netherhall newsapril 2012

india: land of extremes‘a million mutinies now’

coming soon: netherhall’s diamond jubilee

2 netherhall news

contents

CONTENT EDITOR Zubin MistryMANAGING EDITOR, DESIGN & SETTING Luke WilkinsonIN-HOUSE CORRESPONDENT Dominic BardillCONTRIBUTIONS AND ADVICE Father Joseph Evans, Dominic Bardill, Peter Brown, Andrew Duncan, Ignatius de Bide-gain, Jonny Parreño, Neil Pickering, James Os-born, Alex Osborn, James Somerville-Meikle.

PHOTOGRAPHY Miguel Rojo

CIRCULATION Netherhall News is sent by e-mail to current and past residents of Nether-hall House. It is also available at http://www.nh.netherhall.org.uk/magazine/magazine.htm

CONTACT US Would you like to be includ-ed in our mailing list, contribute to or express your opinion on Netherhall News? Write to:

LUKE WILKINSONC/O NETHERHALL NEWS, NETHERHALL HOUSE, NUTLEY TERRACE, LONDON, NW3 5SA, U.K.or E-MAIL: alumni@nh.netherhall.org.uk

DISCLAIMER All opinions expressed in this magazine are those of the authors concerned and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors of Netherhall News, of Netherhall House, Netherhall Educational Association, or of Opus Dei.

regular features

Cover page: A photograph taken by resident Andrew Duncan on a recent trip across India. Dur-ing his travels, Andrew visited ten cities in seven states, cov-ering over 10,000km in 156 hours of train travel, which cost no more than £170. he explains his love-hate relationship with this ‘hugely paradoxical country of extremes’ p.10

director’s notes

editorialzubin mistry on the difficulty of speaking about ‘honour’

4

8peter brown gets ready for netherhall’s diamond jubilee

3032363840

is the e.u. out of date?pickering’s travelsathlete’s footpassing throughdesert island discs

netherhall news 3

many shades of blue:the history of the conservative party

23 14withdrawal symptoms:

misdiagnosing iraq

tough cookie:on resilience

22

‘nothing is certain in a sea-fight’the royal navy

26

is the e.u. out of date?pickering’s travelsathlete’s footpassing throughdesert island discs

16

lifemanship:the art

Francis Chamberlain, (third from left), grandson of Neville Chamberlain, who served as prime minister between 1936 and 1940, and great-grandson of the influential politician and statesman Joseph Chamberlain, spoke at Netherhall on 2 February. It was Nev-

ille Chamberlain’s older brother, Austen, whom their father intended for politics. Austen became leader of the Conservative party and served in various cabinets. Initially, Neville pursued business, serving as managing director of a ship berth manufacturer for almost two decades, and other civic activities in Birmingham. His political career began in 1911, origi-nally in local politics. By the 1920s, he was in parliament. Like all of his generation, Neville was deeply affected by the First World War and determined to avoid any possible repeat. It was this determination to avoid war, argued his grandson, that has left Neville Chamberlain with the legacy of appeaser in chief. He died in 1940 shortly after his resignation as prime minister, suffering from terminal bowel cancer which, Francis suggested, may have been induced by the stress of dealing with the threat of Hitler.

4 netherhall news

zubin mistry on the difficulty of speaking about ‘honour’

editorial

Earlier this month, the BBC aired a disturbing Panorama programme on so-called ‘honour killings’. One distressing case concerned the murder of Banaz Mahmod in 2006 at

the age of nineteen. In the 1990s, her Iraqi Kurdish family was granted asylum in flight from Saddam Hussein’s regime. In 2003 she entered an arranged marriage and moved to the West Mid-lands with her husband. There she suffered domestic violence and rape, as she would later report to police in September 2005.

Despite the ‘shame’ of leaving an arranged marriage, Banaz re-turned to the family home. Soon she met Rahmat Sulemani at a family party. She fell in love. Her father, Mahmod Mahmod, demanded that she, still not formally divorced, relinquish her unsuitable new boyfriend. His perceived ‘honour’ in the com-munity had already been compromised when an older daughter had fled violence in the family home as a teenager. As acting head of the family, his brother and Banaz’s uncle, Ari Mahmod, urged his niece to break off the relationship.

Soon, these patriarchs determined to kill her. Warned by her mother, Banaz reported the threat to the police. Between De-cember 2005 and her murder on 24 January 2006, Banaz ap-proached the police on four separate occasions. One encounter occurred on New Year’s Eve. Her uncle and father met Banaz at her grandmother’s house on the pretext of discussing the divorce. Allegedly forced to drink alcohol and seeing her father wearing surgical gloves, she fled for her life by breaking a window to es-cape into a neighbour’s house. Police officers unfortunately fo-cussed more on the broken window than on the desperate young woman who had frantically cut her hands breaking it. Rahmat took footage of a distressed Banaz in hospital.

Frightened, the pair pretended to end their relationship. But they still met in secret. Spotted in Brixton, the Mahmods were informed. A group of family friends tried to kidnap Rahmat. Reporting this to the police, Banaz was advised to find a hostel or refuge. Tragically, she thought that she would be safe at the family home with her mother. On January 24, however, alone in the house, her killers struck. Precisely what happened is unclear. Two of the men later convicted of her murder, Mohammed Saleh Ali and Omar Hussein, reputedly gloated that they had raped her before strangling her. Her body was eventually found in April, buried in a suitcase in the garden of a house in Birmingham. Her father and uncle were convicted of murder in 2007 and,

extradited from Iraq, Ali and Hussein were convicted in 2010. Rahmat, whose testimony was crucial, lives under witness pro-tection. As Judge Brian Barker summarised, ‘This was a barbaric and callous crime[…] To restore the so-called family honour, it was decided by her father and uncle that she should die and her memory be erased.’

Other cases are equally disturbing. Laura Wilson, a seventeen year old white teenager from Rotherham, had given birth to the child of a young man, Ishtaq Hussain, who refused to recognise his paternity, and had also been involved in a relationship with Ashtiaq Asghar. Spurned by both men, she had confronted both families, who responded angrily. A few days later, Asghar stabbed her to death in a frenzied knife attack.

Another case concerned Nosheen Azam, a young bride from Pakistan who joined her new husband’s family in Sheffield. Soon she complained to her parents back home of abuse. Tragically, as her father recalls, they urged her to stay on. Months later, she told her parents that she feared for her life. Later that day she was found in the back garden, horrifically burned. Had someone tried to murder her? Had she desperately attempted to take her own life? No-one knows. The injuries caused her brain to haem-orrhage and she now lies in a vegetative state in a care home while her father sits by her side each day. Visibly pained, he describes her as a living corpse. The Southall Black Sisters, an organisa-tion that tackles domestic and gender violence, has demanded an inquiry into her case. This awful story may have parallels. A teenage Jasvinder Sanghera, founder of Karma Nirvana, a charity which supports victims (male or female) of ‘honour’ crimes and forced marriage, fled her family to escape a forced marriage. One of her sisters, trapped in an abusive marriage, took her own life by self-immolation.

‘Honour killings’ raise several difficult subjects – ‘honour’-based violence, forced marriage, responsibility for suicide – and are controversial for more than one reason. Noticeably, there is a re-luctance to use the term ‘honour killings’, even a strong aversion to using it, stemming from different concerns and assumptions. First, some shrink from it because it seems to mitigate or even exculpate abominable crimes. A related concern stems from a kind of a perceived hallowed space that surrounds cultural differ-ences. ‘Even the term ‘honour killing’ is problematic,’ the jour-nalist Martin Samuel has recently written, ‘This is violence and murder, nothing fancier. Dying for a kiss is not cultural.’ The implication is that the stress on respect for cultural differences breeds a blindness to or even apology for these awful crimes.

Second, a rather different concern has been expressed. While acknowledging the ‘very real and troubling issue of violence to-wards women within British Asian society’, the journalist Huma Qureshi argues that ‘terming their victimisation ‘honour crime’ skews the focus, turning what is a heinous crime into a cultural judgment against a homogenous group.’ In other words, these crimes may be used to tar whole communities, and religious or ethnic groups.

Third, some have questioned whether ‘honour killings’ and ‘hon-our’ crimes ought to be considered anything other than forms of

netherhall news 5

domestic abuse. There are between ten and twelve ‘honour kill-ings’ each year in the UK; according to a widely quoted statistic – a decent working assumption is that a great deal of domestic violence does not make it into statistical form – on average two women are killed by violent partners or former partners each week.

