“Drugs” sign in shop window. Photo by garyowen via Flickr.

In Trinity term, the International Relations Society hosted a panel of speakers to broach a topic the Society has never before discussed – the War on Drugs. Bringing together three impressive and diverse speakers, the panel debated the effects of the War on Drugs, and possible alternatives to the status quo of criminalization. Each member of the panel was given a quarter of an hour to make a brief speech outlining their views, following a question and answer section in which they engaged with each other, and the audience.

The first speaker on the panel was Mauricio Rodríguez-Múnera, the Colombian Ambassador to the United Kingdom. The main focus of his speech was to present Columbia’s view of the War on Drugs, which has been shaped by many years of experience on the frontline. “We don’t want other countries to live the tragedy that we lived, and we are still living. We’ve lost hundreds of thousands of citizens. We want this tragedy to stop as soon as possible.” The Ambassador believes that the devastating consequences drugs have had worldwide are exacerbated by the criminalization of drugs. He argued that the current approach “is not working”, instead proposing a new approach to the War – an “open debate based on evidence, led by scientists and experts”, that avoids ideological or politicized arguments. He did concede that this will take time, that many are reluctant to see change, or make innovations, and that there is fear that change may be even worse. Accepting the fact that change will happen gradually, Rodríguez-Múnera contended that too drastic a change would in itself be a problem. The President of Colombia has already begun this incremental approach to change. Having presented what was largely an official view, Mr Rodríguez-Múnera concluded with his personal, rather optimistic, viewpoint: we have reached a crucial turning point and from here, change for the better will happen.

Niamh Eastwood then took over. Eastwood is the Director of Release, an organisation campaigning for a fairer legal framework regarding the treatment of drug usage within the United Kingdom. She pointed out the problems that have arisen from drug policing in society, and in particular, their disproportionate effects on ethnic communities. Of the number of white people caught with cocaine, for example, twenty-five percent are charged and seventy-five percent are cautioned. The statistics are almost reversed, however, for the black community. Moreover, prosecution and criminal records affect the future employment, educational and travelling opportunities of those criminalized for drug-related crimes, exaggerating inequalities within society even further. Release is thus campaigning for decriminalization, a movement supported by many prominent figures in society (such as Richard Branson and Judy Dench). However, the campaign has thus far failed to win government cooperation. Eastwood then presented an impressive array of examples to disprove the argument that changing drug laws will lead to the “sky falling in with people using crack and heroine on the streets”, with examples from across Europe, from Belgium to Portugal to the Czech Republic. In all of these countries, decriminalization has not let to any statistically significant increase in drug use, and in some cases, has led to more positive outcomes. Ms Eastwood ended by conceding that this policy is no panacea – it will not deal with the supply side, nor with other harm linked to the drug trade. There is, however hope – decriminalization has led to a greater appetite to reform “when people realise the sky doesn’t fall”.

The third and last speaker was Dr Neil Carrier, the author of Africa and the War on Drugs. He focused on the West coast of Africa, what he called the “new frontier in the war on drugs”. He pointed out that the perspective people hold on the War on Drugs is often one-dimensional, and that moral panic make ambiguities become certainties, in turn leading to a lack of questioning of the details. This has suppressed alternative ways of looking at the issue of drugs in Africa. For one, the intensity of the problem tends to be exaggerated, as statistics conflate cannabis and other soft drugs with hard drugs, when use of crack and heroine is far below the consumption of these softer drugs. Moreover, drugs have often helped instead of impeded development, as they provide livelihood for farmers, with many switching from growing coffee to growing drugs. Hence he pointed out that the impact on rural development and livelihoods has not been negative, something received wisdom in the War on Drugs hides in the ambiguity surrounding it. Problems that do exist, he argued, are entwined with much deeper and pre-existing problems such as weak government.

The panel thus provided three well informed and very different perspectives on the War on Drugs, allowing members of the audience to better understand the various lines of discourse surrounding this issue.

Taliban insurgents turn themselves in to Afghan National Security Forces. Photo by AslanMedia via Flickr.

