Archive 2007
As this is the season for wishes, here's one I really wish would come true but winged pigs have not yet evolved.
That the human being behind the mask would emerge and engage with the other human beings behind their masks. Imagine a world where the occupant of the White House, as a human being, engages with the human being in the presidential palace in Tehran.
Similarly in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Iraq. India and Pakistan. Etc etc. For when human beings, being human rather than masks, really engage with other human beings, compassion for the other cannot help but emerge.
This compassion is two way and is the foundation and gateway to understanding, to peace, justice. Whilst it seems and is light years' away, it is really quite simple. There is nothing complicated about it. If we all were able to be just human, allow our
humanity to emerge, most of the conflicts, fears, hatreds, would melt away. No one political, religious or cultural set of principles has sole access to compassion. It is freely available to all.
All we have to do is reach out.
It seems to be a reasonable request by the Palestinians: no more new building of settlements whilst Israel and the Palestinians try to discuss a way forward.
Israel appeared to agree on December 27th, but as usual their words are not matched by their deeds. No new settlements, maybe, but meanwhile Israel intends to continue with the building of 307 new housing units in South East Jerusalem, Har Homa, in
Palestinian territory. This is akin to a car stealing gang saying; 'OK, no more thefts, but we keep what we have stolen, oh, and by the way, we finish off the planned thefts already in the planning stage.'
Let us not forget, everything that Israel does beyond the 1976 'borders' (to say nothing of the 1948 borders, the only ones with any legal status) is illegal: occupation, roads, settlements, wall, murders, forced evacuations etc. Everything.
This is the reality that the continual pro-Israel propaganda seeks to obscure and what is even more obscured is the real aim of Israel: the annexation of the whole of Palestine, the driving out of all Palestinians and the establishment of what is regarded as the true
extent of the promised land. That true extent is defined at the extreme as between the Nile and the Euphrates. I believe that many Israeli politicians aim to get as close to that extent as possible. In the light of this, it is entirely understandable that Israel continues to
build and extend, because it is not about security, it is about expansion, bit by bit, acre by acre. This Lebensraum programme will continue until the victims of this process, the Palestinians, have one or more powerful champions for the just parts of their cause.It will continue and the misery of the Palestinians will continue until the US publicly draws a line and says to Israel, no further.
At last, a glimmer of hope about global warming. The UK government's plans to add a carbon cost to all decisions affecting
transport, construction, housing, planning and energy is welcome. Apparently the cost to the environment has been set at £25.50 per carbon tonne for 2007 and will rise each year to £59.60 per tonne by 2050.
How (and whether) it will work is not clear, but if it means that projects which pollute more will be more difficult to justify, then that is good news. What is perhaps more significant for the future is that,
as far as I am aware, this is the first time that a government has accepted the concept of non-economic costs being factored into investment decisions.
OK, this is concerned with a political hot potato - climate change - but if it leads to other environmental effects being taken into account, rather than the purely economic factors, then it is a crucial first step.
It will be interesting to see if this just spin, or will really be carried through.
There is something of an argument over the Daily Mail's intepretation of what the Pope is to say about climate change.
I prefer to go to the primary source, but that is not yet available, so I will quote Ben Goldacre in The Guardian. The Pope is quoted as saying:
"Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man.
Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits."
Ben Goldacre considers this to be "sensible", but it contains a fundamentalist Christian view that humanity was put on this earth to have 'dominion' over all other life forms and that the
main reason for not "selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests" is so that future generations of human beings can have their own crack at exploiting nature.
This is not an ecological argument and it shows a profound disrespect of the rest of creation: "Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole."
One thing the natural sciences have taught us is the inter-dependence of life forms. Continuing to regard humanity as different, superior and independent of the rest of nature is a fallacy which risks extermination of
both the human species and many other species. We are not superior, we are a part of a whole and need to consider carefully and rationally how we can play a constructive part in caring for the earth and all its life forms.
I wonder what African and other developing countries reactions are to the $50bn being provided by the central banks of the US, UK, Canada and Switzerland in the light of the
current economic turbulnce in the West. $50bn to help prop up already rich nations who have allowed debt to spiral out of control. $50bn to help the West maintain and increase its already lavish life style.
$50bn to the rich whilst women spend hours per day just walking to and fro to fetch unclean water. It is no use arguing that the $50bn will also help poorer countries.
When you have nothing, no changes in the world economy will affect you. The only way of alleviating poverty is through investment: in resources, technology, education etc. At present the West is declaring its priorities very clearly.
Maintaining the wealth of its citizens in the value of their houses and reductions in the cost of consumer goods is more important than reducing the inequality in the world.
Saddam Hussein said he had no WMD, 'intelligence' said he had. The West invaded Iraq with catastrophic results. Iraq had no WMD.
North Korea says they have WMD. 'Intelligence' agrees. The West does not invade North Korea. Iran says thay are not developing nuclear weapons. 'Intelligence' agrees. The West, especially Israel, still threaten to bomb Iran.
You can draw all sorts of conclusions from this mish mash. One however appears to be inescapable: 'intelligence' is only used when it suits the US and Israel's purposes. When it comes to major political decisions, especially when oil and Israel are
involved, the intelligence services are superfluous.The real tragedy though is that the West continues to see force or the threat of force as the first, if not only, way of getting what it wants. Is it any wonder that non-Western countries are less than enthusiastic about being 'civilised' by the West?
There is an argument against the belief that climate change is new, that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in its history.
A recent BBC programme incidentally dispensed with this argument. Yes, the earth has indeed been ice-free, in fact that is the norm, we are at present still in an ice age, but, if in the next 50 to 100 years the earth becomes essentially ice-free,
then that will be the first time it has happened in human history. Humanity and most other life forms have never experienced an ice free planet and if this happens within the forecast time frame (my own hunch is that it will happen within 50 years
unless we take drastic action) species will have too little time to adapt. Quite apart from the colossal reduction in habitable land - much of London and Florida for instance will disappear - whole species will become extinct. We know that ice is disappearing at an accelerating rate and
that the process is exponential. It really does not matter to what extent human activity makes it worse: it makes it worse. The sensible thing is to reduce humanity's effect as quickly as possible.
Anyone who has read anything other than this posting will know that I am pro-Arab and anti-Israeli, that I abhor violence and am tolerant of others' beliefs.
So in terms of my stance on Islam, I am positive rather than negative and my views on the 'war on terrorism' do not endear me to Western politicians. Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the popular or government-encouraged (it doesn't matter which)
violent protests against the sentence given to Gillian Gibbons in Sudan. If Islam were insulted, it was clearly accidental and careless: a 15 day term seems an appropriate token punishment, but I am more concerned with the protests.
The apparent hatred in the calls to 'kill her' hide another feeling, one of fear. There is a tendency to forget that 'phobia' as in islamophobia, homophobia, etc means fear. Fear can engender a violent response, sometimes out of all proportion to the fear itself.