If there are grounds for using terms like ‘honour killings’, this does not mean that these concerns do not raise reasonable ques-tions. That sensitivity to cultural differences can lead to hesitance in addressing pressing issues has frustrated Jasvinder Sanghera, whose attempts to speak about forced marriage in schools have been thwarted on grounds of cultural sensitivity.

At the same time, such a concern is exaggerated insofar as no one, to my knowledge, defends ‘honour’-based violence, let alone murder, out of misplaced cultural respect. To speak of ‘honour killings’ no more mitigates these murders than to speak of ‘gang-land murders’ does. Murder is murder. Such categories point to specific motives and contexts relevant in investigation, judicial procedure and long-term prevention. In the case of ‘gangland murders’, disputes within or across gangs, other networks of crime such as drugs or prostitution, and witness intimidation are important in investigation, to mention nothing of tackling how gangs are, worryingly, a normalised part of the inner-city social landscape for many young people.

There is also reason to acknowledge a different concern, if not quite about ‘cultural judgment’, then about the misappropria-

left: jasvinder sanghera has written about her experiences

“To speak of ‘honour killings’ no more mitigates these murders than to speak of ‘gangland murders’. Murder is murder”

6 netherhall news

netherhall news 7

tion of these crimes. Looking at their websites, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the British National Party and the English Defence League see in ‘honour’-based violence, forced marriage and the sexual grooming of young girls – a subtext in the story of Laura Wilson – a lucrative source of political capital.

Their real focus, it must be said, is on Islam. These stories slot into some of the far right’s most cherished narratives. On their view, these horrific crimes are a Muslim problem – or, a problem with Muslims. The Laura Wilson case – the ‘first known white victim of an ‘honour killing’’ – has been particularly ripe for exploita-tion. One BNP story concludes, ‘And still brainwashed liberals maintain that Islam is a religion of peace.’ There is no awareness that ‘honour’ crimes are a cross-cultural phenomenon, no reports of fatwas (or juristic rulings) utterly condemning ‘honour’-based violence, and no acknowledgment of any Muslim groups or in-dividuals spearheading the fight against it. Casting aspersions on those with a vested interest and community influence in fighting such crimes is not a rational response. Moreover, when the per-petrators are not Muslim, the BNP and EDL are strangely muted on domestic violence, forced marriage and sexual grooming (a growing problem in inner-city gang areas).

When used carefully, terms such as ‘honour killing’ and ‘hon-our’-based violence can yield some insights. They are forms of domestic violence and murder, of course, but with certain spe-cific dynamics. Like other domestic murders, Banaz Mahmod’s death is lamentable. Unlike them, her murder was not perpe-trated by a jealous or abusive individual but plotted by members of her kin group, including her own father. ‘Honour’ (or ‘shame’) is a condensed way of alerting us to certain dynamics such as the importance of social ‘visibility’: when something shameful becomes ‘visible’ to the broader community, there is a perceived need to curb this visibility, sometimes by extreme measures. Moreover, the acts of individuals are experienced communally and can bring about a kind of communal shame. In particular, perceived transgressions of women are felt to profoundly disturb the identity and self-perception of the broader group. This is only to scratch the surface, but one further advantage is a cross-cultural applicability. I have encountered comparable dynamics in my own research on medieval nunneries and the far from gal-lant treatment of some medieval queens: there is little doubt that ‘honour’-based violence blighted medieval and early modern Christendom without being essentially Christian or European.

Fundamentally, being aware of culturally specific factors may be an important part of fighting certain crimes. Following the death of Banaz Mahmod, the Independent Police Complaints Commission reported on failings in the police’s numerous inter-actions with her. Some findings have wider implications; for in-stance, the handling of her allegations of sexual assault was woe-fully mismanaged. But, significantly, the report also identified inadequate awareness of alien cultural dynamics in the sequence

of events culminating in her death as an important reason why the police failed her. In other words, following Banaz’s case, the police now see alertness to such dynamics as important in pre-venting future tragedies.

Campaign groups have taken the lead in bringing crimes with specific cultural dynamics to the government’s attention. The Ira-nian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation has petitioned for ‘honour’-based violence training to be provided for police of-ficers, social workers and medical staff, while the Southall Black Sisters have proposed making forced marriage a criminal offence, which the government is currently considering.

Finally, sensitivity to relevant cultural factors is crucial in help-ing women (and men) caught up in forced marriage and ‘hon-our’ violence. When seeking outside help or refuge from familial abuse is seen as ‘shameful’ or impossible by individuals who feel isolated in desperate situations, the refusal to consider specific cultural factors, and how these might be relevant in providing effective support for individuals, is a form of blindness.

To speak of ‘honour’-based violence is neither to stigmatise par-ticular cultural or religious groups nor to excuse the inexcusable on the grounds of cultural difference. It is too important a ques-tion to be left to those with other axes to grind.

left: oscar-winning documentary saving face focuses on a british-pak-

istani plastic surgeon who performs reconstructive surgery for victims

of acid-throwing, recently the subject of a bill passed by the pakistani

government

right: a foreign office poster on forced marriage

8 netherhall news

director’s notespeter brown looks forward to more than one jubilee

2012 is the year of Diamond Jubilees. The Queen is celebrating 60 years on the throne and Neth-erhall is celebrating 60 years since the first

batch of residents arrived at 18 Netherhall Gardens back in 1952.

It seems that the entire country will be coming to a standstill to celebrate the Royal Jubilee. The land will be awash with street parties and festivities giving thanks for Her Majesty’s achieve-ments. Netherhall’s celebrations will be on a more modest scale and confined to NW3 (we’re still recovering from the three-day jaunt in 2002 to celebrate the 50th anniversary). The principal event will be on the evening of Saturday 26th May. All former residents and their families are invited to join the celebrations starting at 6pm. It’s obviously impossible to send out individual invitations to so many people but if you are a former resident and would like to attend you would be most welcome. I would simply ask that you email me on peterb@nh.netherhall.org.uk so that we have some idea of numbers.

The format will be familiar to residents and former residents alike. Please pray for good weather!

6pm Meditation and Benediction7pm Buffet dinner on the roof garden8.30pm Show in the auditorium9.30pm Reception on the roof garden

The second limb of the celebrations is a special edition of the Netherhall magazine. In mid May we hope to be able to send out a bumper edition of the Netherhall News with articles from and about former residents. As the editorial team keep telling me ‘it won’t be just a trip down memory lane’. It will try to look at what Netherhall is about and what effect it has had on society in general.

The third limb of the 60th anniversary celebrations (you won’t be surprised to hear) is a fund-raising effort to pay for major capital works that need to be undertaken in Lakefield this year. Lakefield is the fantastic catering school next to Netherhall that has, for 60 years, looked after all the domestic arrangements of Netherhall. Without Lakefield, Netherhall would be a totally different place and would lack many of the features which make Netherhall the ‘home away from home’ of which H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother spoke when she opened the hall’s second phase in 1966.

Lakefield’s principal need is to replace their goods lift (more than 20 years old) but there are also other items of heavy machinery for the kitchen that have reached the end of their working life.

We shall be approaching former residents individually to ask for help but if you are able to contribute, please don’t wait to be asked.

Netherhall is, by and large, able to operate as a going concern without needing grants and subsidies for its day to day functions. It does, however, need help for major capital expenditure such as these items required by Lakefield. It is then that we need to be able to fall back on the support of alumni and friends. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Student residences are not an area of business that one would invest in if one were looking to make a profit. The price that the average student can afford nec-essarily means that residences such as Netherhall have to peg the fees they charge students and consequently the income that can be derived from the site is capped too. All of you who have lived here know we are not in it for the money, but sometimes extra money is needed so that we can continue to offer a ‘home away from home’ to future generations of students. That is why we turn to you who have benefitted from life in Netherhall so that you can help other people benefit too for many years to come.

“student residences

are not an area of

business that one

would invest in if one

were looking to make a

profit”

netherhall news 9

upcoming special edition: celebrating 60 years of netherhall

The editors are looking for former residents who would like to share news, views, memories and pic-tures for publication in the 60th anniversary edi-tion. If you are interested in contributing, please contact Luke or Zubin on the following address:alumni@nh.netherhall.org.uk

memento publication to capture the house’s spirit as it turns 60 years old

10 netherhall news

‘a million mutinies now’from wealth to poverty, hatred to love: andrew duncan is enthralled by the land of extremes

I was incredibly fortunate to spend December and January in India. I criss-crossed the country by train – 10,000 kilome-tres in 156 hours. I saw morning pooja and public cremation

in Varanasi, photographed the Taj Mahal, rode camels in the Thar desert. I celebrated my friend’s wedding in Delhi, caught a glimpse of a tiger in Kerala, sat amidst cheering and wolf-whis-tling in a Jaipur cinema. I bumped into friends by chance, held a reunion with old university pals, and met up with family, old relatives and newborn ones.