While campaigning for the Pakistani elections in October 2007, Benazir Bhutto had invited Christina Lamb, Foreign Correspondent for the Sunday Times, to travel with her on an election bus en route to a rally in Karachi. The mood was joyful, as the public waved Pakistani flags and children cheered for Bhutto.

Then, just before midnight, bombers struck. The first blast was minor; the second was devastating.

“You could hear sirens and screaming, and everything around [the bus] seemed to be on fire”, said Lamb, describing her experience to the Oxford International Relations Society (IR Soc) on February 13. “As we ran through the streets, everywhere there were just severed limbs, blood, and lots of plastic sandals.”

As Bhutto and Lamb watched the BBC coverage of the blasts later that night, they learned that around 150 people had been killed. Before leaving for her room, Lamb said, Bhutto had touched photos of her children, wondering if she would ever see them again. Ten weeks later, she was assassinated at a political rally in Rawalpindi.

As a four-time winner of the Foreign Correspondent of the Year Award, Lamb has long been acquainted with danger. She embedded with young mullahs in Afghanistan as they fought the Soviets, and years later covered the war in Iraq. She amused the audience at IR Soc with stories of how her son’s first present was from Augusto Pinochet, who she interviewed right after giving birth, and how she uses football to break the ice with the Arsenal-supporting rebels in Mali.

The talk became more serious, however, as Lamb touched on foreign policy, particularly the American drone strike campaign. Since 2004 the United States has launched hundreds of drone attacks to defeat Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan. Although the US Department of State has justified the campaign based on the right to self-defence, others have argued that it is a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. There has also been controversy over the targets of the strikes, for organisations like the Brookings Institute and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism claim that many, if not most, of those killed have been civilians. Lamb does not believe that the strikes are a long-term solution, for not only have they bred greater resentment amongst Pakistani citizens, but they have also failed to stop al-Qaeda’s operations. She is particularly troubled by the lack of transparency that accompanies the attacks; the CIA refuses to disclose the intended targets or the actual casualties of a strike. “I think it’s very interesting that you have Obama, who is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, presiding over worlds biggest secret assassination cover-up”, said Lamb. “There’s people who say [that], if Bush had been doing that, there would have been a very different reaction.”

In an interview with The Globalist, Lamb argued that investing in the educational infrastructures of countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a more effective way to counter anti-Western sentiment. “The West hasn’t really done anything to help itself. I think people should have been investing long ago in education, and not allowing the madrassahs to become the main form of education for many people”, she said. Lamb also believes that Western governments should support free and fair media coverage in places like Pakistan, where journalists are often killed for their reporting. She supports the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, which trains local journalists in areas of conflict.

Lamb concluded her talk by discussing the necessity of women reporters in war coverage. For one, in more conservative countries, women journalists, unlike their male counterparts, are able to interview both men and women. Furthermore, because most British news editors and war journalists are male, the focus of most reports tends to be on fighting and male soldiers, paying little attention to women.

“Women are basically supposed to be victims or wives of soldiers. People seem to forget that there are actually women on the front line, trying to feed their children and educate them and they’re as much of the story – they might even be more of the story than the actual fighters. So I think it’s very important that women cover wars, because I know, after 25 years, we [women] do it quite differently”, she said.

George Galloway at the Stop The War protests in London, 24 Feb 2007. Photo by David-Martyn- Hunt via Flickr.

For those who have been living under a rock, George Galloway, MP for Bradford West, stormed out of a debate at Christchurch College on Wednesday 20^th February. He arrived (an hour and a half late) in order to debate Oxford University student Eylon Aslan-Levy on the question of whether Israel ought immediately withdraw from the West Bank. Upon realising that Levy was an Israeli citizen (by virtue of his parents’ citizenship), he proclaimed “I don’t debate with Israelis” and walked out of the room.

Galloway’s actions are in line with his position of “no platforming” Israelis; he consistently refuses to, as he says, “debate with Israelis”. My contention here is that this position is racist. Note that this need not entail a rejection of “no platforming” on the basis of political opinion (as advocated, for instance, by Unite Against Fascism with regards to the BNP).