So I wonder what lies behind the fear, a fear that causes people to call for the killing of an essentially innocent woman. Certainly, Western policies and actions give the Islamic world a cause to fear oppression of one sort or the other.
Yet there is no sense that the West wishes to crush Islam as a religion. I understand the fear that all non-Western cultures will be distorted, diminished and maybe destroyed by the imperiallly-imposed American culture and indeed share that fear but
is this a cause for violence? There is something else and I am unwilling to speculate, possibly wildly inaccurately, partly because some elements in the Islamic world are ulta sensitive. I have been accused, predictably, of being anti-semitic and
run the risk here of being accused of being against Islam. I believe I am neither, but there are reasons behind such extreme responses.
So, the Americans, the Israelis, the Fatah faction of the Palestinians, all say they want to pursue peace at the talks in Annapolis.Since October 28th Israel has been reducing supplies of fuel to Gaza and had planned to reduce electricity to Gaza from next Sunday. Israel's hight court has upheld the reductionsin fuel, whilst ordering a delay on reducing electricity.
So, the Americans, the Israelis, the Fatah faction of the Palestinians, all say they want to pursue peace at the talks in Annapolis? The Israelis choose a strange way of pursuing peace. Intimidation, oppression, semi-starvation. There are various terms to describe their strategy. None of them will work.
Oh dear, oh dear. "Even as we place strict local environmental limits on noise and air pollution and ensure that aviation pays its carbon costs,
we have to respond to a clear business imperative and increase capacity at our airports, particularly Heathrow. Our prosperity depends on it: Britain as a world financial centre must be readily accessible from around the world."
So says Gordon Brown to the CBI (Confederation of British Industry). This is in relation to the building of a third runway at Heathrow, supposedly still within a consultation process. Except we do not "ensure that aviation pays its carbon costs"
in that the aviation industry does not even pay its fair share of taxes on fuel. "Britain as a world financial centre must be readily accessible from around the world": really? There am I naively believing that business in the the financial system -
on a minute to minute, day to day basis - is done by computers and computer networks. Who would believe that financiers are substantially dependent upon meeting up and clinching the deal with a handshake?"New nuclear power stations potentially have a role to play in tackling climate change and improving energy security. Having concluded the full public consultation we will announce our final decision early in the New Year." As with Heathrow, the Prime Minister blatantly pre-empts a public consultation process, effectively announcing what the government is going to do: the "Having concluded" sentence openly indicates that having gone through this rather tiresome consultation process, we will then tell you what we will do.
There is one other telling phrase: "There will be no irresponsible relaxation of pay discipline". Interesting word, 'discipline'. The workers, for that read 'public sector workers' have to be disciplined or be disciplined in terms of having low pay settlements, historically below the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, wealthy financiers have a third runway built for them, are allowed to continue to pay low taxes, are allowed to gamble on the money markets without let or hindrance. And if such financial games go awry, not to worry, the government will fork out £25bn to rescue the situation, some of the £25bn being provided by those workers so much in need of 'discipline'.
One more quote: reforms will be introduced to "move claimants from passive recipients of welfare benefit to active job and skill seekers". Those people most in need, the chronically ill, the disabled are labelled "passive". The word contains a criticism, the assumption that everyone receiving benefits (some of whom have contributed mightily before becoming ill or disabled) is content just to receive, happy to be reliant on the state. It would be interesting too if, when asked, Gordon Brown would include injured soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan amongst those "passive recipients of welfare benefit".
Strange how the rich are looked after and the wage earners, the poor, the ill, the disabled are pilloried in the brave new world of New Labour.
Losing 25m records of highly confidential data is incompetence of the highest order, but what is more worrying is the fact that, after the event, no-one
appears to know what happened (or are not saying whilst a story is cobbled together). Quite rightly the head of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) resigned.
Quite why the official resigned is unkown, unless he failed to follow procedure, which has not been stated. There is also something more than faintly ludicrous about
emails which say that, whilst the National Audit Office only wanted limited data, HMRC did not want to incur the cost of filtering the data. What cost? More than ten years' ago
I was involved in the private sector, using Excel (hardly expensive, cutting edge techonolgy), to provide tools for departments to download selective data from central databases.
Even then, desktop tools were available and every piece of database software has easy facilities for users to download just what they need and security checks to ensure they are allowed access to that data.
We are talking computing level 101 here. The fact that this is not the first time sensitive data has been couriered suggests it was custome and practice.The most worrying aspect however is the impression given that no-one knows what happened and why and therefore the country can be reassured or otherwise. Knowing the track record of Uk governments, whatever results from the inevitable enquiry will not be fully trusted: suspicions of cover up, spin, etc will remain.
I was listening to a radio programme yesterday about the intention of Kosovo to seek independence.
Whether or not this is good for the citizens, or whether Kosovo can be a viable state was not the focus. The focus, reflecting the sad state of political culture, was on the relative aims of
the major powers, in this case the US, Russia and to an extent the EU. The old 'sphere of influence' and only looking after the powerful nations' own interests is still the underlying philosophy.
Powerful states have a vested interest in a stable and peaceful world and surely have the right and duty to act in order to prevent violence, but do not have any right or duty to intervene/interfere in
order to protect their own interests, especially if such interference is carried out violently.Similarly, it is noted that the US has invited 40 nations to the forthcoming Middle East meeting. This meeting is about Israel and the occupied territories. Why not facilitate such meetings just for the immediate parties? Yes, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt etc etc have a legitimate interest in how the Israelis and Palestinians settle, or do not settle, their differences, but the primary parties have most to gain or lose. Why infantilise them by insisting on everyone else being involved? Everyone except the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people that is, who are conveniently labelled terrorists.
The powerful nations continue to dominate, like a bad parent spending money on themselves instead of their children, punishing their children for perceived errors, behaving selfishly instead of with love and compassion. The analogy contains within itself a fundamental error, deliberately so: the less powerful states are not children, the powerful states are not adults or parents, either benevolent or benign.
If those with power used it wisely for humankind, did not interfere except to maintain or restore peace and vested those peacemaking/keeping resources in an international body, the world would be a different and potentially better place.
Two reports today. The IPCC report gives the starkest warning yet about climate change and the effects on the earth and on humanity.
130 governments are represented on the IPCC. At the same time, back in the UK, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), responsible for action on climate change in the UK, announces
budget cuts of £300m.Is the UK government really serious about climate change? Is the UK government really serious?
"Commissioners have to be in post for enough time to drive long-term change. They have not previously widely been expected to resign over individual incidents, however grave.
There are great advantages in the creation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Greater London Assembly and in some aspects of Health and Safety legislation.