I saw and felt the sun every day, got a tan on the beach, then tried to wash it off in the Arabian Sea. I did succeed in washing down sumptuous meals with famous Indian spiced chai.

It was an incredible two months, etched in my memory and all my senses. How I loved it.

However, my mood in India was not constant. Imagine a light switch, which can be on, or off. My mood flicked between loving India, and hating India.

Why? While it is a feast for the senses, India will invade your eyes, nose and ears. As soon as you land at Delhi International Airport, you can smell the heavy, acrid pollution. Driving around towns, holding a conversation is impossible with the bleating of horns and the choking fumes. At traffic lights and traffic jams tourists are pounced upon to buy books, toys, gifts and food from street hawkers. A simple ‘no thank you’ (nai chai-yai in Hindi) doesn’t stop the traders trying.

In one car trip from Jaipur, I thought we would crash at least five times. The dual carriageway was under construction, so cars, bikes, lorries and cows used just one side of the road to travel

netherhall news 11

andrew’s pictures here and over the page

show various scenes of india:

the Red Fort in Delhi,

river is the Ganges at Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh,

The picture of cricket is at the Oval Maidan in Mumbai,

street traffic in Delhi

12 netherhall news

netherhall news 13

in both directions. My white-knuckled hands gripped the dash-board for most of the journey. I swore every time we were headed straight into a lorry’s headlights. I laughed at my driver after we swerved out of the way with milliseconds to spare, then, see-ing he wasn’t listening to me (he was on his phone) I nervously fiddled with my seat belt which was faulty.

Being a gora, a foreigner, in India attracts a price. The guest is like a god in India, and from friends to hoteliers, I was treated amazingly well and given a royal welcome everywhere. But there is a price for this and it’s a dollar sign hovering above your head. Rickshaw drivers, shopkeepers and touts in train stations will try to rip off unsuspecting goras, charging double or triple the price of goods.

India is hugely paradoxical, the country of extremes. I think this explained my mood while I was there. It’s a land of extreme beauty and degradation, of wealth and poverty, generosity and intolerance, all the time, everywhere. It’s no surprise that V.S. Naipaul saw India as the land of ‘a million mutinies now’.

For a country of one billion people, over six major faiths and two hundred languages, it astounds me that India is still one country and hasn’t Balkanized. It’s been explained to me that this is the

case because India is ‘the place of the heart’. That, and cricket I reckon. Unfortunately, there is huge intolerance at times. Reli-gious divides lay at the heart of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, the 1992-3 Hindu-Muslim riots in Bombay and again in the 2001 Gujarat riots. In 2008, Christians were being persecuted in parts of Orissa, while later in the year Jews and foreign tourists were targeted in the devastating terrorist attacks in Mumbai .

Wealth and poverty have always persisted in India – looking at the Taj Mahal and the neighbouring swamp symbolises this. But despite record economic growth in the 2000s, poverty rates are still extremely high. India has more millionaires than France, but India also has more poor people (by some measures) than any other country in the world.

I loved many parts of my trip around India this winter. And I’d love to go back not as a tourist but to live and work - maybe as a teacher, with a charity or for the UK Government.

Perhaps then I can help remove some of the things I hate about this beautiful country.

Andrew Duncan is a parliamentary intern and a current resident in Netherhall

The withdrawal of British and American forces from Iraq in December last year marked the end of one of the most con-troversial conflicts in recent history, but Charles Tripp be-

lieves the challenges of constructing a stable nation state are far from over.

Professor of Middle East politics at SOAS, Tripp finds that his expertise on Iraq, a country about which he was written exten-sively, is often in demand. His position as a leading academic in this field has been recognised for some time and has led to him meeting politicians and policy makers around the world, in-cluding a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair shortly before the 2003 Iraq invasion. Speaking at Netherhall on 27 February, Tripp argued that the aims of the invasion were inherently flawed as they lacked a basic understanding of the country and its struc-tures of power, which lay beyond the formal network of the state which the allied forces were preoccupied with seizing. Although he is a political scientist by profession, Tripp stressed the need to place Iraq’s contemporary politics in historical context. Many of the forces which allowed Saddam Hussein to maintain power and which are now hindering the development of a modern, lib-eral state, he emphasised, can be traced back to formation of the state of Iraq after the First World War.

The territorial state of Iraq was created in the early 1920s by civil servants in London and Paris out of territory formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire in Mesopotamia. It was formed out of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra, which were all unique and distinctive but were now made to share a common statehood. The concept of modern statehood was unfamiliar to most people of the Middle East and was particularly hard to ad-just to in Iraq where there was no historical precedent for power being wielded right across the territorial area drawn up by the British and French.

The responsibility of turning Iraq into a stable, sovereign state was given to Britain under the terms agreed in the League of Nations Mandate but the British Government began to look for ways out of this commitment almost as soon as it had entered into it. At a time when financial restraints were tough and Brit-ain’s global prestige was declining, the cost of state building was hard to justify in the eyes of both the parliament and the press. Cost saving became the priority for British officials in Iraq and so the aspiration of creating a liberal, democratic state was replaced by the reality of creating a state that was stable. State institu-tions such as the army and civil service were hastily constructed,

14 netherhall news

withdrawal symptomsforeign powers have failed to understand iraq more than once in its history and the consequences have been severe. james somerville-meikle reports

a king was imported from Syria and flying visits from the RAF provided the coercive power required to bomb the population into submission.

The British had created the bare bones of a state and half-heart-edly attempted to make it work but they were now anxious to leave and rid themselves of their responsibilities in Iraq. When Iraq gained full independence in 1931, its state institutions might have looked the part but in reality they were horribly inef-ficient and completely incapable of dealing with the task of gov-erning the country. The creation of the state and its institutions had been imposed from above and as a result they were largely detached from the people they were set up to govern. From the very beginning the Iraqi state lacked a solid foundation in soci-ety; its power was weak and easily exploited by the elites whom the British had installed.

Professor Tripp believes that the weaknesses of Iraqi state institu-tions allowed elites to develop their own sources of power through a network of patronage and clientelism which he described as the ‘shadow state.’ Those who controlled this shadow state used its resources such as land and oil to buy favour and consolidate their personal hold on power. This neo-feudal method of secur-ing power and distributing resources was often mapped upon pre-existing loyalties according to tribe or kin. The deep divi-sions in Iraqi society meant that the power of the state was not seen as something to be shared but something to be controlled. When one group in society gained power they were reluctant to relinquish it and instead sought to use their position to benefit themselves and reinforce their control of the state. It was nearly always individuals and groups from the Sunni community who controlled the Iraqi state, and this led to feelings of resentment and alienation amongst the Shia and Kurdish communities who viewed the state as institutionally biased towards the interests of the Sunnis. The development of a strong army and rapid increas-es in revenue from oil exports provided those who controlled the state with the means at their disposal to consolidate their power.

It is against this backdrop, Professor Tripp argued, that the re-gime of Saddam Hussein needs to be understood. Saddam and most of the senior figures in his regime came from a Sunni tribe in the north of the country. This was not a fact that Saddam Hussein wished to publicise because when the Baath Party came to power they had promised to rid Iraqi politics of the tribal divi-sions and patronage networks which had dominated the coun-try’s political scene for so long. This seemed to be supported by

netherhall news 15

the measure introduced in the 1970s which prohibited the use of tribal surnames but it soon became clear that the real aim was to disguise the regional identity of most of Saddam’s inner circle. A disproportionate number of government officials bore the names ‘al-Tikriti and al-Duri’ which were taken from Sunni Arab towns in the north of the country, which is also the area where Saddam was born. These areas formed the main recruiting ground for his regime and the network of shadow state power which sustained his position. As with earlier rulers of Iraq, the power in Saddam Hussein’s regime was not vested in the formal institutions of the state but in an elaborate network of family and tribal patronage. It was through these shadow state structures that Saddam Hus-sein maintained his hold on power and the formal state acted merely as a façade for the domestic and international legitimacy of his rule.

