‘Power selects its servants: people who themselves have a lust for power, those who are naturally obedient, who have bad consciences, who disclaim moral scruples and pine for well being, benefit and profit, who have fears and many children, who have been humiliated and now accept the offer of a new pride, who are by nature dumb or those who are simply badly informed enthusiasts.’
Crucially, ‘men who have power can no longer change the antihuman character of power – precisely because they are in power.’
(Kusin’s Précis of a speech by Ludvik Vaculik, writer and reformer in Communist Czechoslovakia 1967)
Admittedly this was a criticism of neo-Stalinism however it’s food for thought as we inch ever closer to the promised land of political reform. Anticipated reform which is to be executed by men put in power via the system they are being entrusted to change. Don’t hold your breath Britain.

Tessa Dunlop

David Cameron has just returned from his first Prime ministerial visit to Afghanistan. There was much talk of national security amidst fresh hopes of eventually handing over to a well-trained Afghan army. This is our new prime minister looking for solutions to a long and increasingly unpopular war. But don’t hold your breath. If Cameron knows his history he should be aware a similar approach was attempted by White House newcomer Nixon in 1969. Back then ‘Peace with Honour’ was the optimistic name for the Vietnamese exit strategy.
In ‘69 the aim was to get the American boys home with as little egg on the Administration’s face as possible. Cue the training and equipping of over one million Southern Vietnamese recruits – it was soon the largest army in the world. But by 1975, minus their US backers, the ARVN had collapsed like a pack of cards in the face of the advancing Communists. What makes Cameron and Obama think the Afghan army will fare any better once their western allies and paymasters leave?
War costs lives and lives cost democratic governments. Nixon knew that, which is why he campaigned on the promise of secret way to win the war – this involved honourable withdrawal. By 1973 most of the American troops had left; the North Vietnamese couldn’t believe their luck – they simply bided their time and within two years were in Saigon. Likewise behind the current military surge Cameron has made it clear he’s impatient to bring our troops home once ‘the job is done’. His ally Obama went even further and put an 18 month timetable on his exit plan. What would you do if you were the Taliban?
Having decimated Southern Vietnam in the first half of the war, Uncle Sam’s U-turn in 69 involved a generous pacification programme: miracle-rice, building projects, education – the works. Eight years after the war Vietnam was the 3rd poorest country in the world. So forgive me if I feel somewhat sceptical about Cameron’s long-term 360 degree pledge to work with Afghans. Who exactly is going to pay for this promise? NGOs?

From the start the American effort was undermined in Afghanistan because beyond the cries of anti-communism it was never clear who they were fighting for. A corrupt administration? A puppet president? General Thieu’s military government had neither ideology nor legitimacy – ironic given his backers claimed to be the guarantors of the ‘free world.’ Meanwhile today, despite much talk of a political surge and a recent visit to Chequers, on what authority do Cameron and Obama believe Karzai will govern his country once they’ve made good their exit plans? Allegations of corruption, election rigging and nepotism make for eye-watering stuff.
We refused to join the USA in Vietnam. In those days our Government had sufficient independence of mind to say ‘No’ to America; we avoided being tarnished by a brutal bloody conflict. But minus the stain of Vietnam on our national conscience it’s all too easy to overlook the current parallels between the conflict in un-cowed Afghanistan and the American nightmare that unfolded in the paddy fields and jungle of South East Asia.
Tessa Dunlop

