about Islam as a source to terrorism as western populists love to portray it but despotic leaders who use the terror fight as a cover to pursue political opponents – whether they are Muslims or not.

On the Swiss elections:

The rise to power by the Swiss right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) in Sunday’s elections can be seen as part of a process that is sweeping through many west European countries that have become refugee-fatigued over the past few years. The supporters of SVP in Switzerland view foreigners, especially, asylum-seekers, as a threat to their way of life and culture as well as taking away work opportunities from the Swiss people. There is no doubt that xenophobia is on the rise in many parts of Europe despite all efforts to manage it and prevent its spread. … If the Western countries seek to reduce the burden of incoming refugees to their shores and borders, all they need to do is to help developing countries become prosperous enough as to make their peoples think several times before they leave behind their own families and traditional ways of life. Making developing countries more economically advanced and their political systems more democratic is the only effective solution to the entire refugee issue. That is why the refugee-receiving states must invest more in developing countries not only economically but also politically. Otherwise the number of refugees is certain to mushroom to unmanageable proportions.

On Sudan’s peace talks:

Barring 11th-hour snags, the Khartoum government and the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) are set to clinch a peace deal soon. Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha and SPLA chief John Garang are in Kenya for a fresh round of negotiations. They are grappling with thorny issues such as division of wealth, mainly oil, and power-sharing between the Sudanese government and the SPLA. The United States, haunted by fiascos in Iraq and Palestine, keeps a high profile role in prodding the two sides to cut the peace deal. This American attention is laudable, given the aim is presumably to end a two-decade war, which has claimed some two million lives in southern Sudan. There are reasons for concern, however. In its yearning for a Sudan agreement that will make up for other disappointments in the region, Washington may put pressure on one or both sides to produce a half-baked or lopsided pact. What Sudan badly needs is a peace agreement that will stand the test of time and preserve its unity. Such an objective must not be sought through coercion.