By refusing to speak to Aslan-Levy or any of his fellow citizens, Galloway reduces the identity of Israelis to their nationality. Passport issuance, as Galloway is well aware, is not a choice. Refusing to engage with him purely because of this incidental feature of his person is racist. Substitute the word “Israeli” for “Pakistani” or “Chinese” and this ought become obvious.

Galloway was well aware of the topic of discussion in advance of his appearance in Oxford. He knew that he would be facing a student who opposed immediate Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (Aslan-Levy in fact supports a phased withdrawal within the context of a structure peace settlement, a nuance no doubt lost on Galloway).

The only extra information, then, that Galloway picked up when he arrived in Oxford is that his opponent had a specific nationality. It was this information – a fact that had nothing to do with Levy’s opinions and everything to do with his nationality – that led Galloway to leave. This was not a principled opposition to speaking to Zionists – if it was, he would have refused to speak at all – but a racialised opposition to speaking to Israelis. By contrast, Galloway has seemingly no problem with speaking to Saddam Hussein (“I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability,” he said in 1994).

Underpinning Galloway’s actions lie crass, generalising assumptions. One is that all Israelis are Zionists, when 20% of the population are not Jewish and non-Zionist parties currently hold 11 of the 120 seats in the Israeli Parliament. Another is that all Zionists support the status quo in the West Bank, despite the fact that two of the three largest Zionist parties in Israel actively disavow it and urgently seek a two-state solution.

Ultimately, reducing someone to their nationality, and refusing to engage with them on that basis alone, is racist. It is a great shame that Oxford was deprived of hearing an important, extraordinarily complex debate about the situation in the West Bank. Galloway, a man who on his website claims to want a “fairer, more equal and just society”, ought be ashamed of himself.

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, leaving Royal Court of Justice on July 13th, 2011. Photo by acidpolly via Flckr.

The latest acquisition to WikiLeaks is not an intelligence report from the CIA or lists of drone killings by the United States government. The site has just obtained the script to “The Fifth Estate”, a DreamWorks film about Julian Assange and his whistleblowing site.

“It is a massive propaganda attack”, said Assange during his conference at the Oxford Union on Wednesday evening, via videolink from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

Assange recalled a few scenes from the film, including the opening scene which features a shot from inside a military complex in Iran where nuclear symbols are visible, insinuating that the country was building a nuclear weapon. “How is it that such a lie has made it all the way to a Hollywood script?” he said. “How does this have anything to do with us?”

Assange has made headlines across the world by exposing government misconduct. WikiLeaks, under Assange’s leadership, has published innumerable classified diplomatic cables and played a crucial role in shaping the international political landscape.

During his speech in this Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence award ceremony, which he received himself in 2010, Assange denounced the movie as libellous and linked the phenomenon to the mainstream media perpetuation of state-made lies. “You have to understand that everything you ever hear and see is done with a purpose”, he said. Assange denounced journalists for becoming comfortable with the “big powers”, and regurgitating what the government tells them.

He spoke fervently for freedom of speech and against censorship. He called the Internet the “primary tool for emancipation” and said that there could indeed be things that ought to remain secret, but that over-secrecy “breeds corruption”.

Yet the WikiLeaks founder did not find as supportive a public in the Oxford Union as he might have expected, as evidenced by the hard questions he received during the Q&A session.

“Sweden is a free country with an independent judiciary. Why do you resist being questioned in that country?” asked Richard Wilkinson, an MSc student in the Social Science of the Internet, in reference to Assange’s reluctance to leave the Ecuadorian embassy and return to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. “I have answered these questions extensively in the past”, responded Assange with indignation and almost indifference, referring to the website justice4assange.com.

Approximately 50 protesters stood outside the building protesting the Union’s decision to bring Assange as a speaker. A great majority of the protesters were women, contrasting with the mostly male line waiting to enter the debate room. Simone Webb, the protest organiser, told the Guardian that the demonstration was not a stand against free speech:

“The motivation for this protest is twofold. Primarily that Assange’s continued evasion of justice makes it hugely ironic that he’s speaking at an awards ceremony about truth, justice, integrity and courage. And, secondly, protesting to challenge the marginalisation of rape allegations in society as a whole and also by the union in particular.”