Policy makers in Europe and America, Tripp emphasised, lacked a basic understanding of the structures of power in Iraq and the unique nature of the state. Measures designed to weaken Saddam Hussein’s hold on power targeted the state and yet his power base was completely separate from formal state institutions. The sanctions and oil embargos that were applied to Iraq in the 1990s actually strengthened Saddam Hussein’s hold on power, Tripp noted, by further weakening the formal institutions of the state while reinforcing the real structures of power in the shadow state. As resources became sparser it was even more important for people to keep in favour with Saddam Hussein in order to gain whatever they could.

The misconceptions and lack of understanding were manifest again during the 2003 invasion. Neo-conservative policy makers in Washington believed that success could be achieved quickly

and efficiently by seizing control of the state, reforming it and then handing it back to the Iraqi people. The reality that awaited the invading forces was that the Iraqi state was completely hollow because real power in Iraq lay in the hands of Saddam and his network of supporters. Following Saddam’s fall, the state disinte-grated and gave rise to the chaos and anarchy that was seen in the weeks later. Those who planned the invasion had fundamentally misjudged the nature of the Iraqi state and its relationship to so-ciety. A knowledge of the country’s history and the development of state power could have helped to prevent this. Professor Tripp revealed how he had been asked by the Department for Interna-tional Development to provide them with a list of books on Iraqi politics just a few weeks before the invasion. Even more worry-ingly, the man appointed to oversee Iraq’s legal affairs following the invasion was unaware that the country had a legal system and had to ask Professor Tripp for advice shortly before his departure.

State building is a difficult task that requires patience and will-ing participation. Unfortunately both seem to be lacking again as America pulls out of Iraq leaving behind a state that is stable but certainly not liberal or democratic. Both the British during the mandate and the Americans during the 2003 invasion pos-sessed an idealised view of the Iraqi state, and completely under-estimated the time and money required to achieve their aims. The alarming reality is that without a fundamental change in the nature of the Iraqi state and its relationship to its people the same patterns of patronage and networking which raised and sustained Saddam Hussein are likely to reproduce themselves again.

James Somerville-Meikle is studying for a Master’s degree in Middle East Politics at SOAS. He is in his first year at Netherhall

“Misconceptions and lack of understanding were manifest again during the 2003 invasion”

16 netherhall news

on being resilientjonny parreño learns that toughening up isn’t all about being a tough cookie

In a nutshell, you can understand what ‘resilience’ is by picking up a bible and reading 1 Kings 19. The prophet Elijah flees persecution in Horeb and he feels that he is a failure for being

unable to complete the task given to him by God. In his despair he prays for death and lays down to sleep under a bush. He is awoken by an angel who touches him, tells him to get up and eat the food he has brought; Elijah does this, but goes back to sleep. Again the angel comes and touches him, tells him to stand up, eat – and Elijah gains the strength to walk into the desert, where God tells him to return to Horeb.

This chapter, Clemens Sedmak explained, provides a good exam-ple of facing adverse circumstances and the ways in which they can be overcome. By simply standing up and providing nourish-ment for the body, we are in a much better position to begin afresh and much more likely to bounce back quickly. Speaking at Netherhall on 6 February 2012, Professor Sedmak of the Depart-ment of Theology and Religious Studies at King’s College Lon-don wittily expounded the art of ‘bouncing back’ from adverse circumstances with a condensed history of the growing field of resilience studies.

In the 1970s developmental psychologist Emmy Werner pub-lished her study of children born in 1955 on the island of Kauai in Hawaii, where poverty, alcoholism and unemployment were very common. Two thirds of the children she followed over the years remained trapped in the cycle of poverty, experiencing high rates of unemployment and drug abuse. Yet the remaining third were somehow able to break free eventually. If all the children came from the same socio-economic background and were given the same schooling, why were some of these children able to prosper? Werner suggested that they had the ‘resilience factor’, as Professor Sedmak put it. This was the first scientific reference to psychological resilience and saw the birth of resilience stud-

ies. Werner’s groundbreaking paper was recently given further support by a Ger-man study three years ago which found that one out of three chil-dren born into pov-erty stricken families and neighbourhoods eventually break free and prosper.

Frederik Flach, an American psychia-trist, believed that everyone has an inter-nal equilibrium which allocates our resources in a balanced manner. When faced with adversity, the equilibrium is thrown out of balance and resilient people, ac-cording to Flach, are better at quickly regaining their equilibrium. For Flach, three main factors that influence resilience are creativity, humour and an aptitude to learn. Creative people are those who can see connections between things that on first glance seem totally unrelated. Having good general knowledge can help because there will be a greater probability of coming up with a creative solution. An inner sense of freedom is also important and those with a sense of freedom are more likely to find a creative solution as opposed to someone who feels under constant pressure. Therefore, Flach argued, resilience has a lot to do with cultivating a sense of creativity. Putting people under too much pressure or defining expectations too narrowly will not help.

Bernard Häring, a German theologian, defined humour as the ability to live with the imperfect. With a sense of humour, people are able to distance themselves from a particular event and gain a different perspective on a difficult situation. The German case study mentioned earlier found that the ‘tough cookies’ (Profes-sor Sedmak gave the teasing example of Arnold Schwarzenegger) were mostly unsuccessful in breaking out of poverty, whereas those who were ready to show weakness by asking for help were more likely to be successful. Resilience is not about being ‘tough’, but about being sensitive and increasing self-understanding.

netherhall news 17

The last time Professor Sed-mak spoke at Netherhall (see Netherhall News February 2011), he drew upon the work of business psychologist Chris Argyryis in his talk on success. Argyris has shown how smart people can become ‘more and more stupid on the job’ (Professor Sedmak joked that perhaps we see a little truth in this when we look at politicians).This is because they are unused to saying ‘I screwed up’, feeling it necessary to keep up an image of total control. They will never learn from their mistakes because their mistakes never officially happened. This is why Argyris believes many CEOs with MBAs or other people in similar positions of respon-sibility have ‘brittle’ personalities – they may appear strong but they will collapse in the face of adversity. Professor Sedmak noted that Flach makes a similar point: a resilient person is one who is more likely to be self-reflective, with a sense of their own limita-tions and failures, and is able to learn from the past.

‘Listen to this one sentence carefully,’ joked Professor Sedmak self-deprecatingly when introducing the thought of Jewish psy-chiatrist Boris Cyrulnik, ‘and then you can fall asleep again!’

Boris Cyrulnik was born in 1937 and was actively in-

volved in the French Résistance! When he was five years old his parents

were sent to the concentration camps, where they were murdered, and he was placed in the care of a foster

family who mistreated him. He ran away and by the age of seven he had become a messenger boy for the Résistance movement. Boris Cyrulnik is clearly someone who knows a thing or two about resilience. The first of Cyrulnik’s three main points is that resilience is about ‘framing’: the context you give your life and a particular situation. To illustrate the point, Cyrulnik tells the well known story of the stonecutters. A man once approached three stonecutters who were busy chiselling stone for the cathe-dral at Rheims. He asked each stonecutter, ‘What are you doing?’ The first replied, ‘I’m cutting stones.’ The second answered, ‘I’m feeding my family.’ But the third stonecutter said, ‘I’m building a cathedral.’ Three people doing the same job, but with very dif-ferent outlooks. Commenting on this story, Professor Sedmak emphasised that having a religious frame may be very important for resilience.

Cyrulnik’s second point is, to quote Professor Sedmak verbatim, ‘the sweater’. This may strike us as completely irrelevant, but Cyrulnik believes that resilience is woven from many ‘threads’,

left: one tough cookie

opposite left: Boris Cyrulnik

the French psychiatrist

18 netherhall news

many different sources. To put it in another more familiar meta-phor, having many threads is the same as not putting all your eggs in one basket. It is considerably more risky to invest in a company which produces only one particular item, compared to another company that offers a variety of products. By spreading risk, the negative impact of any one source failing is decreased. A person who relies on many threads such as being grateful for family or friends, or maybe even being grateful for a job or food, is likely to be more resilient.

Together with ‘framing’ and ‘the sweater’, Cyrulnik also sees ‘an-ti-fatalism’ as an influence on resilience. One of Professor Sed-mak’s friends, a Filipino theologian, wrote a book on bahala na. It is a Tagalog expression that roughly means ‘leave it to God’, with the sense that nothing can be done. This, Professor Sed-mak said, seems very close to what Boris Cyrulnik calls ‘fatal-ism’. People who hold this attitude will not be very resilient; in contrast, someone who has a sense of agency, or self-efficacy, that something can be done to change circumstances, is likely to be more resilient. Pauline Boss, an American psychiatrist working with displaced persons, such as those who are forced to move because of war, argues that resilience has a lot to do with having an extended ‘psychological family’. Having a sense that ‘these people belong to me, and I belong to them’, even when they are not part of our core family, makes it more likely that a person will be resilient. They can be friends, role models, colleagues – what matters is that they are significant to us and that we do not simply define ourselves by exclusive attachments to our core family.