It is right and proper that we take time to remember those who lost their lives during the Evacuation of Dunkirk. However the 70th anniversary of that famous day of daring-do is just one date among many yet to come where our patriotic media will bang the drum for the servicemen who fought and died to keep the Jack boot out of Britain. Certainly the 2nd WW was the right war to fight; lest we forget ours was the moral high ground seven decades ago. But amidst the British back-slapping might we also spare a thought for the newest member amidst our nation’s workforce – the Poles? As the Nazis and the Soviets played tug-of-war with their Homeland – a staggering 22% of the Polish population died between 39-45 – those Polish servicemen who escaped performed with spectacular bravery for the allied forces, not least during the Battle of Britain.
Despite the bestiality of the occupying Nazis the Polish government in exile was never cowed – on the ground in their homeland the Poles harried and resisted and sapped Nazi morale. The Home Army (AK) destroyed one in eight of the German transports to the Eastern Front and even managed to smuggle a complete V2 rocket out of Poland for examination in Britain. Overall their contribution to the intelligence war was greater than that of any other nation.
And then there was the Warsaw uprising of August 1944 when the Poles rose up against the Nazis, fearful that if they did not, they would find themselves once again piggy-in-the-middle of a German/Soviet sandwich. The Nazis suppressed the uprising with unprecedented brutality. No help came from the outside and the AK lost 200 000 men. They were a broken fighting force by the autumn of 1944 and waiting in the wings was the Red Army. More than another other nation of the East our brave noble allies did not deserve what came next and to Britain’s great shame we did not even find a place for our Polish allies in the ‘45 victory parade in Whitehall.
The 2WW was the right war to fight. Let’s try and remember it in the right way.

When Dad told me he was going to donate his body to science I was surprised. Did a 21st century medical profession need cadavers? Was human dissection still part of the learning process? The very word conjured up images of a morally murky bygone era. A medieval world to which one would rather not return and most certainly not contemplate in the context of one’s dying father.
However it turned out Dad was right. The need for bodies has never been more acute. With increasingly intricate surgery the thirst for a total knowledge of the body and its many challenges and inconsistencies demands numerous cadavers. But according to the Royal College of Surgeons there is a real shortfall. In 2008 it is estimated that only 600 bequests lead to actual donations, yet there are 45000 medical and dental students at any one time in Britain. Why then are so few people prepared to do what my father did and bypass conventional burial or cremation and instead donate their bodies? After all to quote Dad before he died ‘surely better to be useful than end up as food for the worms?
In fact the reason why many anatomy departments are left without their most vital instrument of learning is in great part due to history which has burdened the medical profession with an almighty PR problem. Over a hundred and fifty years on and the legacy of the infamous body snatchers still looms large. There’s a tendency to associate the dissection of cadavers with grave diggers and an exploited underbelly. In the early nineteenth century only the criminal dead could be given to science; this left the rapidly expanding medical world with a huge shortfall and the system was open to horrendous abuse. In the wake of murderous Burke and Hare the law changed but it wasn’t until the first half of the 20th century that a shift in attitudes witnessed an increase in donations. Two World Wars saw patriotism swell and the nation did whatever it could to help the doctors on the front line. During the 1940s and 50s body donations peaked.
But World Wars galvanise community spirit like nothing else – the ‘all hands on deck’ attitude withered on the cynical sixties vine as did the euphoric belief in the chemotherapeutic revolution and a world where modern medicine could solve everything. In came a new era of media probing and scandals: Alderhay and Bristol Hearts Babies underlined the dwindling trust between the public and the medical profession. People confuse pathology with anatomy and don’t realise that the latter is there with the sole purpose of educating future doctors. Today’s students are missing out, with what effect only time will tell.
As for Dad you can hear more from him on the One Show, 7pm on BBC1 this Monday and Tuesday…. someone who really did carry on working after death.

My father was convinced that donations have also slumped because no one likes to mention medicine’s need for cadavers. Doctors don’t feel comfortable asking for such a deeply personal gift and as a society we’re particularly bad at talking about death and the options available. Dad was sick for years but euphemisms abounded, some friends even talked of him ‘getting better.’ However he was a realist to the end. Years of working with livestock taught him that death was inevitable and a carcass no more than an empty shell – as he put it ‘food for the worms.’ Why not donate what’s left to learning instead?