In spite of the controversy and the occasional technical difficulty, Assange ended his speech with a note of Internet optimism. “For the first time in history, it’s possible for one person with a piece of truth to speak to thousands who ignore it”, he said. “The Internet is the great antidote.”

He affirmed that young people are more “sophisticated” and “international” thanks to the Internet, that the web is indeed changing the way people will operate, and that all the new intelligence officers who will begin their careers in the CIA or FBI will have grown up with it.

“It is up to decent people still working inside of government agencies who are witness to this behaviour to make it public”, he said. “It will be second nature to them [young people]; they are going to be inside all of these agencies, and they can act. It’s a pre-revolutionary movement.”

Burmese refugee and political activist Zoya Phan

Last month, Burma celebrated the Thadingyut festival of lights, but the people of this Southeast Asian country continue to face dark times. Burma has been under direct or indirect military control since 1962, and despite the efforts of pro-democracy activists such as Aung San Suu Kyi, the road to democracy has been difficult. The BBC recently reported on the rape and murder of a young Buddhist woman in the Rakhine Province in Western Burma, which sparked riots between the Rakhine Buddhists and another minority group, the Rohingya Muslims. The Burmese government, unable to control the escalating violence, has declared a state of emergency, placing the province under martial law. On Monday, Barack Obama became the first US president to visit Burma, where he praised Aung San Suu Kyi and criticised the violence against the Rohingyas, but general awareness about Burma remains low. On November 6th, Oxford Burma Alliance, a student-run organisation aiming to spread awareness about Burmese issues, hosted a lecture by Zoya Phan, a Burmese of the Karen ethnic minority who studied at the University of Bangkok before seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and becoming Campaign Manager for Burma Campaign UK.

Q: Tell us about the work of Burma Campaign UK, and how it shapes the political debates surrounding contemporary Burma.

A: The Burma Campaign UK started in 1991, around the time of Aung San Suu Kyi’s arrest. We have been campaigning for the recognition of human rights violations in Burma under the military government. While lobbying the British Parliament to advocate for democracy in Burma remains our primary priority, we also support organic anti-military protests in Burma, and spread awareness about the many human rights violations in the country. I urge people to track our work.

Q. How do you think the shift towards a more democratic Burma has changed the situation for women and ethnic minorities?

A: I get asked this question a lot, and I would like the answer to be more hopeful, but the truth is that the situation has not changed even though there maybe superficial political changes. There have been reforms, and the release of high profile political prisoners like Aung San Suu Kyi, but torture is still a systemic part of politics in Burma. Many people are denied access to medical treatment and food. The Burmese military army has been forcing militias from ethnic minorities to join their army, and when they refused, the Burmese army deliberately broke the cease-fire they agreed to, putting the lives of many women and children at risk.

Q. How do you think having Aung San Suu Kyi, a strong female politician, as a national icon influences Burma?

A: The Burmese are lucky to have Aung San Suu Kyi as a leader. We place our trust in her because she sacrificed 15 out of the past 21 years under house arrest, and has earned the right to lead our country.

Within the current political framework, it is difficult for her to bring about changes immediately as she has extremely limited political powers. She is an inspiration for many women, but also a reminder for how difficult the realities for women continue to be. Just because there is a woman in the political process does not mean all Burmese women are as liberated and strong. Gender roles are still predominant, and domestic violence and rape continue to be pressing issues.

Q. How do you reflect on your personal journey, as a scholarship student to the University of Bangkok to finally making your way to the United Kingdom via Burma? What do you think the situation is like for Burmese youth?