Secondly, resilience is enhanced when we have a sense of agency. People who know that they can change certain factors to affect their circumstances, just like the anti-fatalism of Cyrulnik, will be more resilient. The third factor is an acceptance of realism, not simply escaping into a dream world by watching television or, Professor Sedmak added with more tongue-in-cheek hu-mour, listening to talks. Accepting reality as it is means a person is in a much better position to cope with adversity.

To these various ideas – Flach: balance, humour and aptitude to learn; Cyrulnik: framing, the sweater and anti-fatalism; Boss: extended psychological family, agency and realism – Professor Sedmak offered some of his own ideas on what strengthens resil-ience: a sense of direction and a social sense.

“many CEOs with MBAs or other people

in similar positions of responsibility have ‘brittle’ personalities:

they may appear strong but they will collapse in the face

of adversity”

netherhall news 19

On our sense of direction, Professor Sedmak cited a book writ-ten by James Elder, Children of the Great Depression, which exam-ines the families of academics who suddenly lost their wealth in the Great Depression in America. He found that families which were able to cope with the shock had a strong sense of goals, of getting back to where they had been by educating their children and instilling in them the same values with which they grew up.

Social sense means taking an interest in other people’s wellbe-ing, their realities, making the effort to talk to others. Professor Sedmak’s father-in-law was a farmer from upper Austria. When one of his lungs failed at the age of 60, he was taken to hospital where he would stay until his death ten years later. No longer able to define himself as a man of manual labour, he was unable to talk about anything other than himself and his ill health for

two years. But then he began to take an active interest in his children and grandchildren, which helped him bear the suffering more easily.

By way of conclusion, Professor Sedmak gave several examples of people who have shown great resilience, including Francois Van Thuan (also called Nguyen Van Thuan), a Vietnamese bishop who was imprisoned for thirteen years by the Communist gov-ernment of Vietnam from 1975. Kept in isolation, he held fast to his faith and focussed on his small freedoms, such as being able to pray, or crafting a small cross which he hid in a bar of soap.

Jonny Parreño is a first year student of English Literature at King’s College London. He is in his first year at Netherhall

20 netherhall news

the art of lifemanshipignatius de bidegain on how ‘to make the other man feel something has gone wrong, however slightly’

In his amusingly eccentric Wiff Waff speech in Beijing Boris Johnson helpfully informed the Chinese that ping pong, at which they ‘excelled so magnificently’, was invented on the

dining tables of England in the nineteenth century and was called Wiff Waff. He ended by proclaiming, ‘ping pong is com-ing home, athletics is coming home, sport is coming home’.

England also happens to be the home of Gamesmanship, which is but a branch of the broader field of Lifemanship. Stephen Potter, whose research in the 1950s contributed significantly to both, defined Gamesmanship as ‘the Art of Winning Games without Actually Cheating’, mainly by using subtle psychological tactics to confuse and knock opponents out of kilter. Naturally, these principles can be applied to most situations in everyday life and the discipline of Lifemanship helps practitioners to be perma-nently one up or ‘to make the other man feel that something has gone wrong, however slightly’.

For a first example, let us go back to China. In 1997 the Hong Kong lease expired and a handover ceremony was held involving a number of officials including the Prince of Wales. When some-one gained access to Prince Charles’ diary and leaked to the press his description of the Chinese representatives as ‘appalling old waxworks’ it became something of a diplomatic embarrassment.In contrast, Boris Johnson’s tackling of the Chinese bureaucrats was much more effective because of his masterful use of Lifeman-ship when he met his officious, stiff counterparts with a genial at-titude and his trademark calculated scruffiness, his shirt sticking out of his trousers and his hand in his pocket. Bloggers and the media in China were outraged by the Mayor’s relaxed attitude and the ‘disrespect’ he showed when holding the Olympic Flag with only one hand. All because of the use of one of the simplest counters in Lifemanship – if the context is highly formal upset it with a bit of gracious informality, and when the atmosphere is very casual find the right moment to make a point of turning to ‘real conversation’.

For another example I will cite a wonderful gambit developed by an old chum from university who explained it to me recently over breakfast. He came to London for a visit and though he works for a marketing firm he ended up at a party where most people were investment bankers, all of whom apparently fell into one of two distinct groups – the pretentious ones whose first question in conversation was, ‘where do you work?’, and the nerdy ones whose entire conversation revolved around a small segment of the Energy market, or a specific type of financial derivative.

At some point a member of the pretentious group approached him with his where-do-you-work question. My friend answered

and returned the question, and when the banker said, ‘Deutsche Bank,’ he answered, ‘Oh – I’d only heard about Goldman’, Gold-man Sachs being the most prestigious firm in the sector. I need not describe the look on the face of the banker, who probably did not fully recover for the rest of the evening. My friend assures me that by then the crestfallen banker had had a bit too much to drink and was not in full control of his words, but I believe he is just being modest.

When writing on these matters it is always instructive to refer to some of Stephen Potter’s original work, so I will now go over a ploy he describes, the beauty of which lies in its simplicity and the lack of any effective counters to it. We must remember that a great deal of the Lifeman´s effort in group conversation should focus upon breaking the opponent’s flow. In this respect, few techniques are more effective than the ‘Yes, but not in the South’ gambit, which Potter claims will do for any argument about any place or person with only minor adjustments.

At a dinner party, for example, one could encounter a well-in-formed observer of international politics comfortably entertain-ing the audience. His account may go along the lines of, ‘Natu-rally, Western governments have shown concern for the audacity of Putin’s moves, but I believe true reform can only come from within. Indeed, even now I welcome the signs of challenge to the status quo and take comfort from the knowledge that a burgeon-ing middle class is becoming increasingly important at the heart of Moscow and St. Petersburg...’

netherhall news 21

22 netherhall news

At this point any amateur Lifeman, up to now nodding and smiling politely, can interject, ‘Yes, but not in the South,’ in an explanatory, even accommodative tone. This will disconcert most opponents and break the crucial Flow with a statement too vague to be countered effectively.

If the expert presses the point one can always agree with his main thesis, just pointing out that, ‘I believe, however, the situ-ation may be slightly different in the South’. At this stage the expert – his own worst enemy if prodded the right way – will probably have imagined half a dozen reasons why it may, in-deed, be slightly different in the South. In any case, the Flow will be broken. Potter adds that for maximum effect one can carry an assortment of random maps with the southern area shaded, ready to be produced in support of the statement.

Let us move on to a great contemporary Lifeman whose name happens to be Stephen as well. Stephen Clarke is a British jour-nalist based in Paris and he has achieved the spectacular ac-complishment of publishing a number of satirical books on the French which have actually become bestsellers in France. The latest of these books is 1,000 Years of Annoying the French, and in his earlier Talk to the Snail Clarke describes how the French penchant for eating snails must have inspired French planners to display the arrondissements that make up Paris in the shape of a snail’s shell. The success of such books in France proves two points: first, the Entente Cordiale is very much alive; and second, the French have a good sense of humour if they are ap-proached the right way.

This brings us to cultural differences, which always need to be taken into account when preparing ploys in a multicultural en-vironment. Whilst studying in France I noticed the French are very fond of a gambit Stephen Clarke records in one of his books. If in France one proclaims with a voice of entitlement ‘mais, j’ai le droit à...’ (‘but I have the right to...’) and imme-diately inserts the most outrageous claim one can think of, it will surprisingly have a major impact on the conversation and will almost always be acknowledged. I have observed the use of

this technique in many heated debates on French television to outstanding success.

Another little ruse which is immensely popular in France is ag-gressively to press the point ‘mais c’est légitime!’ (‘but it is legiti-mate!’). This will almost force all the people around the table to agree emphatically and immediately that whatever one has said is in fact ‘legitimate’ – whatever this may mean – even if nobody agrees or even finds the Lifeman’s view of any interest. This may not win the argument itself, but a) it breaks Flow, b) it manages to exact some form of nominal agreement from rivals, and c) it gives the Lifeman a break of valuable seconds in which to devise the next subterfuge.