However, they have changed the context of this post. Nevertheless, they do not change the basic nature of the Commissioner's task."Ian Blair on the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's report which not only criticised the Metropolitan Police for a significant corporate failure but also criticised the Commissioner himself for delaying the start of the IPCC investigation. The IPCC report follows a vote of no confidence in the Commissioner by the Greater London Assembly and the Metropolitan Police being found guilty on a criminal charge relating to health and safety.
Yet, he does not believe he should resign on an individual incident, "however grave". Really? So Ian Blair could do anything, the Met could do anything, without resignation being an issue? I think not and I assume that his words are ill-chosen. The question is whether or not the botched job of following and then killing Jean Charles de Menezes is 'grave enough' to warrant resignation. We may have to wait until the inquest before Ian Blair is forced to resign.
Quite what he means by the IPCC, Greater London Assembly and health and safety legislation having "great advantages" but "they have changed the context of this post" but "they do not change the basic nature of the Commissioner's task" is debatable. A muddled statement, but it appears to say the same thing: whatever others say, my job stays the same. Arrogance of this sort (shown also in him challenging the Greater London Assembly to sack him, knowing they had no powers to do so)in a person holding such a post is dangerous for his force and for those who are policed by his force.
"If the Palestinians are losing hope, especially among the young, we have a great danger before us.
The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can radicalize even normal people. We have all heard the stories and read the reports, but what is different now is the context.
My fear is that if Palestinian reformers can not deliver on the hope of an independent state then the moderate center could collapse forever. The next generation of Palestinians could become lost souls of unbridled extremism."
Condoleezza Rice.Two points. What kept her? This is not new. Everyone has known this for years, for decades. Only the effectiveness of the Israeli stranglehold has prevented "unbridled extremism" and ironically increases its possibility. Secondly the "Palestinian reformers" phrase. This presumably means the unelected West Bank Fatah personnel: the US refuses to talk to the party the Palestinians elected. Is it likely that any peace deal will last if those the Palestinians elected have no say? Further, it is always the Palestinians which have to deliver, never the Israelis. This point is underlined by the comment of Tzipi Livni, Israel's Foreign Minister: "The meaning is security to Israel first, and then the establishment of a Palestinian state." The order is always the same. The opppressed must first conform, the oppressors might then 'allow' a people their own state. What would have happened in the UK and Ireland had the UK government insisted on "security to the UK" before talking to the terrorists on both sides? Ireland and the UK would still be suffering the daily terrorist attacks, civilians would still be losing their lives.
Dialogue with all those who are party to the issues is the only way forward with realistic hopes for a lasting settlement. The sooner the US starts telling Israel that and acting itself in the same way, the better.
The world knows that the Palestinians have suffered immensely for decades and the Palestinians in Gaza especially.
Since Hamas won the democratically organised elections Israel, the US and the EU have imposed sanctions. Now, if that were not sufficient, Israel starts to starve the Gaza Strip of fuel. Only the intervention of the Israeli
Attorney General halted (or delayed) the cutting off of power supplies. The UN's senior official in Gaza, Karen Koning-Abu Zayd, has called Israel's intensification of the stranglehold on Gaza a violation of international law.
Yet the US, the EU, stand idly by whilst claiming to be working for peace. Inhumane, cynical hypocrisy. Israel knows that sanctions harden terrorists and increases support for their actions. So does the rest of the Western powers.
No wonder that the rocket attacks continue, no wonder that Islamic militants throughout the world find ready ears to listen to their views on the West. The generational oppression of the Palestinians certainly calls into question the West's claim to be civilised.
Here we go again. A re-run of WMD-type propoganda not based on accurate data. This time the badger population of the UK is due for a massive dose of
'shock and awe' following the proposal by the government's chief "scientist", Sir David King, to cull badgers in order to reduce TB in cattle. I write "scientist" as Sir David King's proposal is not based on previous scientific evidence.
Whilst the government was accused of 'sexing up' Iraqi WMD evidence, here the evidence actually goes the other way. The link between TB in cattle and badgers has been studied for ten years.
In 2006, Dr Woodroffe, a researcher at the University of California in Davis and a member of the UK government's Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB said:
"This research has two important conclusions. The first is that it shows for the first time that there is substantial transmission of TB from cattle to badgers (my emphasis), whereas in the past it's been assumed that didn't happen.
The second conclusion is that repeated culling increases the prevalence in badgers - each time you cull, it goes up and up." She also said: "In theory, if you could totally eliminate a badger population in an isolated area, you would eliminate one transmission route;
though whether this would be feasible or desirable is another matter, but improved cattle controls would have to be top of a policymaker's list; and culling - well, I'm not sure that would be on the priority list at all." So the government's own independent advisors conclude that cattle controls are the first priority, ie testing and vaccinating cattle and that culling badgers makes things worse (apparently with more space they roam further, thus being more susceptible to infection from cattle and infecting cattle). Faced with this, the government's chief scientic advisor recommends culling. Some science. Perhaps he is considering a Hitlerian 'final solution' - the extermination of every last badger in the UK? The tragedy of that would be the final proof that cattle TB would still occur, the tragedy of partial culling would be an increase in TB in both badgers and cattle.
Two final points. Economic considerations again take precedence over living with nature and respecting the natural world. I come from farming stock and am a meat eater, so I understand the farmers' concerns, but for me all creatures in nature have a right to live and our narrow economic priorities demean us. This sort of proposal is less than human in disregarding evidence and in being unconcerned about animal welfare. I will certainly join in any organised protest if this uncivilised, inhumane and misguided proposal is taken further.
There is anger over the 90 deaths of patients in the care of Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust and senior executives being allowed to resign with severance pay
and Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, threatens poorly performing trusts with being taken over by other trusts. Poorly performing trusts have money taken from them; fear of this drives some to distort their care provision in order to produce acceptable performance figures
These penalties simply punish the patients. One solution would be to amend the contracts of all staff so that, in the event of serious failures, a percentage of salary is deducted from all members of staff, leaving patient funds untouched. Staff directly responsible for
catastrophic failures should face the prospect of dismissal. The percentage 'fine' has the merit of affecting senior staff more than junior staff, which reflects in general terms the balance of responsibility.
The prospective temporary reduction in income would concentrate the mind wonderfully in providing a quality service in all respects rather than in just those areas which the government measure regularly.
There are two little details in the 'health and safety' prosecution of the police in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
de Menezes first went to Brixton station but it was closed and boarded another bus to Stockwell, where he paused to buy a newspaper before going down to board a train. He was followed all this time by two police surveillance officers.
