America has changed from the champion of international order to its antagonist. Bush has rejected the idea that a set of strong international institutions, built on a set of common agreements about values and the rule of law, is good for America and the world.  

First came the unilateral abandonment of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty so that they could complete testing and then build the first stages of a ballistic missile shield.  There are many problems with this, aside from the fact that the technology doesn’t work. It is preposterously expensive; it does not protect against terrorist attack (the most likely kind); and it is strategically destabilizing. That is a quartet of problems that should have doomed it. But the core message America sent in ditching the treaty it is that their commitments are valid only so long as they are also convenient. The Russians have recently used the proposed first phase construction in Poland as the basis for saying they will not observe their commitments under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.  What goes around comes around.

The Administration then announced that they would not sign the treaty establishing the International Court of Criminal Justice.  The ostensible reason for this was to avoid “rogue prosecution” of American soldiers by those who might wish the US harm.  This is, on its face, preposterous.  The standards of the Court were specifically rewritten to respond to US concerns over precisely this issue. Once again, the message is that the US will accept no limits on its power.

Then, in an almost offhanded way, the Administration simply rejected the Kyoto Treaty.  Among European countries this was, along with Iraq, the most shocking step.  Absolute and unilateral rejection was far outside the range of what informed observers thought would be the US response.

Next the Bush Administration asserted that the Geneva Accords were not binding on US treatment of detainees – and this has only put coalition soldiers at greater risk.  

Finally there is the National Security Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. This paper reasserts the right to preventative war, but a more dangerous element of that same paper was called to my attention by an article in Foreign Affairs by George Perkovich. 
 
One weapon of mass destruction – nuclear – is fundamentally different from chemical and biological weapons, which are absolutely outlawed. The core treaty regulating nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. And the core “deal” of that Treaty is that all state signatories agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons and the five nuclear states agreed, over time, to reduce and then eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.

But now the Bush strategy calls for assuring US nuclear superiority indefinitely. In order to do this the US will necessarily abrogate its commitments under NPT, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the commitment to eventual elimination. In short, in the most dangerous area – nuclear – the Bush radicals have asserted the right to abrogate the Treaty that has worked so much to the benefit of the US. The inevitable consequence of this action will be violation by others, making the world a vastly more dangerous place.

For those Americans who believe in a rule of law at home (including protection of civil liberties) there is real risk and real work ahead.  But it is in the international arena where the radicalism of this Administration poses a direct challenge to the world’s security. America will pay heavily – in security, in economic well-being, in their long-term leadership – if it allows this Administration to make the country a rogue state not bound by treaty and unconstrained by the decent opinion of mankind.
Sam Brown

Sam Brown was the Ambassador of the United States to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Beginning our evening in Worcester, we thought we’d reached bar Mecca. We were greeted by a beautiful patio area; absolutely perfect for a quiet drink on a summer’s evening. Once inside the bar continues to impress. Though subterranean, its high vaulted ceilings and good lighting make it feel warm and inviting. Always busy, the ambience in Worcester is great, and with the whole place decked out in college paraphernalia we could see exactly why one resident described it as having “a communal atmosphere that lends itself to debauchery”. However, let outsiders beware. We found the barman, Tony, to be a good contender for Oxford’s most irascible man. Put simply: be here with friends from Worcester, otherwise you’ll struggle to get served at all.

Given it’s distance from all civilisation, Hugh’s was going to have to be outstanding to justify our long walk up the Woodstock Road. The bar itself is absolutely huge, very modern looking and has plenty of comfy couches. We were also impressed by the bargain prices (£1.55 for a Carlsberg). Still, there’s nothing extra special on offer behind the bar. That said, the pear cider is worth a try. Sadly the place is so big that it struggles to ever seem busy. So is it worth the trek north? Probably only if you fancy the exercise…

Most college bars are pretty similar to look at, but in it’s own crazy way, Somerville really stands out. Decked out in a bright red with black and white murals of the seven deadly sins on the wall, the décor is striking to say the least. If you can drag your eyes away from all this, there’s the fun of free table football, and a TV next door on which to watch the real stuff. Somerville is also home to it’s very own cocktail, the ‘stone cold Jane Austen’ – a sickly sweet mix of cider, southern comfort and wkd, with a name almost as bizarre as the place itself.

So what are you doing this summer? A rickshaw run across Mongolia? Spraying Moet over sun-kissed buttocks in Monaco? Ridding yourself of sins by meditating in a mountain-hidden Nepalese monastery? Possibly, but for most of Oxford’s little dynamos, the curricula vitae are being beefed up with three to ten week corporate whore internships. Whether you’re banking, journo-ing, law-ing, advertising, politicking or accounting, the Fleet Street Mafia and Canary Wharf Glitterati have well and truly contract-bound us.