A: I was very lucky to be presented with the opportunities I was: to study in Thailand and the UK, and I am always thankful for that. Burmese youth are bright and promising, but lack opportunities. Most are forced to migrate as refugees and “illegal immigrants.” Life has not changed because they are not given access to basic needs like food and shelter, which makes having access to educational opportunities even harder. For me, the most heartening change is that women’s groups are starting to get empowered, and starting to view a woman’s right as a human right, which means there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

Sir Geoffrey Adams at Oxford’s International Relations Society. Photo by George O’Shea

Adams opened his talk with the assertion that the term “Arab Spring” was a misnomer. He posited that the protests were not solely Arab, including the 2009 protests that had occurred in Iran after the contested re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A better term, he argued, would be “Arab Uprisings.”

British diplomatic policy thus far has been to respond to the uprisings consistently, he said, even when the urge is to treat countries differently based on their relationships to the United Kingdom. It can be particularly difficult when the nation (for example, Bahrain) has close ties to Britain, but Adams believes that maintaining political and economic interests must not come at the cost of supporting values such as democracy.

“We support the leadership of Bahrain. They’re our friends. We stand by them, but if they allow their police to shoot unarmed protesters, we have to say that,” said Adams. “We can say it in a respectful way, but not to do so would not be keeping with our values.”

For Adams, the British government’s willingness to criticise friendly regimes highlights its commitment to political rights.

“If it’s really true, as some people say, that the British government is motivated purely by economic interests, that all we really care about is the oil and grabbing the money, then we would have done better to say no, no, no, the protesters in Tahrir Square should go back to their homes, and their political leadership can deal with this in their own way,” he said.

He stressed the importance of Britain being modest in regards to its response. “We must remember the limits of our own influence and not get seduced by our own rhetoric. It’s not about us, it’s about them,” he said.

But modesty was not the same as inaction, he said in an interview with the Globalist. Adams believes it is possible for Britain to become involved in conflict like NATO action in Libya while still respecting a people’s autonomy.

“Our action in Libya reflected our modesty. What NATO did in Libya was very specific, targeted strikes to protect the Libyan people from Colonel Ghaddafi, and allowed the Libyan people themselves to liberate themselves,” he argued.

Adams rejected that a similar approach could be taken with Syria. For one, he pointed out, the UN Security Council had passed a series of resolutions which provided the legal basis for NATO action in Libya. No such measure of international agreement exists for Syria.

Instead, the British government has imposed sanctions on Syria, and supplied medical and communications equipment to opposition groups. Britain also ranks as the largest European humanitarian aid supporter of Syrian refugees.

According to Adams, British policymakers had long expected Arabs to revolt against their oppressive governments. “There were fundamental weaknesses in the societies of those countries, and the governments were unsustainable,” he explained. It was only a matter of time before the people rise against the lack of opportunities, and, as he put it, the “pervasive sense of corruption and disease” present in their countries.

For years, Western governments had tolerated the despotic regimes because they believed there was only a choice between stability and democracy. Even in the face of the Arab uprisings, many believed that Britain should continue supporting leaders such as ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

“It’s not inconceivable that we could have argued, ‘better the devil that you know. He may not be perfect, but at least he’s bringing stability,’” said Adams.

But, he added, quoting former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, this was a false choice, for the nations would end up with neither stability nor democracy.

Adams cautioned that events in the Middle East would likely get worse before they got better.

“We don’t know if the leaders that are emerging will be good. We hope they are, but there will be lots of uncertainty. But I do think,  in the foreign office, it’s a great mistake to think of these challenges as security challenges. I think that risks getting back into the “war against terror, 9/11, Islam is a threat to the West” narrative, which I don’t believe is credible or helpful in reducing that threat,” he said.

As the talk was given on the evening of the US Presidential elections, Adams also touched on the implications of a Romney presidency. He believed that Romney seemed to have a moderate, cautious approach toward Iran, even agreeing with the President at times during the foreign policy debates. Yet it is impossible to know what Romney’s approach would have been, as Adams explained, for there are two competing views on foreign policy within the Republican establishment.

“There’s a kind of Bush Sr., pragmatic, cautious, moderate brand of Republicanism, as it’s called, which looks at things very much from a military intelligence perspective – is this doable, is this wise to attack Iran? Would this achieve the results we want?” he said. “[Then] there would be a neo-con, Cheney-esque, Rumsfeldian view, which is there is only one thing these guys understand.”