Now, a terrorist may be so cool as to cope with a change of plan and then to buy a newspaper but this is unlikely. Suicide bombers are almost certainly going to be keyed up, focussed on what they intend to be their last acts, either carrying out their
own plans to the letter or the plans of others. His actions were not those of a suicide bomber and the brutal pumping of seven dum dum type bullets into his head at point blank range whilst being held down - considering the police believe that one such bullet is intended to
kill instantly is cause for considerable concern in itself, even if his behaviour matched that of a suicide bomber.There is a wider point. In 2005, The Independent listed thirty people who were shot by police over a twelve year period. Just two police officers were prosecuted, none have been found guilty of either murder or manslaughter. For me, the worst case was that of James Ashley, with his girl friend, unarmed and naked, but shot dead by police. In this case there was a prosecution and a verdict of not guilty of murder or manslaughter. Can we believe that anyone other than a police officer would have been cleared of any crime?
The police do a difficult job and have to take decisions in the heat of the moment, but it does not encourage the general population to respect and cooperate with the police when they appear to be immune from all blame in all circumstances. It also encourages criminals to arm themselves - if unarmed citizens going about their lawful business but in doubtful circumstances get shot, criminals, who know they are in doubtful circumstances, are likely to take precautions to defend themselves/shoot first.
Apparent police immunity is unhealthy.
There is a great furore over the British Court's ruling that Al Gore's climate change documentary contains 8, 9, 11 errors (take your pick as to the number).
There is a lot of heat about children not being exposed to 'political' opinion, about 'balance'. I myself have reservations about the UK government actively distributing the DVD to schools - is this the job of government?
Nevertheless, unless a charge of deliberate falsehood could be proven, any documentary is likely to contain errors but the judge said the DVD "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". Yes, he went on to say that
"the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme", but this is not a party political programme, it is the most important issue facing us and in any case,
the sooner children are faced with political issues in ways in which they can start to sift opinions and form their own, the better.There is a lot made about human activity not being proven to create climate change. What does not seem to happen is for those of us who are concerned to insist that sceptics provide proof that human activity does not significantly accelerate the pace of climate change. I would be delighted if schools - and everyone else - had a similar DVD, "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" as the judge ruled on An Inconvenient Truth arguing that climate change is either not happening or that human activity is not significant. We could then ponder the alternative positions and make our minds up. Meanwhile, my view is that humanity is currently acting like a parent watching a young child skipping around a main road - there is no proof that a vehicle will hit the child, but the odds are that it will and the risk is not worth it. We should act as if the world were that small child and exercise due responsibility. When the accident happens it is too late. Even as recently as a week ago the news about the opening up of the North West passage and a 23% reduction in Arctic pack ice in the last two years tells us that that 'accident' is going to happen. Only political action will stop it from happening, which is why all of us, including children, need to become political and politically active.
Apparently there is a competitive game going on between London and New York. Two measures of who is 'winning' this game are the rents per square foot for shops and how many buildings sell for more than $1bn.
London 'wins' the first round, New York the second. It is ironic that capitalism - which prides itself on providing the most for the least cost - throws up such comparisons.
More sickeningly is the belief that being the most expensive is 'best' in some way. At a time when most of the world is under nourished, 'competing' for the most expensive shop space and cost of buildings is just that, sick.
Yesterday's paragraph on telephone data was less than specific on why it is dangerous. It is dangerous for democracy and the maintenance of a free society because it inhibits if not curtails
the freedom to communicate, to associate, to combine, to group together. As we know from the 18th and 18th century Combination laws, governments, if they can get away with it, will seize the opportunity to deny people the right of association.
Why? Simple: an individual has very little power. This site has miniscule power, except the possibility of influencing enough people who, in some way together, act.
So governments fear the actual or potential power of those who find, by communicating with each other, that they have common beliefs and aims and seek jointly by further communication to act to further those beliefs and aims. Governments fear this process even if it is broadly in line with
their policies and fear it even more if it is not. When people's ability to communicate freely with each other is curtailed, the possibility of dissent, of cultural and political change, is weakened and the monolithic power of central government is strengthened.
Parliament is supposed to be the gatekeeper: limiting the power of the executive where it is too great and looking after the interests of the people. For the last ten years in the UK, parliament has been negligent, grossly negligent and the people have been ill-served, if not betrayed.
Our MPs have been serving power, instead of serving the people they are elected and paid to represent.
The UK continues to sleepwalk towards an Orwellian society and few know or care. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 appears to have given
the Home Secretary powers to sign a decree forcing companies to hold and reveal telephone and text data, all in the name of the 'war' against terrorism and crime. Now there is nothing wrong with that in principle.
What is unreasonable is the level of access allowed. Over 650 public bodies will be able to find out who you called/texted and when. These bodies include your local council, the Food Standards Agency, NHS Trusts etc etc.
In 2009, the UK government plans to have the same access to all our Internet traffic, not just telephone calls via the Internet, but all web sites visited.We have just witnessed what a totalitarian regime does with powers over communications facilities in Burma. It is not far-fetched to say that the UK government is acquiring such draconian powers over our freedoms, except here in the UK it is being done within the Parliamentary process. It is no use the government saying they will use such powers responsibly. Law is law: a future dictator would love to have such powers ready made. Many laws in the name of 'security' over the last ten years in the UK have brought the possibility of a dictatorship much closer. In extreme situations extreme measures tend to be reached for. The Labour government has created a host of such measures, all ready and waiting to be used.
There is a lot of noise about the protests in Burma and this process may end in tragic bloodshed. When the initial protests continued, the Burmese authorities decreed that no more than
five people could lawfully protest. Most Western onlookers would see this as unfair, undemocratic, authoritarian. Yet in the UK, no-one, not even a single person, can demonstrate within one kilometre of Parliament Square unless s/he or they get permission six days' in advance
or, exceptionally, 24 hours in advance. Individuals have been successfully prosecuted under this law (Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005)I am not saying the UK is like Burma, but it is salutary to note that the UK populace have restrictions placed upon them which they would deplore and decry in states considered to be 'rogue', 'undemocratic' or 'dictatorships'. Bad law is bad law, and especially so when passed by a parliamentary democracy. There are reports that Gordon Brown may repeal this part of the Act. Let us hope he does so soon.
Following the gradual revelations/leaks/disinformation etc about the Israeli raid on Syria, people seem to be obsessed about nuclear weapons, especially nuclear weapons being obtained by so-called 'rogue states'.
Americans especially appear to be paranoid about nuclear attacks - perhaps it's because the US is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in war.
Acquisition of nuclear weapons isn't about using them. It's about power, influence and deterrence. Why does the UK and France persist in spending vast sums on nuclear weapons?
To retain a seat at the 'top table'. Has war between India and Pakistan been more or less likely since both acquired nuclear weapons? How likely is Israel to use nuclear weapons against Iran or Syria?
No, it is the growth of conventional weapons, epecially the unspeakable biological and chemical weapons which are the greater threat. The only purpose in threatening the Irans, Syrias and North Koreas of the world in order to stop them
developing nuclear weapons is to stop them having an effective deterrent against conventional attack - we need only to look at the accommodation the US made with Pakistan after 9/11, even though Pakistan's democratic credentials are doubtful and her response to terrorists in and around Pakistan and Afghanistan has been ambivalent.
