COLUMN
By ’Tunji Ajibade
tunjioa@yahoo.com
The Russian invasion of Ukraine happens and the opposition party in the UK has suddenly found another job for itself as a result. It’s all good for an opposition party that would not mind grabbing even one blade of grass in order to lash out at the man in Number 10, Downing Street. The challenge is that this latest blade of grass looks more ridiculous, it’s more sickly looking than the previous ones the opposition has been brandishing in its relentless attacks on Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The opposition says a recommendation made to have a Russian Oligarch, Evgeny Lebedev, given a peerage has to be investigated. The opposition party leader must think he is some kind of god. Why? Only a god would know that the person who is honoured today would not be worthy of the same honour tomorrow. So, the opposition leader and his followers must be unto something which they will later tell UK citizens. For they must be the only people in town who do not realise that what they pursue in this case amounts to nothing.
Now, how does one begin to imagine that a man whose contribution to the UK is known and acknowledged by all is now the one the opposition is fixated with, claiming any recommendations made for him to be honoured by Her Majesty the Queen should be investigated? And the target of the investigation. Of course it is Prime Minister Boris Johnson. But for the fact that reputable persons are mentioned in this, it is a suggestion that should be dismissed without giving it a second thought. It should be a laughable one; for from this location, it makes one want to wonder what the opposition thinks it is these days. It should be clear to every clear-minded person that it has lost focus – grabbing anything as it does, anything at all just to be heard to be saying something.
One should think UK citizens should be appalled at the kind of debased arguments as well as the accusations the opposition levels these days. It lacks quality, the reasoning behind it lacking in substance; and there’s even this sense that they take clear-headed citizens for granted as to the kind of bring-him-down materials they gather and to which the press gives free publicity. Reporting the view of the opposition is one thing, an essential element in democracy. But hearing what is lacking in substance is another thing, and one should think reasonable citizens who want to listen to issues with substance being debated in parliament need to get this across to their MPs in the opposition.
Now, a closer look. This is not the first time a person would be honoured anywhere in the world, and when such a person is later found to do what runs contrary to the value for which they are honoured the honour is quietly withdrawn. The list is endless and it can be found anywhere, not just in the UK. The point here is that the basis for honouring a person yesterday is not always the basis for considering him either worthy of the honour or not today. Something has since happened. In the event, hardly is the person who made the recommendation for the honour to be made crucified. Why? He is not Nostradamus – the man who saw tomorrow.
From that perspective, it is clear that the opposition in the UK seems to believe UK citizens cannot reason beyond what it puts forwards i.e. Johnson must be crucified for recommending a man, whom he knew to have contributed to the UK, to Her Majesty for honour. One would want to believe that UK citizens are too smart to buy this kind of cheap argument, and this exercise in futility.
More than that, at the time the Russian Oligarch in question was recommended and honoured, the opposition was not in a coma, was it? It was alive and present in the Parliament. How come they did not consider that citizens would be asking them questions: What were you doing when the Russian was recommended. How come it is now that everyone knows you want to have Johnson on your dinner plate, if that were possible, that you are crying probe? In the event, one would also want to think the opposition needs to bring unto its platform minds that are able to clearly read the details of what they want to go to the public space to pursue. This one is too laughable for the MPs in the opposition to queue up behind their leader to push in parliament, and they should tell him so.
Also, this would not be the first time in the UK a person is recommended for honour and latter occurrences made people to raise questions about the honour. Others happened in the past when the opposition was in power and the Tories were in the opposition. Is it that politicians forget so easily and they also forget that UK citizens do not forget? Based on that alone, one would assume the opposition would never raise this kind of issue, let alone accuse the current PM of any wrongdoing. But this is what the opposition has become in the UK, one that does not seem bothered about the blade of grass it holds as an accusation; any blade of grass at all would do in a season the opposition seems to be bereft of ideas on real issues it should attend to in Parliament if it must position itself as a viable alternative in government.
The point must not be lost that every nation has foreigners who contribute to its growth. Such are honoured because they deserve it. What the UK opposition is doing is poison the waters for foreigners who would want to contribute to the growth of people and the UK. Many would be reluctant if this is the kind of attack the opposition that should know better would engage in. This is the same opposition that seeks to get to power; when its party was in power in the past its functionaries did not do less in cultivating foreigners who had something to contribute to the UK. Now that that they are in the opposition, they make it out that a crime was committed when a Russian made his contributions and the PM considered him worthy of honour.
There is as well that argument that there were security concerns raised by the UK security services about the Russian before he was given a peerage in 2017. Of course there would always be security concerns about any foreigner, especially those from nations such as China and Russia which every activity generate suspicion in western nations. The reasons are obvious. These nations are high on the list of security risks even in peace time. Why? Apart from being rivals to western nations such as the UK, they are ever accused of espionage regarding everything from simple tools to nuclear arms technology. So people from these places are forever flagged as constituting risks to western nations. But this does not automatically make every Chinese or Russian a threat to the national interest of the UK. Until evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise, the concerns raised by UK security services do not mean the Russian in question is guilty of anything.
Beyond all of that, what offence has the Russian committed based on the war going on in Ukraine? None. Except that he was accused of making his wealth under the watchful eyes of the Russian president who has now chosen to make himself an enemy of the entire world by invading Ukraine. Beyond the accusation of guilt by association, how has the war in Ukraine made the Russian in question unworthy of the honour bestowed on him at a time Russia was not behaving as it now does. How does the accusation of guilt by association make the British PM guilty of a recommendation made at a time there was no war? It is only the opposition that has answers to that, and one would suppose they would tell citizens when they are done with their latest threat to probe. One is sure that their answers would include one revelation though: The fact that they honestly believe Johnson is Nostradamus – so he must have known today, yesterday.
