Foreign principles.

Foreign politics and diplomacy does not normally take a front seat role in determining the news agenda. In fact, it does not really affect the great persuasions of the electorate when people come to vote. International events have caused politicians to resign and have certainly stained the careers of many in government; Eden over Suez and Chamberlain over Norway (though he is renowned for Munich). The Arab Spring, which may well define a new age of Middle Eastern politics, is posing many questions of our diplomats and the philosophy of international relations.

The main role of an Ambassador or anyone within the diplomatic corps based abroad is to be the eyes and ears for their government back home and to promote their country’s interests in their posting. The dilemma for any politician is that often these relationships and trades can come back to question their judgement and their own moral compass. A few weeks ago, when Egypt’s strongman, Hosni Mubarak, appeared determined to remain in the power, despite the widespread protests, the words from Western leaders’ evoked calmness and peaceful demonstrations; there were never forthright utterances to go. This is where the ambiguities lie; if bilateral relations are friendly and prosperous then it is not in a politician’s interest to clamour revolution or submission. It would appear spiteful and particularly short-sighted.

Many people have questioned British, American and Italian links to Libya but who was to know what was to happen? Colonel Gaddafi had been welcomed back into international theatre, and despite some odd cameos at the UN, he appeared happy to give up his nuclear/chemical weapon capability and reintegrate into the world of trade. The nature of these Arab revolutions was not expected thus it puts politicians in great difficulty. The obvious question is why did we trust them in the first place? The issue with dealing with any international statesman or woman is that they will always pursue their own interests, good or bad. It is inevitable that some countries do not endorse your views, but it is often in the ‘greater good’ (economically) to establish relations with such people. This is far removed from the ‘realpolitik’ of Cold War policy i.e. ‘my enemy’s enemy is my best friend’, where despots were tolerated because they weren’t communists, we have moved into a new era.

No longer do countries have to seek solace in wooing historical partners or America for favours, if they have minerals then they can turn to China. China’s foreign policy in the past ten years has been based on trade and investment only. No political meddling. The previous strings attached to aid and introduction of democracy are no longer binding. Africa and developing nations can establish growth via the Far East. The failed coup, involving Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher, in the tiny but oil wealthy nation of Equatorial Guinea highlighted the difficulties establishing long term and fruitful relations had changed. The contrived knowledge by Western governments was enough for the autocratic leader to turn to China; Western meddling was no longer an ultimatum. Even the tyrannical Robert Mugabe has held on in his economically dead Zimbabwe.

Values and principles are desirable in any circumstance when offering the hand of friendship, but often – and history reflects this – it is not the only way. In a rapidly changing and multi-polar world, British and Western politicians no longer hold the ace card. Often the undesirable can be an acceptable alternative.

True greatness - Ronaldo.

Sporting greatness is an aspect of society that still holds reverence to talent and natural skill. Sport scientists and sociologists have pointed out that in today’s world it is possible to succeed to the top with a balance of determination, fitness and in some cases a bit of luck. Sporting historians and fans alike will point out that sporting greats are the people who didn’t just amaze us with their ability; but endeared us to their personality. It is why people would rather watch Usain Bolt to Tiger Woods (at his best), or why Shane Warne is considered the best spinner, above Muttiah Muralitharan. They say that India comes to a standstill when Sachin Tendulkar comes to the crease and the world watched and listened when Muhammed Ali entered the ring.

Football is difficult to contend with nowadays, with its vast wealth of coverage and scrutiny. People deem it an insult that David Beckham is the most capped outfield player for England, yet they do not seem to take into consideration the nature of football that he played in. People may reflect on the statistics and the appearances; but they must consider the joy and gratification of the audience.

Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima, one of the greatest footballers of the modern era retired from professional football today. We knew him as Ronaldo and though later as ‘Fat Ronaldo’. His legacy will be recorded as the top goal scorer in FIFA World Cup history (15), with a trophy cabinet as wide as his belly.

Ronaldo should be recognised beyond his success. He represented the idea of what a star should be. He possessed pace, positioning and above all else his lethal finishing. He had a penchant for beautiful ladies and indulging in late night outings before matches, but it didn’t seemed to affect him on the day.

There are two questions that will always be asked in years to come. Firstly, what would have happened if a fit Ronaldo had played in the 1998 World Cup Final in 1against France? (he apparently suffered a fit earlier in the day and was only included in the final XI with minutes to spare). Secondly, if he hadn’t succumbed to crippling knee injuries, how many more records could he have broken?

Ronaldo wasn’t a brand, he was a religion. He had every schoolboy performing step overs in the playground and mystifying defences with his innate genius, all with that childlike smile. Perhaps the beauty of sport, unlike politics, is that the audience remembers their true greatness. Ronaldo’s destruction of the Compostela defence that left Sir Bobby Robson speechless and the Champions’ League hat-trick that left Man United fans on their feet applauding. It is hard to underestimate the bewildering talents of the man.

The life of Henry Moseley

Consequential theory in history, where academics forsee what could have happened has become very popular. What if D-Day had failed? What if the Cuban Missile Crisis went disastrously wrong? It is impossible to predict such events but it is interesting what scenarios could have befallen us. It also makes one think what would have happened if certain people had survived, would the world be a better place or worse?

The wasteful expenditure of life is written in poetic prose that encapsulated the horrors and the destitution of youth through the eyes of Rosenberg, Owen and Graves. It is something learnt by all school children in history and continued through life at Armistice Day and on Remembrance Sunday. I wonder whether people now look at town cenotaphs and recognise the dead. For some it is just a plaque scrawled with the names of thousands of men who died in a Foreign Field. When you study the individual names and the real people that died, it highlights their meekness, mercy and honour. It is true that many died in vain but it neglects their own private mortal history.

Commemorated at Helles memorial is a name unfamiliar with most people, but a scientist who made an impact in his short life. Henry Moseley was an English physicist who at the young age of 25 observed and measured through an X-Ray spectra that every element had a different energy signature, all relating to the number of protons within an atom; the atomic number. It was through these experiments that Moseley was able to decipher that at this sub atomic level we could work out the order of the periodic table and importantly, how many elements there were. Unlike atomic mass, atomic numbers are integers i.e. they categorically left no gaps meaning scientists could identify there were only 92 elements. As a scientist, Moseley did not have to enlist but did so through duty. He was tragically killed at Gallipoli in 1915 leading to the government to ratify that scientists would not be allowed to join the frontline. One colleague remarked:

“In view of what he might still have accomplished his death may well have been the most costly death in the war to the whole of mankind.”

Speculation surrounds whether Moseley may have received the Nobel prize for Physics a year later, but the amount he contributed to this world in his short life, like others, exacerbates the great loss to us all.