Without nuclear weapons, countries can be bullied by the US and her allies. There is no evidence that any country is more likely than any other to
use nuclear weapons aggressively, as a weapon of first resort. The evidence is that countries reserve a 'nuclear response' capability to deter conventional attack.The only justification therefore for forceful prevention of the development of nuclear weapons is to retain influence/the ability to bully etc. There is some logic in that argument but no Western politician is honest enough to admit it.
"The objective is to weaken Hamas": Iraeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak on the declaration of Gaza as a "hostile entity".
"Additional restrictions will be imposed on the Hamas regime, limiting the transfer of goods to the Gaza Strip, cutting back fuel and electricity, and restricting the movement of people to and from the strip"We know and the Israelis know that the opposite will happen. Militants grow in strength under hardship and punitive measures. The only people who will suffer are the ordinary Palestinians through lack of food, power and water and the ordinary Israelis through rockets attacks from Gaza. The violence on both sides is futile. There is no leadership, seemingly anywhere on the world, who is on the side of peace and who is willing to act on the proven principle that conflicts are not resolved through miltary means, but diplomatically. How long must we wait for such leadership?
Reading Tim Robinson's book on Connemara reminds me of what we have, largely, lost. He gives an example of how scarce and precious pasture is shared out, with rules on the time on pasture and the number of animals allowed.
This is very much an exception to the current culture, whereby anything scarce and precious immediately attracts a high price and is promptly 'owned' by an individual who zealously bars anyone else from it, or charges high fees for access.
It may be a small example, but it shows how since the 1980's we have been travelling in the wrong direction, valuing competition and acquisitiveness over respect for our natural resources and sharing them.
Gordon Brown takes the usual line on pay in addressing the TUC: the coumtry cannot afford to pay you more than, indeed, even the same rate as, inflation.
So he expects workers to accept pay rises of less than 2.5%. Meanwhile, top executive pay in the UK has been rising at the rate of 37%. The arithmetic is simple.
The average top executive pay is £2,875,000 per year: another 37% on top of that would take it to £3,938,750 per year. The average UK wage is £26,400 per year: another 2.5% on top of that would take it to £27,060.
Put another way, a top executive pay rise is around forty times the annual actual wage the average person receives. At present a top exective receives 109 times the average, if this trend continues, as in the figures above, this factor will rise to 146 times.There are many responses to this. The worst - and possibly the most likely - is to echo Marie Antoinette, 'Let them eat cake'. The French revolution was the result of this attitude. No-one earns £3m a year. It is a combination of luck, ability, coupled with the inevitable 'valuation' of scarcity in a jungle-oriented capitalist economy. No-one needs £3m a year. Some, especially in the US, give much away; it is one of the most admirable aspects of US society, still pursued in spite of the culture of greed and competitevness. It is a result of the obsession with money being the only valid measure that creates these grotesque anomalies. Status is what is achieved and status is measured by wealth. What you do and who you are are poor runners up in this value-poor society. The irony is that the likelehood is that top executives rate themselves less on their 'earnings' than does society. I doubt that many, on their deathbeds, would express the most satisfaction with their lives in terms of how much money they received. It would be more likely to be their corporate achievements, personal achievements, family, friends.
It is possible to see through the mirage of 'loadsamoney', but it is still inequitable. It is still a source of justifiable unrest. It still a potential if not actual danger to society.
The UK government should be seeking ways to reduce the gap, not allowing it to get larger, citing helplessness (without using this word of course) in the face of globalisation.
I watched Natasha Kaplinsky tracing her family history yesterday and two points struck me.
Her father fled South Africa as a result of taking part in a student sit in as part of the anti-apartheid campaign. His family were not supportive: having fled Nazi persecution as Jews they were, seemingly, relieved that another race (the blacks and coloured) were the subject of persecution there
and they did not want to disturb their relatively privileged position. I know from my work that individuals who have suffered or witnessed serious emotional and psychological pain tend to be sensitive to pain suffered by others and avoid inflicting it, sometimes being pathologically averse to doing anything which might cause distress to others.
This did not seem to be the case here and it is noticeably absent in Israel's attitude to the known suffering of the Palestinians.The other aspect was the entirely appropriate pride in her family's participation as partisans during the second world war, resisting the Nazi occupation. The images of the underground living accommodation drew parallels with the Vietcong's struggle against the American invasion/occupation, but most people in the West would not see these actions as equivalent. It is back to the "those on 'our' side are freedom fighters/partisans, those on the 'other' side are insurgents/terrorists." We are all biased and it is difficult to be aware of the bias and take account of it.
Having been in the wilderness and pondering upon nature from that experience and other experiences it makes me realise just how balanced and self-adjusting nature is when left alone.
Yes, there are extinctions, plagues, etc, but when reindeer come up to you (so long as you are quiet) as they have no predators and no fear yet of humans another reality of Svalbard hits you: there is no indigenous population.
Svalbard was discovered comparatively recently, an untouched wilderness. Yes, we promptly set about destroying life, especially the great whales, but again nature reasserts itself.
Having been hunted almost to extinction in the Arctic, the humpback whale is returning and I was fortunate enough to see one at close quarters. The Northern Right whale has still to recover alas.
Think too of Africa, where the predators are balanced by the prey: the cheetah is not fast enough to catch antelope with ease; the antelope are not so fast as to always escape. Human beings use their intelligence foolishly in trying to dominate and control nature.
Just as diseases return in another form, so will the planet re-balance itself in the face of the relentless assault on it by humanity. What form this rebalancing will take no-one can know.
There is a growing movement which not only respects all living forms but acknowledges that we are part of a greater whole, not separate, not superior. I support this belief. A trawl on Google for 'deep ecology' will provide information.
I invite you to suspend your allegiance to the modern, materialistic, wasteful, foolish and arrogant world to explore an alternative view, with an alternative future.
I read an article in this Saturday's Guardian which made me think. A Palestinian lawyer, Raja Shehadeh, is committed to staying in the West Bank, determined not to give in to the ever-encroaching Israeli settlements.
He is certainly not pro-Israeli or resigned to losing large parts of the West Bank. Yet he can see and can write of the love for the land that Israeli settlers have as being equivalent to his own love for the land. (The West Bank is not his ancestral home either, his family fled Jaffa in 1948)
He can even muse on how neither love is paramount. It leads to a thought, probably anathema to both sides. The boundaries of a new Palestinian state to conform to those of 1976, Israeli settlers to have the choice of going back to Israel or staying, with a guarantee of security and political rights.