Great, we all think. We get the dosh, the brownie career points, and the persistent cold from seventeen air-conditioned hours every day; they (the Goldman Sachs, News Internationals, Saatchis and PwCs) get your blood, sweat, tears and twenty-one years’ worth of well-crafted brain for summer (and, they hope, for life). But is that it? Are we simply going to build up CV points, work our ways up the ladder and then retire happily ever after? I’d say three quarters of Oxford’s population are actively socially conscious. More of us than ever are creating sophisticated networks dedicated to social good, preparing for Masters and PhDs in social policy and human rights law and are actively pursuing careers in social enterprises (for-profit businesses whose main aims are for socially benefiting causes).

A prime example of Oxford Social Enterprise is Batiq – where Oxford students get paid to mentor Korean children over internet webcams to encourage cultural exchange and English language usage. Then there’s AIESEC, which co-ordinates community-building work experiences in different countries. Last term the Idea Idol competition held by the Oxford Entrepreneurs gave first prize to a group which assisted the blind with a revolutionary sensory glove and stick. And let’s not forget the whole plethora of fundraising activities which are taking place across Oxford to raise awareness and funds, from the Hands up for Darfur Ball to the RED fashion show. Plans are also underway to build the “Oxford Hub”, a centre for all charities and NGOs to meet, share knowledge and expertise. Oxford is certainly moving in leaps and bounds, all in the spirit of “the golden age of philanthropy.”

Don’t get me wrong – I think it’s great to go into the corporate world – a world whose vitality revolves around its aims of efficiency and waste-cutting. Indeed, what better opportunity is there to practise these ideas?  But after embellishing our skills portfolio in the City, perhaps we should give something back by sharing our expertise with charities.

Smruti Sriram
Smruti Sriram is Treasurer of the Oxford Union.

British academia voted yesterday to boycott cooperation with universities in Israel in protest of Israel’s presence in the Occupied Territories. Though the vote at the first meeting of the University and College Union passed by a majority of 158 to 99, several prominent members were opposed to the decision. General Secretary to the Union, Sally Hunt, said, “I do not believe a boycott is supported by a majority of UCU members, nor do I believe that members see it as a priority for the union.” The UCU vote coincides with similar pressures from within Israel, as four Israeli academics called yesterday for the government to lift bans on Palestinian students. In a letter to the defence minister, the presidents of Ben-Gurion, Hebrew, Haifa and Technion universities, wrote, “Blocking access to higher education for Palestinian students from Gaza who choose to study in the West Bank casts a dark shadow over Israel’s image as a state which respects and supports the principle of academic freedom and the right to education.” Education Minister Bill Rammell said, “The UK government fully supports academic freedom and is firmly against any academic boycotts of Israel or Israeli academics. Whilst I appreciate the independence of the UCU, I am very disappointed.” “I profoundly believe this does nothing to promote the Middle East peace process,” he added. Meanwhile, In another vote yesterday, the UCU rejected the Education Minister’s guidelines for professors to inform the government of suspected Islamic extremism among students. Rammell said, “There is evidence of serious, but not widespread Islamist extremist activity in higher education institutions.” Hunt commented, “Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme. The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue because they fear some quasi secret service will turn them in.”

