Intervention isn’t the answer
I find Andrew Rawnsley’s desire for western intervention in Syria incomprehensible (20 April). In 2001 the US, assisted by “Me-too” Tony Blair, intervened in Afghanistan. Where has that got us or Afghanistan? Back where we started, with the Taliban in control of most of the country. In 2003 the US, assisted by Blair, invaded Iraq. Where has that got us or Iraq? Into the chaos of the Middle East today. In 2011 we intervened with airstrikes, if not troops on the ground, in Libya. Where has that got us and Libya today? A failed state and anarchy.
The trouble is that in the western world of liberal democracy, we simply do not begin to understand the Middle East, and in particular we do not even begin to understand Islam.
Martin Down
Witney, UK
• Andrew Rawnsley’s frustration at the continuing agony of the Syrian people is widely shared, but his attack on the non-interventionists is unfair. Wars are ended either by negotiation or by the victory of one side, and by arguing for intervention Rawnsley appears to favour the latter. Perhaps he wants a wholescale invasion by western armies acting without UN authorisation. Alternatively, using our Trident missiles to flatten Damascus would end the civil war but there would be a risk of further escalation.
The only realistic policy is to support negotiation between all the stakeholders and to seek a solution that would allow the Russians to withdraw without the risk of the Americans taking over control.
Graham Davey
Bristol, UK
• Andrew Rawnsley overreaches himself when he writes of “self-proclaimed peace-lovers” who “are too busy looking into the mirror admiring their own halos to face the moral challenges posed by a situation like Syria”. Many organisations, like Peace Direct, Saferworld and the Quakers, who do not believe the problems of violence can be solved by violence, are too busy experimenting with peace-building alternatives and support for peace activists to polish their halos.
John Lampen
Stourbridge, UK
• Andrew Rawnsley states “we can audit where a non-interventionist policy has got us”. And we can audit where an interventionist policy has got us. There is Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Non-interventionism has an advantage: our troops do not get killed. Non-intervention gets better results.
Art Campbell
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Confusion over environment
Media focus on rising sea levels as an element of climate change is intriguing (13 April); by the time sea levels rise significantly it will be all over for life as we know it. The urgency of global warming can be seen more immediately in Cape Town’s water supply debacle and fantastically above-average temperatures in eastern Australia; April 2018 has seen the highest temperatures ever recorded for this month.
Pasture growth is disrupted, grain crops can’t germinate, trees are flowering out of season, the bush fire season has broken new bounds and birds are simply – like me – confused. My confusion comes from the continued failure of governments to take effective action and, in Australia, to even develop policies.
In South Africa the-well-to-do inhabitants of gated communities could once depend on buying essential supplies, like water: those days may now be over.
Philippa Morris
Gravesend, NSW, Australia
Housing is a human right
Harry Quilter-Pinner correctly points out that housing is a basic human right (20 April), like the air we breathe. Homelessness can arise from a variety of causes such as poverty, lack of affordable housing, physical or mental illness, drug abuse and domestic violence.
In a wealthy democratic nation such as the UK, such conditions should not lead to homelessness. Provision of a home as a basic right to a homeless person lessens the severity of the impact of the above conditions and gives dignity to life.
The British government should build homes for homeless people, rather than building aircraft carriers or dropping bombs on the Middle East. The people of Finland should be commended for their solution to homelessness.
Bill Mathew
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Briefly
• Your short piece on how human “brow ridges” evolved (20 April) to render us “flatter faces [that] may have unleashed the social power of the eyebrow” is illustrated by the late actor Roger Moore as James Bond. Perhaps more appropriate would have been a picture of a foetus in the womb; that is where we all first started practicing “brow motions” to communicate.
Richard Orlando
Westmount, Quebec, Canada
• I read Hans Rosling’s restrainedly upbeat article (20 April) on adopting an optimistic perspective despite the dire news agenda with a growing sense of “Isn’t he aware he’s got his own demise to look forward to?”. Until I noticed with amazement that he’s even past worrying about that dismal prospect.
Bernard Galton
St-Nazaire-sur-Charente, France
weekly.letters@theguardian.com. Please include a full postal address and a reference to the article. We may edit letters. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.