The new Palestinian state would be created as a multi-ethnic state, in stark contrast to Israel which was created as homeland for Jews (nothing wrong with that as such) but with a determination to create and maintain a Jewish majority by all means possible including violence.
A vision that probably will never happen but a vision that can be glimpsed, thanks to one man. Thank you, Raja Shehadeh.
George Bush compares Iraq with Vietnam, somewhat bizarrely in terms of saying it would have been better to have stayed in Vietnam.
There are two clear parallels however, that ensures 'victory' cannot be achieved by the US, no matter how long the campaign in Iraq. The people of Vietnam were fighting for their country.
So too are the Iraqis, together with thousands of others with rather wider aims. In Vietnam and Iraq, the US is trying to impose its political and economic systems on another country. This, too, is doomed to failure by means of force.
If (when) the US departs, there may be killing in Iraq on an unprecedented scale, but it is impossible to say whether earlier or later withdrawal would have reduced the human cost.
What is clear is that the presence of foreign troops is not helping: the British military are now admitting that in Basra, they are the main enemy and are now only involved in defending themselves.
When an occupying force whose stated aim is to help rebuild a country and reconcile conflicting factions becomes the main target then it's time to go and fast. You've failed.
My job entails helping people in emotional distress, people who have suffered from crimes, from abuse, from traumatic events.
I am therefore naturally understanding of people distressed by what they see as unfair. However, I suspect I am not in the majority when I say that the decision not to deport the murderer of Philip Lawrence is correct.
There is a body of opinion which seems to believe that criminals, especially those guilty of serious crimes, forfeit all rights that the ordinary citizen enjoys.
This is simply uncivilised and barbaric. Learco Chindamo has spent most of his life in the UK and his family is here. If he were British by birth, deportation would not be an option at all and after completing his sentence he would live within the community in the UK.
Apart from this, why should the UK believe that there is a "right" to dump those people deemed undesirable onto other nations? Italy certainly has no responsibility for Chindamo. What about the "rights" of the Italian people?
Judges can and do make mistakes, but I would back a judge any day to make decisions based on fairness and common sense than politicians, who have vested interests and axes to grind.
Learco Chindamo is the responsibility of the UK, to punish, rehabilitate, deal with in whatever way is most appropriate.
I have recently returned from a trip to Svalbard and the experience of wilderness is potentially life-changing, forcing a different perspective on human existence.
I find it heartening that the coal deposits were laid down millions of years' ago when Svalbard was in temperate climes; that plant seeds were brought thousands of miles by migrating birds and took root;
that Svalbard is currently 600 miles South East of the North Pole but in millions of years' time it will be East of the Pole; that the land, still 60% glacier, is still rebounding after the ice pressure of the last ice age.
This is heartening because it puts humanity in perspective. How insignificant we are, how arrogant in our partial knowledge, how it is impossible for us to destroy the earth.
We may destroy ourselves, we may destroy much of the natural world, but if and when we disappear, the earth will quietly go on evolving, creating new life forms to take the place of those destroyed by humans.
It is heartening that the British Commons Foreign Affairs Committee recommend talking to Hamas as a step towards peace in the Middle East.
At least some body involved in mainstream politics is willing to state the obvious: that sanctions against Hamas only strengthen the militants and terrorists. Everyone always says there has to be a political solution to disputes,
everyone says there can be no military solution. The politicians however seem to believe that military 'victory' should precede the political process. It merely delays it and people suffer and die in the meantime.
Have you noticed that when it comes to global warming the politicians seek all the time to find the causes, arguing that we need to know what the causes are before deciding upon the courses of action?
In contrast, regarding the "war on terror", the courses of action, primarily violent and military, are vigorously pursued whilst the causes are ignored. If the one logic is correct, why is it not followed in each case?
I have just put in a link to MAP: Medical Aid to Palestinians on the Links page.
I would urge you to look at the site. Today I received information from MAP about conditions in the Jordan valley around Jericho. As I cannot find this on the MAP site at present, let me quote just a few figures.
The Jordan valley is home to 47,000 Palestinians and 8,000 (illegal) Israeli settlers. The area comprises 2,400 square kilometres. The area allocated for Palestinians is just 45 square kilometres.
The 8,000 settlers have 1,655 square kilometres. 456 square kilometres form a closed military zone and the Palestinians are prohibited from accessing the 243 square kilometre area along the border with Jordan.In round terms this means that the 'native' Palestinians are crammed 1,000 people per square kilometre, whilst the illegal Israeli settlers are spread 5 per square kilometre. I say 'native' Palestinians. These people are of course a mix of people born here and those, and their descendants, who fled their homes when driven out of what became Israel.
This is so grotesque that it is incredible that the politicians who know these figures do not act. The general public are not aware of the extent of the Israeli occupation in terms of land alone. If this helps to make more people aware, surely some will act on this gross injustice. I would ask anyone who agrees that this situation is indefensible to let your local and national politicians know that you know what is happening and ask what they are prepared to do about it. Pressure from citizens is regrettably necessary to force those in power to act to remedy such gross injustice, outwith and in advance of a final settlement of the Israel/Palestinian issue. The Palestinians deserve better, much better, than the conditions meted out to them at present.
As Tony Blair's role in the Middle East has been clarified, we can draw some conclusions. Firstly that the US, as usual, insists on dominating any political process.
Secondly that Tony Blair's eagerness to grab a role on the world's stage blinded him to that reality and to believe that, in spite of his limited role being made clear from the start, he was arrogant enough to believe that he could change it.The other curious aspect - but then Tony Blair always has taken an odd course - is that, having been told that his role is purely focussed on the Palestinians and how to help build up their institutions, he sets off next week for the Middle East, not straight to the West Bank, but to Israel, to meet Ehud Olmert. Now there is nothing wrong with establishing ties with leaders in both Israel and the occupied territories, but it seems something like an insult to visit Israel first. No-one ever seems to regard the Palestinians as worthy of respect and worthy of the common courtesies offered to other peoples.
In this respect, the continuing boycott of Hamas, who won free and fair elections, is another example of how the Palestinian people are treated with contempt.
I will applaud Tony Blair if he does in the Middle East what he did in Ireland. In Ireland he talked to the IRA. His contacts with the Palestinians should also be comprehensive.
The more I think about the state of the world, the more I come to believe that it is men who are responsible for the state of society and the planet.
The aggression and competitive nature of men, together with the Cartesian view that non-human life forms are subservient means that humanity rips each other off and with this the rest of the natural world.
Compassion and respect are add-ons if there is time to indulge in them, rather than essential and natural ways of being. So-called primitive societies, more open to feminine influence, were capable of being more humane, both to each other and to the world in which they lived.
We have much to learn from the past - without going back to it - in terms of how to treat ourselves, each other and the world with respect and common decency. It is time man learned to listen to woman.
The police in the UK, or at least the president of the Association of Chief Police Ofiicers, have launched another pre-emptive strike in calling for indefinite detention of terror suspects.