Of course, in Britain all this would simply not do. For the sake of continental readers interested in practising Lifemanship in Britain, a very useful manoeuvre can easily be mastered follow-ing these simple steps. 1) Start by agreeing with your opponent. It helps to smile and use positive body language. 2) Use a transi-tion like, ‘but I also think that’, or something to that effect. 3) Change the subject entirely, bringing up your thesis and com-pletely forgetting about Opponent’s concerns. To maximise the effect, by step 3) one must have established eye contact with one or two other persons in the group and managed to involve them in the discussion of the new topic we have introduced, to avoid Opponent bringing the whole conversation back to his petty concerns.

To close I will once again quote Stephen Potter, who wrote, ‘There is no finer spectacle than the sight of a good Lifeman, so ignorant that he can scarcely spell the simplest word, making an expert look like a fool in his own subject’. Indeed, it is through the subtleties of Lifemanship, rather than the brute force of raw knowledge, dry logic or even the frothing torrents of original-ity, that individuals will successfully navigate any social context. Ignore these tactics at your own risk.

Ignatius de Bidegain is studying an MSc in Economics at LSE

above: master lifeman Stephen Potter

netherhall news 23

The Conservative Party has been at the forefront, and the back-bench, of many important landmarks in British his-tory, a party that has met with many successes and some

defeats. Writing the history of the party and its leaders, both in government and opposition, against the backdrop of the pro-found social, economic and political changes from its emer-gence in the earlier nineteenth century to its twenty-first cen-tury incarnation is no simple task.

Robin Harris, who spoke at Netherhall on 30 January, was a former speech-writer to one of the most well-known Conserva-tive leaders, Margaret Thatcher, and has taken on this task in his recently published book The Conservatives: A History. For Harris, the history of the party is inextricably tied to the his-tory of its leaders, and their successes and shortcomings. In an important sense, his is a history in the biographical mode. Con-sequently, as another former speech-writer from the Thatcher years, John O’Sullivan, has emphasised in a review of Harris’s book, his broader narrative of Conservative history is sensitive to personal idiosyncrasies and political contexts instead of pro-viding an overly neat teleology: ‘[Harris’s] list of significant Tory leaders,’ to quote O’Sullivan, ‘is definitely not a kind of apostolic succession that reaches its destined high point in the elevation of Blessed Margaret’.

The roots of the Conservative party can be traced back to the later eighteenth century. A faction of disillusioned Whigs, tra-ditionally the political group associated with aristocratic land-owners and Protestant Nonconformism, rallied around Wil-liam Pitt the Younger, who became the youngest ever prime minister in 1783 at the age of 24. Pitt thought of himself as more of an independent Whig than a Tory, the political group traditionally associated with the gentry and Church of Eng-land. Nonetheless, in retrospect this emerging group marked a new beginning, for, as Harris has explained, these ‘Pittites – if not Pitt himself – have a good claim to be considered proto-Tories of the new school that would, in time, evolve into the Conservatives.’ This group solidified over time and another significant influ-ence was English responses to the French Revolution. Though he remained a Whig, if a conspicuously ‘Old Whig’, Edmund Burke’s conservatism exercised a deep influence on the polarised English reaction to the Revolution, as too did his conception of political parties as a ‘bod[ies] of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some par-ticular principle in which they are all agreed,’ expressed in his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770). These

the many shades of bluethe varying hues of the conservative party in history reflect, above all, its colourful leaders

dynamics precipitated a political migration of some Whigs like George Canning, who would briefly serve as a Tory prime min-ister in 1827, to this emergent group from which the modern Conservative party sprang.

The real founder of the party, Harris emphasised, was Rob-ert Peel. Issued in 1834, his Tamworth Manifesto, an election pamphlet printed in the national press, enunciated a range of principles, including a blending of modest reform with conser-vative stability, to which modern Conservatism is conventional-ly traced back. Peel’s later embrace of free trade over protection-ism, and the centrality of economic policy in his government would find a later echo in Thatcher.

Significantly, for Harris a good prime minister is not neces-sarily a good party leader. In 1846, during his second term in office, Peel’s third attempt to repeal the Corn Laws, protection-

24 netherhall news

ist tariffs to protect British cereal producers, passed through Par-liament with Whig and Radical support. This embrace of free trade marked a significant change in Peel’s own thought and a rupture with the bulk of his party. The party split. Disillusioned protectionists, among them Benjamin Disraeli, formed the rump of the party in the next quarter of a century or so in the political wilderness. At the same time, several Peelites found their laissez-faire ideas more amenable to the Liberal Party that was emerging by the late 1850s and was otherwise comprised of Whigs and Radicals. Throughout large swathes of the final third of the cen-tury, the Conservatives found themselves in opposition to gov-ernments led by a former Peelite, William Gladstone, who served four times as prime minister between 1868 and 1894.

Another hugely admired figure who, like Peel, was not neces-sarily as successful a party leader as he was a prime minister is

top left: william pitt the younger

bottom left: edmund burke

middle right: robert peel

bottom right: george canning

netherhall news 25

“Governments, by and large,

come to power expecting one

set of problems only to be faced

with quite another”

Churchill. His revered stewardship of the country during the struggle against the Nazis ought not to obscure the fact that he was not a ‘pure conservative’. Churchill himself looked back on Lloyd George’s Liberal government between 1916 and 1922 as the finest government in which he served. Thus, ‘Winston Churchill’s national leadership in the country’s ‘Finest Hour’ brooks no comparison,’ Harris has written, ‘but his failures as a party politician – in either party – were legion, and his legacy is mixed.’

At the same time, not all of the Conservative leaders whom Harris most admires attained their importance in power. When Disraeli finally came to office briefly in 1868 and later in 1874-1880, his elevation to power had come, like Churchill’s, rather late in the day. Disraeli’s greatest achievement was steering the Conservative party through the years in opposition and inculcat-ing a sensitivity within the party to changing dynamics of the political landscape. Awareness of a new class of potential vot-ers, middle class and suburban, was a mark of Disraeli’s political astuteness, even if his extension of the franchise in his Reform Act of 1867 did not immediately benefit the Tories. Harris has also criticised what he regards as an anachronistic perspective on Disraeli held by many contemporary Conservatives: a concern for social reform. ‘What really mattered to Disraeli in the course of his career,’ Harris has countered sharply, ‘were the monarchy, the landed interest and, above all, national prestige.’

For Harris, Disraeli’s eventual successor, Salisbury, was ‘probably the most recognizably and intelligently conservative leader the party has ever had’. Leading the party from the House of Lords during a period of dramatic change, Salisbury’s retained a no-tion of the deferential society with its natural leaders. He was no democrat. But he also recognised the possibility for growth in the Tory base in consort with the rise of the suburbs. ‘By the measure of years in office,’ Harris has written, ‘support widened, enemies defeated, allies absorbed, and great power ruthlessly but

intelligently wielded, Salisbury was surely the greatest Tory mas-ter of his craft.’

Unsurprisingly, Harris also greatly admires the leader with whom he worked, Thatcher, the green-grocer’s daughter who became the first female leader of the nation. Indeed, Harris earned a para-graph of praise in the acknowledgments to her autobiography The Downing Street Years. Among other things, Harris praised Thatcher for taking on the trade unions, restoring national pride, and, above all, as he has written in The Conservatives, a ‘clear and consistent strategy to revive Britain’s economic strength.’ Al-ready the author of a biography of French diplomat Talleyrand, Harris plans to publish a full-length biography of Thatcher when she dies.