However, looking to the future, Adams noted that President Obama’s re-election does not guarantee that American policy towards Iran will continue to be moderate.

“The Israelis next year will not be silent. If they think that Iran is reaching, or has reached a point of development in its nuclear programme that represents a threat to Israel, it is very hard for any American president to resist that, and that is why I’m just worried, generally,” said Adams. 

Recent Oxonian Globalist Articles on Middle Eastern Politics:

The Middle East’s New Power Brokers

When Arabs Spring, Israel Gets Nervous

The Arab Shift

Luke Harding speaks to the Oxford Media Society. Photo by Riana Patel

“It was as if I was in a really tawdry spy film, and I had been cast as James Bond.”

That was how Luke Harding, a journalist at The Guardian, described the bizarre and harrowing circumstances he faced in Russia, during a speech to the Oxford Media Society on October 31st.

Harding first angered Russian authorities by contributing to a front-page Guardian article on former Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky’s plans for a violent overthrow of the Russian government. The piece went viral in Russia, and Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) called in Harding, then the Moscow Bureau Chief, for questioning.

The FSB had already investigated his role in the article; the real purpose of the interrogation was to intimidate him.

The harassment worsened as Harding continued to write articles critical of the Russian government, including a piece suggesting that President Vladimir Putin amassed his undisclosed personal fortune through illicit business deals. In a particularly chilling encounter, Harding recounted, he returned to his flat to find the window next to his son’s bed wide open. The message was clear: be careful, or your children will pay the price.

Harding maintains that the threats were never serious, and were only meant to scare him into leaving the country. But the provocations only strengthened his determination to stay in Russia.

“It was stupid and counter-productive because not only did I write a book about this, but also it made my articles on the Russian government more critical than they otherwise would have been,” said Harding, in an interview with the Globalist.

He chronicled his five years in Russia in a book, Mafia State.

“I don’t think my experience was heroic, but it’s emblematic of what’s happening in Russia, that you have a very thuggish regime that still to a large degree lives in the Cold War, which uses these spooky KGB methods against its enemies, as if it’s 1983 and not 2012,” said Harding.

Russian authorities monitored Harding’s emails and phone calls, even bugging his bedroom with audio and video recording equipment.

His wife, Phoebe, supported his decision to stay in Russia in spite of the harassment. They found that the best coping mechanism was humour.

“We made a lot of jokes about Putin and the FSB, knowing that they were listening in. We even at one point hung up a wall clock with Putin’s face on it on the front door, so that when these agents came in, the first thing they saw was the tsar looking down at them,” Harding said.

He drew the full ire of the Russian authorities after writing an article on Wikileaks, where he exposed the cosy relationship between organised crime and government in Russia. When he returned from London after publishing the piece, he was refused entry into Russia and his visa was annulled.

“It was fantastically arrogant for a regime to do this,” he said. “I’m not a terrorist. I’m not trying to blow anyone up. I was just a journalist trying to do my job.”

As shocked as he was by the decision, Harding considered himself lucky to be a foreigner. Russian journalists deemed traitors by the state are routinely beaten, arrested on false charges, and even killed.

Harding went on to write a book about Wikileaks with Guardian investigations executive editor David Leigh. Steven Spielberg bought the rights to the book, Wikileaks: Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, and the film, set to star Benedict Cumberbatch, is in pre-production.

Most recently, Harding has published an e-book based on his experiences travelling with rebel troops in Libya, Murder in Benghazi and the Fall of Gaddafi, with fellow Guardian journalist Martin Chulov. He believes that without NATO intervention, Libya would be where Syria is now, ravaged by a seemingly endless civil war.

For Harding, covering Libya was in many ways easier than his time in Russia.

“The curious thing is, I think war is very easy to report. If you cover Libya and Syria, your job isn’t to make ideological pronouncements, it’s simply to report what you see and what people say,” he said. “In war, people’s stories just tell themselves; it’s quite simple.”

U.S. Senator John McCain at the Union

John McCain has some advice for Mitt Romney: be yourself, and if you win, call Bill Clinton.

