As I made my way through the crowds of harrassed shoppers on Christmas Eve, completing my Christmas consumerism at the last minute as usual, a strange thought occurred to me: isn't it lucky that people aren't psychic? The festive season gives everyone a chance to chill out, cheer up, and try to face the future with some hope. If we really knew what was coming, it might be very difficult to relax and celebrate.

Britain's favourite Christmas song of the past three decades has been Slade's 'Merry Xmas Everybody', a song whose chorus encapsulates that seasonal spirit of alcohol-fuelled optimism: 'Look to the future now/It's only just begun'. We celebrate surviving another year, resolve to do better next year (once the hangover has worn off) and hope that somehow the next 12 months will be easier and happier.

Just imagine how muted the celebrations would have been on December 31, 2000 if we'd known what 2001 was actually going to be like. I think the beer would have tasted a bit flat had I known that the coming year would contain the worst terrorist atrocity in history, triggering off a war with ill-defined aims and no definite end in sight. Returning to my flat in Bradford after the new year party wouldn't have felt very comfortable had I known that, a few months later, my home city would be torn apart by race riots that would pass right down the street where I live.

Don't worry, I'm not quite as depressed as the above paragraph might suggest. Arguably, we have much more rational grounds for optimism this year, if only because after such a traumatic year, a moderately awful 2002 would represent an improvement.

And after all, life is full of surprises. Who'd have thought a year ago that President George W. Bush could possibly become so popular?

It all seems so long ago now, but 12 months ago Dubya had just 'won' the presidency in the most dubious of circumstances. The legitimacy of his election victory will forever be in doubt. But now his approval ratings soar to unprecedented heights. It cannot be denied that in the aftermath of September 11, he has given the American public the reassurance it needed. Dubya has provided simple solutions and simple rhetoric - we're good, they're evil, we'll win. That message goes down well.

But for Bush, there's a lesson from history very close to home. When his father waged war on Iraq in the early 1990s, he was rewarded with an approval rating of 90 per cent in US opinion polls. Bush the elder certainly didn't go in for any half measures: an estimated 150,000 Iraqis were killed in the conflict. Many, many more have died since as a result of economic sanctions against Iraq that continue to this day.

However, once the main economic objective of that war had been achieved, with Kuwaiti oil fields being recaptured from Iraq and made available to American oil companies, Bush senior backed off. American troops were withdrawn from the region, and Saddam remained in power. Subsequently, the first President Bush's poll ratings fell, as recession hit America; and he lost the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.

Bush the younger could also now face a backlash from impoverished voters. The US Conference of Mayors' annual report on hunger and homelessness is a reliable measure of the degree of poverty in America - and the latest report is alarming. Nationally, the demand for food assistance from families with children has increased by 19 per cent in the past year. 81 per cent of the cities featured in the survey reported an increase in the number of homeless people requesting emergency housing. Many of the claimants were working, but in low-paid jobs.

The authorities in Boston, Massachusetts reported that last year, the state of Massachusetts had placed less than 100 families in emergency hotels and motels. This year's figure is in excess of 340 families - but those families are lucky compared to the increasing number of homeless people being turned away from shelters because there just isn't any more room.

What has made matters much worse is that, since September 11, many US charities aimed at helping the American poor have suffered, as Americans concentrated their charitable donations on charities that benefited the victims of the terrorist attacks. Other charities have been starved of funds because so much of America's generosity has been focussed on the terrorists' victims. The victims of economic downturn have too often been forgotten.

Meanwhile, the US government hands out huge tax breaks to people at the other end of the economic scale. The Bush administration might claim to be winning the war against terrorism, but it doesn't even seem to be trying to win the war against poverty in America.

However, all this could easily be forgotten if Bush can continue to cast himself as a patriotic hero, leading the war effort against a succession of shadowy bad guys. After Afghanistan, he must be tempted to sustain the patriotic fever in America, and with it his own popularity, by going on to attack Iraq.

But to do so would be to attack a people who have already suffered hideously due to Saddam's monstrous regime, and the effects of sanctions. Although the Iraqi government has certainly been involved in atrocities in the past, there seems to be little evidence to connect it to the events of September 11. The anthrax attacks that have killed five Americans were initially linked to Iraq, but on December 19 White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer admitted:
'The evidence is increasingly looking like it was a domestic source'.

On the same day, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that a US attack on Iraq would
'...exacerbate the situation and raise tensions in a region that is already under strain.'

I sincerely hope that Bush heeds those words, and resists the temptation to court cheap popularity at the expense of innocent
lives. Then maybe 2002 might actually be a happier year than the dreadful one we've all just endured.

Perhaps the most poignant news story I read over the Christmas period was one about a priest somewhere in Britain who'd decided to exclude the traditional carol 'O Little Town Of Bethlehem' from his church's carol service on the grounds that its description of Bethlehem - 'how still we see thee lie' - seemed inappropriate given the present circumstances in the Middle East. Frankly, I can only agree with his decision.

Bethlehem was also at the centre of another sad story over Christmas, when the Israeli government prevented the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from attending the Christmas Eve Mass in the West Bank town, as he had done for the past seven years. It was a petty, spiteful move. It was condemned by the Pope, the United Nations, the European Union, and even by some members of the Israeli cabinet. Israeli Industry and Trade Minister Dalia Itzik called it
'a silly, inflammatory and unjustified decision'

But the Israeli premier Ariel Sharon stood by the decision, even mobilising extra troops to man checkpoints and make absolutely sure that, come what may, one old man would not be able to attend a religious service.

I can only agree with British International Development Secretary Clare Short, who has said that the United States should do more to try to kick-start the peace process in the Middle East. As Ms Short said, much of the criticism the USA recieves around the world stems from its role in the Middle East. In her words:
'That hurts the hearts of people. If the US tried harder, we could do better.'

I don't wish to seem as if I'm expecting the US government to solve all the world's problems. I do also appreciate that the task of solving a conflict that has suicide bombers on one side and the appalling Sharon on the other is an order as tall as they come. But being the world's only super-power does carry with it certain responsibilities; and the diplomatic side of the battle against terrorism must not be overlooked in all the whizz-bang excitement of bombing the bad guys and chasing demonised super-villains like Osama bin Laden.

Resolving some of the grievances that provide terrorists with excuses and new recruits would, in the long run, be far more useful than bombing more mountains into rubble.

This small planet is certainly still a terribly troubled place as we move towards 2002. I am therefore delighted to be able to
end this final column of 2001 on a positive note - especially for music lovers.

Steps have split! One of the most militantly mindless manufactured pop bands of recent years is no more. After a reign of
tacky terror lasting for a little over four years, they've done the decent thing and called it a day.

Time for a celebration drink, I think! Happy new year!

Ormondroyd

27.12.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page