Civilisation at gun-point
If there was anyone old-fashioned enough still to believe, as our grandparents might not unreasonably have believed, that the world was, perhaps slowly, but steadily, becoming a more civilised place, recent events must surely have completed his disillusionment. For the truth seems to be just the opposite—that, during the past half-century, we have slipped several rungs back down the ladder of civilisation, and that the pace of our descent shows signs of accelerating rather than of slowing up.
This week's aeroplane hijackings are only the latest, though a very dramatic, example. They were preceded, just a few weeks ago, by the diplomatic kidnappings in South America; a series of crimes which have already entailed cold-blooded murder and which are still continuing. Meanwhile, Black Power militants have threatened bloodshed in the streets of London and shed blood in the streets of America. Both in America and in Nor- thern Ireland firemen have been sniped at with rifles while trying to contain fires which mobs have started. The list could be extended indefinitely. The kidnapping of Mr Tshombe and his imprisonment until he died, the tormenting and cruel confinement of innocent British citizens in China, massacre and oppression over vast areas of the world which were once peace- ful and well administered . . .
The difference is not that such things never happened before—they did, of course—but that, until recently, they would have been universally and straight- forwardly condemned by anybody and by any nation with the least pretensions to being civilised.
It is profoundly shocking to hear an Arab lawyer, who teaches in an English college, defending the hijackers on the grounds that their exploit will 'bring their grievances to the attention of the world'. What 'grievances' can possibly justify a threat to blow up two hundred innocent passengers, most of whom are citizens of neutral countries? It is hardly less shock- ing that the World Council of Churches should, in the name of Christianity, pro- vide funds for organisations whose known purpose is to gain power in Southern Africa by killing and maiming, not just the soldiers, policemen and politicians who oppose them, but whole families of peace- ful farmers, men, women and children; to gain power, in short, by terror. How can any Christian who knows what such ter- ror means, who has seen similar wicked- ness in Kenya, in Algeria, in Malaya. deliberately encourage it in Southern Africa? It is shocking too that educated intelligent people, including Members of Parliament and commentators employed by respectable newspapers, are willing to defend the brutalities of Black Power and Irish revolution. What political mania can have so twisted the values of people who in their normal lives are kindly and sensible enough?
These intellectual champions of violence who seem bent on pulling down the house in which they—and we—live, bear a heavy responsibility. But their activities, though disgusting, are only a part, and a relatively minor part, of the trouble.
The grim essential fact is that a comity of nations, sharing certain basic principles and values, used genuinely to exist—ad- herence to these principles and values, even if they weren't always followed in practice, used to be more or less the defin- ing attribute of civilisation—but that it exists no longer.
The reason is partly that political ideo- logy and fanatical nationalism have taken the place of the common moral assump- tions which used to bind civilised nations together: and partly that uncivilised nations are treated today as though they were, in every respect, equal to civilised ones and could be relied on to act in the same way. 'Don't cant in favour of sav- ages,' said Dr Johnson. There is a great deal of canting in favour of savages now- adays, and a great deal of sheer ostrich- like naiveté, of talking and behaving as though the old comity of nations did still exist.
If the hijackings were not political, they might count as piracy and present no legal problem: but, since they are rooted in political ideology and fanatical national- ism, the chance of dealing with them by an effective international agreement, let alone an agreement worked out by the United Nations, must be considered slight. Can anybody really imagine the Iraqis handing Arab 'commandos' back to Israel, or Castro sending disciples of Guevara back to the United States? Would we be willing to send someone who had escaped from Russia or China by hijacking an aeroplane back to the slave labour camps or the firing squad? Would British liberals be anxious to send a refugee from South Africa, who had perhaps harmed no one on the aircraft but was under sentence of death at home, back to the gallows? If a global comity of nations with shared values and a respect for interna- tional agreements existed, there would probably be no political hijacking and certainly no need for special agreements to deal with it: but without such a comity no effective agreement seems possible. So what can be done? What is to be done now, at once?
Would an aerial boycott of any state which failed to extradite hijackers really prove effective? It seems very doubtful. The Communist airlines would probably not join the boycott. and the Arab gov- ernments might not be able to restrain the `commandos' even if they wanted to. Could more rigorous searches, both per- sonal and electronic, keep hijackers and bombs off passenger aircraft altogether? It seems unlikely, except in fairly small airports and for short periods of alert. Should there be armed guards on every plane? The Israelis think so and believe that El Al is now the securest airline in the world: but the dangers of a mid-air battle are obvious and horrific.
The battle-hardened Israelis take a much tougher view all round. They were perplexed and angered that any govern- ment could even consider giving in to the hijackers' demands. Realistically they may be right. They are entitled to ask whether, if the Greek government had not given way on the first occasion, this week's hi- jackings would ever have occurred.
But, just as one cannot really criticise parents who pay a ransom to kidnappers in the hope of getting their child back, so a government which decides to yield and appear weak in the hope of saving hun- dreds of lives—or even the life of one foreign diplomatist—may be wrong but is surely not contemptible. The whole point of kidnapping and the holding of hostages is to create an agonising dilemma for decent men. Willingness to create such a dilemma is the advantage which cruelty always has over kindness, savagery over civilisation. But there has to come a sticking point; otherwise the surrender is cumulative and will ultimately be total, carrying civilisation and kindness away with it. Reluctantly, agonisingly, we know the real answer: . we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane.
Previous page