Harris remains circumspect, if somewhat critical, of the Conser-vative party in its current incarnation. While Cameron would do well to learn from lessons of the past – for instance, by resembling Salisbury more than Peel in avoiding splits in his own party and taking advantage of splits among his opponents - Harris is acute-ly aware of the irony of political power: ‘[S]age exhortations,’ as he has put it, ‘overlook the inexorable fact that governments, by and large, come to power expecting one set of problems only to be faced with quite another.’ Such wary counsel stems from a sense of history sensitive to the contingencies of politics and personality, to that element of surprise, on which note Harris has concluded his own work on the Conservative party:

‘Disraeli, the Jewish outsider who championed traditional institu-tions, Salisbury, the fastidious aristocrat who won over the bourgeoi-sie, and Thatcher, the woman who crushed the unions, the Argentine Junta and most of the Cabinet, and restored the economy to health, are all, in their different ways, completely surprising. It matters to the country that the Conservative Party should retain its capacity to produce surprises, and so harness the eccentric, distinctive qualities of British national greatness.’

above: winston churchillopposite top: robin harris (second from right) in netherhall

26 netherhall news

“nothing is certain in a sea fight”dominic bardill finds reasons for pride in the

past, present and future of the royal navy

Quaint and humble Britain has faced various invasions throughout its rich and gallant history. It is for precisely this reason that the Royal Navy has long played a vital role

in the protection of the British Isles, the patrolling of its lands and the safety of its people. Active since the fifteenth cen-tury, this age-old institution has been responsible for a large part of the expansion of the British Empire and defended our islands against the Spanish Armada in 1588 and French invasion plans

in the eighteenth century, neither of which proved a match for the mighty ruler of the waves. It was the Navy that sailed through storms and across oceans to defend our territories from tyrants and thieves. Great men such as Viscount Nelson led the British in the fight against their aggressors, only to prove that he and the Crown’s Royal Navy were too powerful, too experienced and too great a force for the likes of Napoleon to subdue.

netherhall news 27

Lord Nelson himself once said ‘Something must be left to chance; nothing is certain in a sea fight’. With the mighty ships of the United Kingdom, the exceptional skill of our servicemen, and the direction of the best leaders to have graced the earth, Nelson would certainly have admitted that Britain has been lucky. Ours is a history tarred with violence, death, destruction, threats and war, and chance has been an added bonus to exceptional military skill of Britain in struggles against more powerful aggressors. We defeated the French and Spanish forces and, more recently, the Nazis despite having half of their numbers. Chance is certainly something Nelson put his faith in, and now as he proudly stands on his column gazing upon the city he once defended, the mod-ern navy continues fighting on with the same cause and zeal as he did, but in a very different world. So what would Nelson say of the modern navy? If some things are down to chance, what chance does the Royal Navy have in the modern world?

Netherhall was recently visited by someone who has followed in the footsteps of Nelson; when Rear Admiral N S R Kilgour spoke on 13 February on naval warfare and submarines. Submarines were certainly something that Napoleon could only have dreamt of and no doubt something he would have approved of.

Rear Admiral Kilgour certainly riled up some interest in his ex-planation of life on board a Royal Navy Submarine. Qualify-ing in 1972 as a submariner, Kilgour has served in both nuclear and diesel submarines, and has seen some huge developments in the nature and capability of modern naval warfare. When stationed onshore Kilgour worked on the Naval Staff Course at Greenwich, Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth and was Commander SM of the Third Submarine Squadron in Faslane. Nevertheless, his most distinct postings were in 1980-82 as com-mander of HMS Porpoise and 1986-88 as commander of HMS Courageous.

HMS Porpoise of the Porpoise class submarine was built from a strong metal called UXW. It was designed and constructed for strategic reasons to allow vessels to dive much deeper. It could reach a top speed of 17 knots normally, or 16 knots using silent propellers to evade detection. These propellers, despite slowing the submarine slightly, meant that the Porpoise was one of the most undetectable submarines on the planet and was far more silent than its Russian counterparts during the Cold War. Nev-ertheless, because of the greater depth, testing revealed that the longer engine room was more prone to collapsing or imploding and so frames were installed that were much larger than usual, causing some inconvenience during stealth operations or ma-noeuvres. This was, however, countered in that the submarine’s silent capacity meant its sonar equipment was indeed far more effective.

HMS Porpoise was the comfortable home, Kilgour revealed, to eight torpedo tubes stored in the bow and stern of the subma-rine, and unlike the submarines of World War Two, did not carry any deck gun. Moreover, improvements in cleanliness and facili-ties to provide better air recirculation meant that the servicemen on the submarine would operate for a much greater length of time than submariners before. The technological advances put to use in the submarine were indeed useful in the application of missions that involved assisting special forces and observational intelligence work. This was vital when dealing with the Russian threats during the start of the Cold War, but ended in the 1980s when it was decommissioned and replaced.

HMS Courageous, which gallantly served in returning the op-pressed Falkland Islands back to their sovereign and saving the future of those on the island, was a nuclear submarine. In terms of capability, Kilgour explained, there is not a great deal of dif-ference between a nuclear and non-nuclear submarine. Beyond the ability to carry more torpedoes and go for longer periods of time without the need to refuel, the most significant difference for naval warfare is a subtle one. The nuclear submarine, Admiral Kilgour informed us, was actually a lot safer, though if trouble did occur it would go down for certain and chances of survival were very small. The air was cleaner and the submarine was able to produce its own water from the sea, which meant that supplies could be reduced and space on board could be increased. As a

28 netherhall news

“Lord Nelson once said ‘Something must be

left to chance; nothing is certain in a sea

fight’. Nelson would certainly have admitted

that Britain has been lucky”

netherhall news 29

Churchill-class submarine that was much larger and much more efficient than HMS Porpoise, HMS Courageous had no limiting factors except for food, which meant it could hide away silently and stationary for days, weeks, months or years if necessary. It was sent to the Falklands with its sister submarine of the same class, HMS Conqueror, which famously and controversially sank the Argentinian ship, the Belgrano, in the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. HMS Courageous provided much in-telligence on Argentinian aircraft locations from the depths of the ocean, undetected. This proved a valuable asset in saving the Falkland Islands.

Reminiscing of life on board a submarine, Kilgour pointed out that because of the depth that submarines go, there was no natu-ral light and coloured lights were used to ensure that mariners’ eyes would remain adjusted. This meant that on return, one was not supposed to drive for 24 hours. Moreover, there was limited space, each mariner having his own bed and a small locker, often curled up within inches of his fellow sailor. Though cramped and uncomfortable, marine life was, Kilgour assured, a joy. Doctors were always placed on board with full medical facilities and par-ties were frequent to ensure morale was kept at its peak. Only the commander could have his own room, which was useful. Other than this there was no privacy. It was to some resident’s horror when they discovered that no smoking on board a submarine had come into effect when the draconian smoking ban was passed in 2006. Bullets, torpedoes, and underwater mines receded to the back of their minds when they pondered the very thought of not smoking for such a long time!

Whatever one may think of the modern Royal Navy, with its par-ties, traditions, and transition from gallant, glorious and public warfare to secret and hidden warfare, Nelson would be incredibly proud if he encountered the standards today.Dominic Bardill is in his third year at Goldsmith’s College London studying Drama and Theatre Arts, and his first year in Netherhall.

main picture: a crew member taking in

some air whilst at sea in hms courageous

inset; hms courageoous at

seaforth dock, liverpool in 1979

“Lord Nelson once said ‘Something must be

left to chance; nothing is certain in a sea

fight’. Nelson would certainly have admitted

that Britain has been lucky”

30 netherhall news

Well is it? Sir Stephen Wall, the former diplomat and UK Permanent Representative to the European Union from 1995 to 2000, answered in the negative on 5 March. Fol-

lowing Europe’s turbulent history in the twentieth century which saw two devastating world wars and combustible nationalism, the integration of Europe’s economies and politics was offered as a solution. France and Germany, historic enemies, sought to become future partners by uniting their countries’ own steel and coal production.

This historical perspective is tidy, but what about today? The Sec-ond World War finished almost seventy years ago. Hasn’t peace in Europe been secured? Furthermore, many Europeans feel that the growth of the European Union and its constituent European institutions such as the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council are seriously eroding the sovereignty of individual nations.

First, there is no need to polarise the debate into pro-Europeans and Euro-sceptics. The media in Britain (perhaps in the name of balance) instinctively creates two sides to every news item. Euro-scepticism, for example, could be interpreted as a viewpoint criti-cal of a particular European law – or as wholesale repulsion from the idea of European federalism. There is a whole range of views on what European integration has done, is doing, or could do.Second, is peace in Europe secure? Yes. However, to assume that peace will remain secure in the next century is a risky strategy. Observe the persistence of neo-fascist groups in Britain – elector-ally, the British Nationalist Party (which won 69,000 votes in the 2008 London Mayoral election) and, on the streets, the English Defence League. Germany too has experienced the resurgence of twenty first-century neo-Nazi organisations using social media to gather followers. Rising unemployment and resentment against foreign groups could disturb peace, fuelled by latent antagonism to neighbouring European nations. Nationalism, partially the cause of wars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, is mod-erated by multilateral supra-nationalism.

Supra-nationalism can also be harmful. Nigel Farage of UKIP calculates that 75% of laws now come from Brussels, not West-minster. Whether or not his figure is correct, it is true that many corporate lobbyists focus their efforts on influencing politicians in the European Parliament. This is especially true for banking regulation and agriculture. This creates a difficult situation for companies, farmers and others in one area of Europe where a certain law is entirely inappropriate – such groups will find their voice smaller in a larger European community.

is the european union past its sell by date?