No lessons have been learned. Indefinite detention - better known as internment - did not work in Ireland, it has brought odium on the US relating to Guantanamo Bay. It is counter-productive, producing martyrs and victims that others exploit for their own ends.
Most importantly though it strikes at the heart of a free society: the right to be charged and tried by due process of law for whatever crime is alleged to have taken place or has been planned - for let us not forget that it is possible under anti-terrorism laws to be found guilty of a crime before the crime has taken place.
If we continue to erode and throw away such rights - the hallmark of any civilised society - then we have lost the 'fight' (odious term) against those who wish to harm us.
No politician is willing to stand up and tell the truth, the awful truth: that terrorist atrocities are the price we pay, the price we have to pay, in order to maintain our values.
Yes, let us be efficient, effective, even ruthless in preventing terrorism and punishing those found guilty, but throwing away the rule of law is akin to proclaiming the sanctity of marriage whilst having affairs.
Justice is not divisble, it is absolute, and we should provide it to all, especially those whom as a society we deplore, even despise: terrorists, paedophiles, muggers of the elderly etc etc.
May I quote from the Quotations section of this site: Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
This should be on every politicians's desk.
The Conservatives are right when they say that family stability is a key element in improving social cohesion and reducing harmful behaviour such as drug, gambling and alcohol addiction.
However, economic measures such as tax breaks are not the answer and it is depressing to see the continual obsession with money. The proposals apparently miss out stable families whose parents are not married and would also force the homemaker to work part-time when the youngest child is five and full-time when the youngest child is eleven.
I know that children now regard themselves as adults - and are treated as if they were - at an earlier age than heretofore, but at eleven they are still children and having a parent at home at least part-time could be a tremendous positive support.
I am aware of the role of peer pressure but children still, maybe quietly and secretly, regard parents who warrant respect with due respect. What is needed is rather more long term and little, in essence, to do with money. It is cultural change, a rolling back of the marketing-led consumer society which is needed. Society presently values the latest consumer product and children are the most vulnerable to this value system, creating upward pressure on parents to work harder and longer, thus reducing the time actually relating to their children. When as a society we value relationships with others as more important than the latest iPod or the 'in' trainers, then the sense of continual dissatisfaction will reduce and harmful behaviour with it. Whilst this is written from a UK perspective, it applies to all 'developed' nations and globalisation is exporting such marketing led values to the rest of the world. It could be argued that marketing - the deliberate creation of desire for goods and services that the population at large have not identified a wish for - is the biggest single cause of what the Conservatives call the 'broken society' and also is the biggest single cause of climate change.
The conventional view in the media is that Muslims are 'radicalised' because of the agenda of militants for Islamic domination.
The influence of the West's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, the bias towards Israel, the threats on Iran are all dismissed as incidental. Whilst I believe they are not incidental, no-one mentions Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary renditions as incidental.
Indeed, these two interconnected areas are not mentioned in this context as they clearly are not incidental. There is no excuse for terrorism by Muslims (or by the US, UK and Israel for that matter) but the West persists in providing fertile ground for those busy radicalising young Muslims.
Furthermore, the West continues to debase the so-called gift to the world of Western democracy, for instance the US president commuting the sentence for political crimes by one of his political associates.
There may be no objection in principle for a president to have powers of clemency, but not when the criminal is a close associate. It is an insult to the whole principle of the rule of law but George Bush appears to have no sense of shame.
The Israeli/Palestinian issue is deep-seated and conventional politics, with its emphasis on power and fear, seems unable to make headway.
An unconventional approach might lead somewhere. The following is not a solution, rather a process which might shed light on what the communities want and indicate to the politicians what this is.
At random, a number of people - say six to eight - are chosen from each community: Israeli and Palestinian. In the case of the Palestinians the choice would be made from both the West Bank and Gaza, for the Israelis, residents of the settlements would be included in the randomising process.
The people are immediately flown to a neutral country - say India - and arrangements made for family care etc in their absence. Three neutral facilitators are appointed and the first, say, three days are spent with each group separately discussing and formulating what they want.
After such formulations are created, the groups meet under the third facilitator to share what they want and to explore to what extent each side's wishes are complementary and to what extent they are irreconcilable.
If appropriate a joint statement of aims is created and each group, with their individual facilitator, has the opportunity to modify their wishes as a result of the discussions. Following this process the two separate 'wish lists' and the joint statement, if any, are published to each community.
Both Israel and the Palestinian communities would be required or encouraged to seek the views of their populations at large eg. via some sort of referendum.
To the extent that the groups reach consensus and the communities endorse it, the politicians would find it difficult to prevaricate and perpetuate their lethal game playing. The process would be more effective to the extent that the groups included hard-line members from each side - militant settlers, militant Palestinians,
but this would be sheer chance.The process would cost peanuts in relation to what is being spent on perpetuating the violence and may of course lead absolutely nowhere, but involving the people in some way, free of immediate pressure from their communities and open to the wishes of ordinary people from the other community, might just provide a way forward. My belief is that the wishes of the people from each side would be less demanding for themselves and less demanding of the other side. Ordinary people are generally more tolerant and less confontational than politicians.
There may be some grounds for cautious optimism in the Supreme Court's decision to review whether or not detaines in Guantanamo Bay can access federal courts to contest the legitimacy of their detention.
Optimism that the judicial system in the US may not be subservient to the executive and that the main purpose of any judicial system - seeking justice - still has some meaning.I am rather more cynical about the decision to investigate BAE in relation to the arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Welcome as that decision is in terms of looking at what may be corruption on a large scale, politics is driving it rather more than justice, as politics drove the British decision not to pursue the enquiry.
How anyone can, given his history, consider Tony Blair to be a suitable mediator in the Middle East is beyond me.
True, he may do a good job, but his invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, stance against Iran, explicitly refusung to criticise Israel's destruction of Lebanon would not read well on the cv for a job application.
As far as the agenda of the parties to the Middle East situation, I can do no better than refer you to the following article: Finding lessons in Gaza's bloodshed.
Sooner or later the world will listen to those who see the US for what it is: an imperial power, creating untold misery in its quest to maintain and increase its dominance in the world. Tony Blair, his hubris flattered and massaged, is just another pawn
in this immoral and tragic game.
The US champions democracy throughout the world. The US encouraged the Palestinians to hold elections which Hamas won.
The elections were fair according to international observers. The Palestinians were duly punished via economic sanctions for choosing the 'wrong' party.
Hamas and Fatah (the faction supported by the US - though not when headed by Yassser Arafat) formed a government of national unity. Not good enough. Hamas then takes Gaza by force and Fatah creates a new government without elections,
ie undemocratically, no say in this by the Palestinians. This undemocratic process is approved of by the US and frozen funds are promptly unfozen. The US champions democracy throughout the world. Yes?