Semi-Final – 5th Week
 
Winners: Jesus
 
Jesus

Hertford

Shall we protect our freedom of speech so far as to destroy it? Or shall we destroy our freedom of speech in order to protect it? it is your choice. and it is my choice. and yes, it really is that simple. Last week a fourteen year old boy came under fire for a poem he wrote through the eyes of hitler about the massacre of the Jews. presumably the class was to write a poem from someone else’s perspective. they have learnt that the best poems are those that spark a reaction. and so this boy creates a spark, or at least not so much a spark as a gargantuan bonfire. the story makes the nationals and it makes the broad sheet editorials. should it be published? should he be punished? But this story is an example, it is not the incident. Whether or not the boy agreed with what he was writing is not controversial: he made it perfectly clear in all his statements that he did not. what provoked controversy was that he had thought it permissible to write it in the first place. in fact, forget permissible – what is controversial is that he thought it clever to write it in the first place. reading the poem made people at least shiver if not feel distinct repulsion. this is a healthy attitude. there are dark overtones to it and reading it makes the world suddenly feel sunless. it is impossible to read lines such as “Make them make many paces for being one of the worst races, on their way to a gas chamber, where they will sleep in their manger” without a sense of isolation and fear resting on you. this too is a healthy reaction. No one agrees with what is said: least of all the actual author. But does that mean that it is unhealthy that it is written in the first place? It would be a tough call to find someone who did not believe we should practice religion freely, regardless of history. No one should have to see the tragedies and horrors of their religion’s past replayed and seemingly exalted through literature designed merely to provoke a reaction. the past is the past, let us learn from the lessons of the past and move on. and yet, at the same time, it would be a tough call to find someone who thought that those lessons can be learnt without them being taught. we should take courage from this boy knowing that he was sparking controversy when he wrote his poem. As a nation we believe in freedom of speech: that is one reason we are such a welcome choice to those desperate for political security. we stand for freedom. russian writers fled to Britain to publish writings that were illegal in their home country, both the Marxists under the reign of the tsar and the capitalists under stalin. to millions of people, both in the uK and out of it, we stand for political, religious and mental freedom. But these freedoms are separate from each other and they can, and do, clash. at what point does one become more important than another? Surely to discuss “freedom of religion” or “freedom of belief ” or “freedom from harm” is merely to assert one underlying freedom: that is to say, freedom of expression. i can practice my religion undercover but by demanding “freedom of religion” and in doing so i am demanding that i may make my religion open and not receive abuse for it. it requires compromise on both sides. it is through compromise that society succeeds. writers must be prepared not to write things merely to attack another social or religious group. this is something to which most people concur. however a less unanimously shared view is that those religious and social groups should not seek insults where insults were not intended. Just as we each have an obligation not to negatively impede on someone else’s life without due cause, so too does that someone else have that same obligation. if something is not intended to cause harm, then by creating unnecessary chaos over it is just as damaging to the original author. there are lines to draw and until they are drawn we must tread carefully. the chances are they may never be drawn. But it must be made clear that the only way to ensure that lessons are learnt from history is to ensure that those lessons continue to be taught. By provoking disgust and a sense of moral revulsion such as that which has been sparked by this poem, a whole generation is learning where the moral boundaries are. it is through speech, sometimes controversial, that lessons are passed on, and it is through those lessons that speech will be protected from controversy. it is through freedom of speech that freedom of speech is protected: that is the end we must seek. Sophie Moate is Junior Officer of OUCAARCHIVE: 6th week MT 2005

The desire to identify oneself with something at university is a fairly self-evident step that people take. however, for this identity to be dictated by the college one chooses or ends up in, is to base one’s Oxford life around convenience and circumstance. it is not a rational choice, but one that goes beyond immediate practicalities and stems from a desire for belonging and happiness. The idea that colleges have a certain type is, broadly speaking, a fallacy. Oxford is no longer the kind of place where it is possible to know what one is to expect – the Brideshead image of life in Oxford has been well and truly demolished as a reality of Oxford life. Today the university is broader, more diverse and varied then at any time in its history, yet still we like to think of ourselves as Jesubites or hughsies, and hold this ideological attachment foremost in our minds, often ahead of one to the university. Oxbridge is peculiar in this aspect because, although ivy League universities do have colleges, in the case of Yale, for example, they are merely glorified boarding houses. people are primarily Yaleys, whereas we are more likely to think of ourselves as stanners rather than Oxonians. Our distinctness from other english universities (durham the possible exception) is even greater. clearly we get this identity from an empathy with the place we live and work, in the same way that one might have about a town or even a nation, yet as we uphold a collegiate spirit in the light of perceived attacks, who or what are we really defending? Surely the propensity of hacks or thesps or jocks to congregate is saner and more sensible then our earnest desire for college affi liation: whatever their faults, these groups have consciously come together because they have something in common to work for. The shared experience of a studio rehearsal room or union debating chamber must be greater than post-hangover cups of coffee and curious glances at opposite ends of the Jcr. Yet it is for the latter which we feel the greater attachment. and it is this distorted viewpoint that has given rise to the hilda’s controversy. without wanting to sound patronising, it is fairly safe to say that Oxford students are an intelligent and aware bunch of individuals. so why is it that if consciously and explicitly ironic article is published, there are people who think we are expressing a serious point? stereotypes such as those about “hildabeasts” are clear objects of ridicule, and anyone who believes them to be true has a fairly distorted perspective on such issues in the first place. So, while the last week has shown that Cherwell’s ability to provoke remains firmly intact, perhaps more comforting is the oldest and perhaps singularly unscarred of Oxford traditions – collegiate loyalty and pride. it is inevitable and understandable, therefore, that we raised objection from those who felt a common identity under attack. But as that identity we satirise rests firmly in the domain of stereotypes, and hilda’s is no different from any other college in comprising of randomly bunched together individuals, our article must be taken for the explicitly intended irony that it was.ARCHIVE: 6th week MT 2005