Indeed there is a large disconnect between Europe and European citizens. MEPs receive far less correspondence from constituents than MPs. Education among the public about European insti-tutions, what Europe legislates on, and how citizens can effect change is poor.

Areas where citizens may be well informed are corruption in Eu-rope, how expensive the EU is and its production of seemingly barmy regulation. Stories about the gravy-train in Europe, the pointless transfer of the European Parliament to Strasbourg for 12 sessions a year, and laws which compel fishermen to discard fish not meeting official quotas are well-known.

These criticisms (and many more) support an argument for the UK to withdraw from the European Union. However, Stephen Wall had one question for those who identify as ‘Eurosceptics’: what would your alternative be? Furthermore, wouldn’t the fore-going criticisms be best resolved through increased participation and dialogue? Being at the heart of European discussion and decision-making could lead to constructive outcomes.

andrew duncan reports

netherhall news 31

Looking to the future, the much talked up rise of China, India, Brazil and other developing countries reflects a fast-changing world. Asia’s large populations are creating new markets, new sources of finance and new diplomatic challenges. The European Union has half the population of India – individual European states with individual agendas will not compete as effectively as the EU together.

In this light, the EU is not past its sell-by-date, but merely enter-ing into a period of increased significance. And such increased significance calls for increased participation and creativity in ne-gotiations. The EU may and should evolve to adapt to new chal-lenges. Simplistic withdrawal or dissolution of the EU will not solve global problems such as climate change, poverty and war. If anything is past its sell-by-date, it is isolationism.

Andrew Duncan is a parliamentary intern and a current resident in Netherhall

“Stephen Wall had one

question for those

who identify as ‘Euro-

sceptics’: what would

your alternative be?”

above: the european parliament in brussels

32 netherhall news

old friends a selection of snaps from neil pickering’s recent trip to the far east

netherhall news 33

above: a get-together in Japan

top left: Neil, Mark Yeo (1985) of

Singapore, Freddie Long (1969-

1971) of Johor Bahru, and Thomas

Poh (1973-1976) who is living

in New Zealand, but who was

passing through Singapore for

a day.

bottom left: neil at a get-

toether at the University of asia

& the pacific, Manilla, where

jojo mariano (1977-1983) is now

the president

right: neil with professor paul

sawada, (centre) who has do-

nated a valuable collection of

books to the thomas more in-

stitute, and seizo inahata (left)

34 netherhall news

netherhall news 35

left: a reunion in hong

kong, generously hosted

by denis and agnes

chang

36 netherhall news

It was Sunday morning, 6am. The mid-March sun streamed in through the window and, as I reached for the radio, I was filled with a nervous excitement. It was an all English front row, an

English team, McLaren, with two English drivers, Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton – reason enough to be up at that hour! At that time of the morning it could only have been the Australian Grand Prix, the first Formula One race of the season.

There is something special about the opening race being in Aus-tralia. Perhaps it is to do with the early wake-up calls to watch the race that we Brits have to contend with in order to witness it as well as the anticipation of a new F1 season. In recent years the start time of the Australian GP has actually been put back so that petrol heads in Europe no longer have to be up even earlier at 4am to see the action. As I switched on the radio I remembered the times I have crept downstairs, plugged some headphones into the television and sat up from the early hours, enjoying the race in the silence of the night and resisting the temptation to turn up the volume and hear the roar of a full grid of F1 cars in full flow.

This time, however, the radio was my access to the race. Listening on the radio brings a different dimension to the keen F1 fanatic. Without the advantage of seeing everything happening in front of you on television, you have to create the images in your mind as the commentators frantically narrate the action taking place in front of them. You are totally reliant on the commentary team to describe what is going on and, though this inevitably means that some crucial details might be missed or there might be some delay in relaying what has happened, the sounds are somehow more vivid and there is a raw, atmospheric understanding of the contest. This is made even more potent by the stillness of the early morning.

So the racing began, and what a race it was, typical of the season opener. There were some careless mistakes (who’d have thought we would see Sebastian Vettel, of all people, sliding across the grass at one point?), Pastor Maldonado slamming into the wall with only one lap to go, and an appearance from the safety car, so often a feature of racing on Melbourne’s high-walled street circuit. And through all of this came Button, taking his third victory in Australia (he’s won three out of the last four Australian Grands Prix) ahead of Vettel and Lewis Hamilton, who disap-pointed after promising so much starting from pole position.

If the first grand prix is anything to go by, this season is going to be extra-special. McLaren appeared to have matched Red Bull, and Ferrari seems to have found the pace that was lacking in pre-season testing. Here’s to a magnificent Australian Grand Prix, and a spectacular F1 season to come!

james osborn got out of bed very early this month

athlete’s foot

netherhall news 37

38 netherhall news

passing through news from former netherhall residents

netherhall news 39

above: santi argemi (centre, 2010-2011)

visited netherhall in early march. He is pictured here with

(l-r) ricard rovirosa, juan pablo luna, pablo

hinojo and alvaro camacho

left: fr. gerard sheehan (netherhall chaplain 1994-2002)met up with andres merino (hall sec-retary 2002-2005)recently on an annual course in the canary islands

right: pupils from the john fisher school

in purley, with their teacher dr greg tom-

lin, visited in february for a taster of life in a

halls of residence

40 netherhall news

Desert Island Discs continues to entertain the House every Sunday evening. Based on the well-known BBC Radio 4 show, residents are interviewed about their lives and also asked to select three pieces of music to play. Finally, the interviewee has the choice of a book along with the Bible and the complete works of Shakespeare.

Following the recent release of The Iron Lady and his article reviewing the film in the last issue, Dominic Bardill unsurprisingly talked for most of the time about his admiration for Baroness Thatcher, Britain’s longest serving prime minister of the twentieth century. He memorably described Lady Thatcher as an ‘amazing woman’ who managed, at the same time, to ‘be human and make some mistakes’. No comment from your reporter on that one. He lightened the mood with his reminiscences of pushing his elderly great-grandmother down a hill in her wheel-chair.

James Newman and his questioner Ignatius de Bidegain sported some very dash-ing bow ties for the occasion – although, if you’ve been to Oxford, like James has, then that’s not really much of a surprise. James spoke affectionately of his time amongst the dreaming spires and his ‘interesting’ experiences at St Bart’s Hospi-tal; although the tone of his voice indicated that he is looking forward to leaving that particular institution. He delighted us all with his description of how, as chil-dren, he and his brother once painted the back of their house and garden entirely red using only their hands – much to the horror of their parents who discovered the deed on their return home (were the brothers’ caught red-handed?)

Tomas Vana has done a great deal for a twenty-five year old judging by his in-terview. He spoke to us about his MA and PhD studies both in England at UCL and in the Czech Republic, and his important work as an advisor to the Ministry of the Environment. He fondly described his love of the classical music played by Czech airlines when landing in his native country, and understandably it makes him feel just a little homesick. He also described his brief flirtation with his country’s secret services, a job possibility he dallied with. But he could not tell us more, otherwise he would have had to kill us.

Andrei Bara paired up with his Romanian compatriot, also called Andrei (Ser-ban), for his interview, and described his enjoyment of Computer Science, his dislike of his previous halls and his one-time passion for art, which seemed to shock some members of the audience, more familiar with his passion for comput-ing rather than the fine arts. Rather unfortunately the most memorable aspect of his interview had nothing really to do with Andrei himself – but more to do with Rohan Mistry’s grating choices of Bollywood music that had to ‘replace’ Andrei’s own selection when technology mysteriously deceived us.

Jan Povala’s interview offered an interesting contrast to many of the other inter-views we have enjoyed. He spoke of his love of his rural upbringing and home life, but also of his touching absence of knowledge of much contemporary music, theatre, film and television, preferring rather ‘to talk to people’. Your reporter believes this is a very sound life lesson for us all, although he didn’t quite know what to make of Jan’s several examples of typical Czech regional songs, as delight-ful as they were.

Alex Osborn is in his first year studying English Literature at UCL and his first year at Netherhall.

desert island discsalex osborn relates curious facts about netherhall residents gleaned from sunday evening interviews

nuff

said

mrs thatcher, a woman of few mistakes, refuses to acknowledge that her head is

stuck in the door of her tour bus

James was caught

red-handed on several occasions as a child. his love of

bow ties emerged at

an early age

tomas’ business card - a front for a shady

spy outfit

perhaps?

andrei leads his fellow residents in a traditional bolly-romanian dance