McCain, the Senior Senator from Arizona best known as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, addressed a full chamber at the Oxford Union on October 10th in an event co-hosted by the Union and the PPE society. The event took the form of a short talk followed by a question and answer session.

McCain—who was held as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam for six years— is well known for his hawkishness, and he spent much of his talk advocating military intervention in the Middle East.

“We live in an exciting and dangerous world full of perils and opportunities— the most exciting and dangerous time since the Cold War,” he said. But he fears that radical Islamists could subvert the tide of change for their own extremist purposes.

Without aid from America and its allies, McCain warns that Syria could endure “an extended stalemate, a massacre, for months.”

“We’re not giving the people who are standing up for their rights the assistance that it is our obligation to give,” he said. He sees the death of the U.S. ambassador and three U.S. citizens in Benghazi as just the latest reason for U.S. intervention.

“We are now finding out it was an orchestrated plan affiliated with Al Qaeda, not a spontaneous reaction to a hateful video,” he said. “To blame it on a video is an absolute misunderstanding of what is going on.”

“I don’t want American and British boots on the ground,” he said, “but I want us to supply them with weapons with which they can defend themselves.”

He spoke of visiting a Syrian refugee camp and meeting women who had been gang-raped and mothers whose children had been killed by Bashar al-Assad’s troops.

“For us to stand by and let this happen is unconscionable,” he said.

“Is there any case in which you wouldn’t reflexively advocate American military intervention?” asked one audience member, to a round of applause.

As for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, McCain believes the person for the job is Bill Clinton.

“If Romney is elected, I’d hope that the first thing he would do would be to call Bill Clinton and have him bring these parties together,” said McCain. “Nobody knows his issues like Bill Clinton does.”

Unsurprisingly, McCain fielded many questions about the U.S. presidential elections. McCain admitted that until the October 3rd debate between Obama and Romney, he was not optimistic about his party’s chances.

“The debate turned everything on its head,” said McCain. “The President wasn’t on his game. I know from personal experience that the President is an excellent debater.”

Asked if he had any advice for Romney, McCain offered these words: “Try not to be somebody who you’re not.”

“Mitt is a very decent person with a wonderful, loving wife and five sons, but he doesn’t have to be the kind of guy you want to go for a beer with.”

“That’s my advice,” said McCain. “And by the way, he hasn’t asked for it.”

Although Romney may be a few points ahead, the polls are fluctuating on a daily basis, and the Senator warned against making assumptions about the outcome. “This thing is far from over,” he said. “We could be up late on the night of November 6th.”

McCain criticised the campaigns’ reliance on donations from corporations. “The system is now so, so terrible,” he said. He blamed the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling to allow unlimited independent political expenditure by corporations and unions on the grounds of free speech, calling it their “worst decision ever.”

“They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?” asked McCain. “Money is money.” Under the current system, the average citizen does not have the same voice as a big contributor. What does an inundation of attack ads add to the conversation, asked McCain, who has sponsored legislation seeking to limit organisations’ contributions to political parties.

McCain concluded his talk with a plea to students to consider going into public service.

“You are the future. I am the past,” said McCain, who celebrated his 76th birthday in August. He earned a standing ovation— not bad, coming from a liberal audience that is largely hostile to his party’s views. (187 people “like” the “Oxford University for Obama” Facebook page, compared to only 20 who “like” the “Oxford Republicans Abroad” page.)

Students were struck by the contrast between his portrayal as distant and uncompromising during the 2008 campaign and the personable, even humorous demeanour he displayed at the Union. He even joked about his 2008 loss:

“After I lost the election in 2008, I slept like a baby— I’d sleep for two hours, then wake up and cry.” Audience members were also surprised to hear him praise Democrats and even criticise America’s two-party system.

“I thought he was a lot more dynamic and moderate than I expected,” said Katy Fallon, a third-year studying English at Keble. “While I don’t agree with all of his politics, I really developed an admiration for him as a person.”

For more Oxonian Globalist coverage and comment on the US Election:

Politics: US Election