How many times have we heard ‘historic moment’ or ‘the making of political history’ used in relation to the pending leadership debates? The media is once again over-stating its hand in the game of political one-upmanship. True we have never had a head to head with our political leaders before. But a Nixon-Kennedy night to remember this will not be. In 1960 America even the medium of television was a novelty, let alone the concept of a beauty contest between a vice-president and a good time guy from Boston. In contrast the pasty-faced line up in Manchester this evening is not new to us. For those who choose to watch, an alternative version is available in the House of Commons every week during Prime Minister’s Questions. Lots of verbal jousting, much heat, little light, but at least there is some spontaneity available in the Parliamentary performance. The 76 rules that govern tonight’s event will kybosh any such free-wheeling.
And the contestants have been rehearsed to death. They will have practised their Regan one liners, been told how to televangelise Clinton style and trained to never look at their watch, wipe their sweating brow or move menacingly across the floor. Had Gore stayed in his seat maybe the world would not have inherited Dubya. With one eye across the Atlantic much has been said about Clegg, Cameron and Brown’s ability to turn the hand of history, to lose the fight in one quick gesture, comment or mock expression. But this is not America. The election is not a presidential race and I for one hope that the British public won’t take the memory of one misplaced sentence uttered under the glare of TV lights into the voting booth with them. Tonight should be viewed as little more than a show of testosterone-fuelled theatre.

President Karzai is, by all accounts, testing the patience of the allied forces in Afghanistan. Just as we prepare to mount an offence in Kandahar he has been muttering about joining the Taliban! This is part of a troubling survivor’s game – Karzai is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand are Obama, McCrystal and the ‘forces of good’ and on the other a thumping great family interest in the form of his more powerful brother Wali Karzai, leader of Kandahar’s provincial council and something of a poppy man.
Karzai should watch his step. There are worrying parallels between the Afghan administration and the US backed Diem government in 1960s South Vietnam. Diem was also a little over fond of his family and his corrupt administration offended that benevolent backer Uncle Sam. It was JFK who authorised the CIA to support a military coup in 1963 which toppled Diem and his brother Nhu. Things on the ground got a little out of hand (as is often the case thousands of miles away) and Diem and his brother were shot dead in the back of a car. Kennedy was reportedly sad when he heard the news. This was not the bloody outcome he wanted. But sometimes when you invade other people’s countries you have to play by their rules……..

I gave a lecture on the 1942 Occupation of Singapore last week and was surprised by the response. I was told by a couple of elderly gentlemen my analysis had been disrespectful. They did not like my interpretation of their living history. This may have had something to do with my impressions of the great man himself – Sir Winston Churchill. Or maybe it was my conclusion that we let down the young lads from the empire who came to fight our war without even knowing how to tie the laces on their boots. Thousands of Indian boys from the North West Province had never fired a machine gun, operated a Bren gun carrier or set a booby trap. They were scarce off their mother’s milk before they were dumped in north Malaya to face the lean mean Japanese juggernaut. Thousands died, some were taken prisoner, others defected.

It is uncomfortable history. We believed the empire would somehow hold out and hold us together. It didn’t. Imperial Britain was exposed for what it really was on that fateful day in February 1942 – too big and too brittle. We let our colonies down when they fought for us in our hour of need. After the war it was less about Great Britain and more about Little Britain. I am sorry if, for the two gentlemen in question, that was hard history to hear but sometimes a less bias selection of 2^nd World War stories would benefit us all. It was that right war to fight but that did not mean we always fought it gloriously. Far from it.

Tessa Dunlop

It reported today that many of Fallujah’s children are sick –  infants have chronic deformities; multiple fingers and toes, tumours, one baby was even born with three heads. Only six years ago the Americans fought a major offensive against Falluja’s insurgents and Iraqis are now blaming the highly sophisticated weaponry that the US forces used (accusations include white phosphorus and depleted uranium) and the toxic waste they left behind. Getting doctors to speak out about what they are dealing with is difficult; most are working in the town’s brand new hospital funded by the America dollar. It is uncomfortable, almost unbelievable that our allies in Iraq may have poisoned the very people they claimed they were helping. However it is not surprising.

