WELL-BEHAVED BRITAIN
The British government this week published a snapshot survey of 'anti-social behaviour' reported across the country in a single day. The results indicate just how orderly and well-behaved a country Britain is. The survey of reported low-level criminal offences such as rowdiness, littering drunkenness and vandalism suggested that annually there are around 16 million such incidents regarded by people who experience them as serious enough to report to some official or semi-official agency. Put like that it sounds like a lot, but it means that on average a person living in the UK will experience such a minor incident less than once every three years.
Of course bad behaviour tends to be much more localised than an average figure would suggest. But, at the level of prevalence suggested by the government's survey, while over most of the country anti-social behaviour in public is all but non-existent, it is only a minor problem even in the worst neighbourhoods and city centres. Certainly, the survey does not suggest that the problem is significantly worse today than in the past.
The striking thing about the government's report is not what it reveals about people's behaviour but what its publication reveals about political life. Nobody doubted that the survey demonstrated that Britain was in the grip of the 'yob culture'. For the government, the figures provided a justification for its crackdown on anti-social behaviour. For the opposition and its sympathisers, it was evidence of government failure to tackle the problem so far. Even supporters of civil liberties, worried by the draconian police powers contained in the government's Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, urged more constructive forms of intervention to 'support' dysfunctional families.
All political sides instinctively interpret the most innocuous findings as evidence that we should fear each other and that the authorities should intervene more energetically in an absurd effort to eliminate the minor problems of everyday life. Small wonder nobody outside of the middle classes takes much interest.
CONGRATULATIONS TO Lt. COLONEL YANG LIWEI
...who became China's first astronaut on Wednesday. The China Daily noted that 'Asian countries hail China's manned space flight' (16 October). In the West, though, feelings were mixed.
BBC reporter Tim Luard detected 'a mixture of pride, relief, apathy, cynicism - and ignorance' amongst Chinese (BBC Online 15 October). Luard thought that 'the government was using the space programme to gain political capital at a time of growing social divisions'. 'China's state-run press began cranking into high gear as the party sought to use the launch as a way to rally support for its rule of China' according to the Washington Post (15 October), stung by a negative contrast with US astronauts' 'self-confidence and bravado' in the People's Liberation Army Daily. The Voice of America warned that 'The sudden portrayal of Yang Liwei as a national hero comes at a time when the government is coming under growing internal pressure to resolve problems of poverty and rising unemployment' (16 October).
Meanwhile the Christian Science Monitor saw the flight as an illustration of the lack of Chinese heroism:'there aren't many, if any, native public figures that stir, or are allowed to stir, popular imagination' (17 October). For them, too, the programme was a useful distraction for President Hu Jintao, 'thought to be embroiled in several power struggles'. The Independent could not help but contrast the space budget with ordinary incomes:'foreign experts say it totals at least £700m - a huge commitment for China, where the average person earns about £350 a year.' (16 October)
'Ultimately, though, Shenzhou 5 is just a way of showing off', opined the Economist (18 October). Reflecting on the sorry state of Nasa, they suggested 'perhaps the Chinese should quit while they are ahead'. But Dan Pleasch senior research fellow of the Royal United Services Institute was less complacent. Seeing the launch as a prelude to the militarisation of space, he insisted 'we cannot afford to sit back and watch the growing confrontation between the US and China'. Imagining a science fiction version of Hans Blix's weapons' inspectorate in Iraq, Plesch suggested that 'satellites are tiny, so it is easy to check if a ray gun is hidden inside' (Guardian, 16 October).
Contributors to the BBC Online discussion bristled: 'a mockery', said Damian Leach from Britain - 'a nation that can barely feed all of its own people can afford to waste extortionate amounts of money'? 'Wasted resources', said Phil. 'The sick and hungry? What about them?' Mark Shanahan demanded to know. ' China is mired in poverty, yet is willing to spend billions on a space program', questioned Pat from the USA 'this is completely irresponsible'. 'This is all a load of patriotic pap, designed to encourage the peoples voice into more military spending' according to James Shallish from New Zealand. Virginia, from America protested that 'while the Chinese rocket is in space, the Chinese government has 9,000 bears kept in small metal cages where twice daily their bile is drained from continually open wounds'. 'Why do people in the West look upon any development in the East as a threat?' Minhua from China wanted to know. John from the US was moved to protest 'Come on guys...stop the grumbling. You go China, you go Lt Yang Liwei'
The surly reaction to China's manned flight recalls Western incredulity at the first Russian orbit of the earth on 3 November 1958, carrying a dog, Laika. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan warned that 'never has the threat of Russian Soviet Communism been so great or the need for the Western countries to organise against it been so urgent'. Democratic Senator Syminton described the launch as a 'technological Pearl Harbour'; while Sen. Butler (Rep.) said 'I would like to see our armed forces shoot down Sputnik II'. The League Against Cruel Sports in London announced that 'such acts put the scientists beyond the pale of decent peoples', and demanded that the United Nations 'outlaw such foul experiments and those who perpetrate them'. -- James Heartfield