We all know about the legendary and deliberate cruelty of the Japanese in Pacific war, their use of poison and toxic chemicals to snuff out the Chinese – atrocity was heaped on atrocity. Focusing on the enemy’s heinous crimes underlined the importance of our victory in the Second World War. We were the goodies; they were the badies. But in reality when two forces are trying to obliterate each other, good is often not discernible from bad – it is all just ugly. Need I mention Dresden? So let’s not pretend that our allies and indeed our forces aren’t capable of evil – intentional or not.

Recently I wrote about the Late Secretary of State Robert McNamara who retrospectively agreed that it was under his watch Agent Orange was used against the Vietnamese in the 1960s. This chemical not only killed the vegetation it also gave the locals a plethora of killer diseases and maimed new born babies. McNamara could not remember ordering the use of Agent Orange, that decision got lost in ‘the fog of war.’ I suspect that in the long run ‘the fog of war’ will be the excuse the US roll out for the collateral damage in Fallujah. Small consolation for the Iraqi families with sick children.

Tessa Dunlop

Is anybody aware that the Scots are in a consultation period for their draft Independence Referendum bill? The one they were long promised by the SNP and which still hasn’t been delivered. Once again Scottish First Minister Salmond is prevaricating because he knows the Scots are far too canny to vote for separation from their auld enemy the English. The chilly winds of an economic downturn are a timely reminder that Scotland would struggle to stand on its own two feet. Last year their top financial brands (RBS, Bank of Scotland) took an almighty tumble, to be saved only by the deep pockets of the Great Britain’s borrowing ability. That Scotland milks the southern cash cow is no great surprise after all the reluctant Celts ratified the Act of Union in 1707 because there was no money in the coffers to pay their public servants. Lest we forget the hallowed words of Scotland’s finest wordsmith:
“we’re bought and sold for English gold -
such a parcel of rogues in a nation!”
But don’t be misled by Burn’s patriotism. He was right, a lot of money was involved but it didn’t just line the pockets of ‘a coward few.’ Scotland was bust, they urgently needed liquidity and access to England’s Empire and that’s exactly what they got. From the outset this was a relationship of convenience and long may it continue. Small countries have always been more vulnerable to the vagaries of economics, whether it’s Scotland at the beginning of the 1700s, or Iceland and Greek in the 21st century. It may be an uncomfortable truth for many north of the border but together England and Scotland have always been greater than the sum of their parts.

Tessa Dunlop

Our self congratulatory focus on ‘good history’ is an easily made mistake – so often more lessons are learnt from the study of failure than they are from our obsession with success. The tendency to focus on the D-Day landings and their subsequent liberation of occupied Europe makes for great entertainment but it would serve us better to concentrate on the disastrous occupation of Singapore some two years earlier.

So-called Fortress Singapore was penetrated by the Japanese in a matter of days. This was more than a strategic loss for the British Empire; it called time on our imperial pretensions. The Mother country badly let her colonies down.

Historically we had always muddled through; after all we were the British Empire. Consequently the Japanese were not taken seriously as a fighting force. In the face of an Asian enemy we suffered from an extreme superiority complex. Our troops, a motley collection of young boys pulled primarily from India were untrained, scared and reluctant to fight for a Mother country who had not bothered to consult them over the war. And they were unforgivably underequipped. Our bombers were obsolete, there were no tanks and the fleet never materialised. The forces in the Malaypennisular and Singapore were hung out to dry by Great Britain in the face of a superior enemy.

There was never a public enquiry into why we lost Singapore – egg on Churchill’s face was the last thing a Britain on the wane wanted after the war. But lessons could still be learnt from this defeat. To win at war the troops (from whatever country) need to act as one, they need to be properly trained and equipped (that will always cost the British tax payer) and the enemy should never be underestimated.  If we can’t meet these criteria war should not be undertaken.

Tessa Dunlop