It is profoundly depressing to hear Gordon Brown saying "In future every single secondary school and primary school should have a business partner - and I invite you all to participate."
and "And we should also be willing to consider new proposals for: combined
all-through primary and secondary schools, employer-led skills academies
to transform the quality of vocational provision, and studio schools that
motivate dis-engaged pupils by allowing them to learn the curriculum alongside
a chance to work in and run a real business based in the school."
It is depressing, together with the statement that "I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st
century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps
even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created."
because Gordon Brown is embracing further the belief that globalisation is good for the world and that education is all about trainng children for the workplace.
He attacks 'protectionism' also. What this means in reality is that children are seen as fodder for business, that business - global business - is afforded an absolute priority, that the nation state is subservient to the power of the market and corporate power.
Most importantly it weakens fatally any chance of reducing or averting the effects of climate change, for it is those companies, it is the lack of checks on globalisation and the insatiable demand of companies for instant profits that are the main drivers of climate change.
Until nation states - and why should the UK not lead the way - reverse the process which gives unfettered power to unelected, unaccountable corporations, then climate change will not be reversed and the fate of humankind is put in jeopardy. Gordon Brown is following the old track, the path to disaster.
We will be fortunate indeed if the world only suffers a 1929/1930's depression when the bubble inevitably bursts and this just refers to the developed world. Meanwhile the underdeveloped world continues to suffer as corporations suck more money and resources from them and transfer them to the already affluent West.
Well, it's going according to the script. Mahmoud Abbas creates a new (unelected) government, receives a phone call in support from George Bush
and indications are that the punitive sanctions on the Occupied Territories (or at least in relation to the West Bank) will be lifted. One rule the rest of the world should note: beware of any leader who is approved of by the US andministration,
particularly if there is division in the leader's country. It usually means that the leader is willing to be an American puppet and the opposition has the welfare of the people at heart.
I see no reason to suppose that the Occupied Territories are an exception to the rule. It was interesting that the Observer ran an analysis yesterday, acknowledging that Hamas has looked after the Palestinians and also reporting that Hamas was purging Fatah
of corrupt officials and having done that is willing to cooperate with Fatah and continue within the elected government. However, I guess that the US will conveniently ignore any evidence to that effect and take the opportunity to support the most pliant representatives of the Palestinian people.
The fighting in Gaza is a tragedy for the Palestinians and largely their responsibility.
But, apart from the decades-long oppression and starvation of the Palestinians, remember just a few weeks' ago Israel was arresting 30 Hamas 'leaders' in the West Bank.
We now see signs of splitting Gaza and the West Bank. "The focus needs to be on ensuring that Hamas doesn't gain in the West Bank what it was able to gain within Gaza." (Dennis Ross, former U.S. Mideast envoy)
The Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, was forthright on the possibility of a multinational peacekeeping force in Gaza: "Those who are talking in terms of international forces have to understand that the meaning is not monitoring forces but forces that are willing to fight, to confront Hamas on the ground"
So Israel is prepared to let others do its dirty work in fighting Hamas, as if there hasn't been enough killing in Gaza already. It is Israel's dirty work - Gaza is not in any sense free: no access to the air, no access to the sea, no access to any other country except through stringent border controls (no wonder they build tunnels).
Gaza is still Israel's responsibility. That fact may be uncomfortable and inconvenient, but it is true nonetheless. So a possible future is for the US to support (bribe?) the Palestinian Fatah supporters in the West Bank and continue the policy of isolating Hamas, which now means the whole of the population of Gaza.
This will be presented as the fault of the Palestinians, whereas it is yet another example of US meddling in other peoples' affairs to suit its own agenda. The arrest of Hamas personnel in the West Bank could be seen as part of a deliberate policy, rather than a reaction to the events in Gaza.
Fatah did not look after its people. Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, but it won the elections partly on the basis that it does look after its people and I mean in terms of welfare, not by acts of violence - these do not serve the Palestinian people.
There is a cold logic here too: the US has a bad track record in subverting states or populations that are governed by people who have the welfare of the population at heart. The US prefers states to be governed by people who have the welfare of the US at heart.
The assumption that the defence of one's own country - which underpins in theory the enormous arms industry - is paramount can only be based logically on an external threat.
That is, there is a nation state or nation states that are powerful enough and hostile enough to attack us. These states are labelled 'evil' or some such thing. What is not examined is why a state should be hostile enough to attack us.
Examining this question inevitably brings up our own stance and actions which contribute to this hostility. In some cases our own state's actions may form the primary cause of the hostility.
Let's take Iran since the fall of the Shah. The new Isalamic state was cold-shouldered by the West. The West supported Iraq in attacking Iran militarily.
Even though Iran joined the coalition which invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 this was not enough for the West to offer friendship. Now Iran is faced with a formerly hostile neighbour, Iraq, teeming with Western troops and becoming more rather than less unstable.
Another neighbour, Saudi Arabia, is heaviliy militarised with Western armaments. Another neighbour, Israel, also heavily armed, has nuclear weapons to boot. There are reasons why Iran is nervous, defensive and hostile.You may say, why should Iran not just become a Westernized state, join the Western club, become 'democratic'? The answer is that this is not enough, not for states who have any political or economic potential. The only state which is acceptable to the US is a client state. One which does the bidding of the US, opens its markets to US corporate exploitaton, opens its territory to US military bases. Maybe for Iran this price is too high, but tragically the price of independence, of dissidence, may be higher still. The age of empire is not yet past, maybe it never will be. The US empire is governed by corporate power, but it is also backed by deadly military power.
It is indeed tragic that the acquisition of military power and the willingness to use it still form the basis of how the world is ordered. One day the world might grow out of its adolescent, testosterone-fuelled macho way of conducting international relations. One day, women, or men, may take over from the boys.
The subject of boycotting Israel has re-surfaced in the academic and journalistic fields.
These areas are not the most appropriate ones: academic and journalistic freedom is too precious to be squandered on partisan mass action.
Academics and journalists have opportunities as individuals to have their say and influence opinion.Where an institutional boycott would be effective is in sport. Excluding Israel's participation in the major sports would help Israel's dissidents and the Palestinian cause enormously. Beyond that, each one of us can do our bit: never knowingly buy anything grown, processed, made or assembled in Israel.
So, in spite of an apparent acceptance of the dangers of climate change, George Bush still refuses to countenance binding targets.
This is too big a subject to play politics with and the politics that the US is playing is the usual one: unless we are in charge, are seen to be in charge and everyone does what we say, we aren't playing.
This is literally saying: the planet is my ball and I won't play except on my terms. Apart from anything else, George Bush and the US administration ought to grow up and accept that other people have good ideas,
that cooperation yields dividends that force and bullying does not and that the issue is one of the future of humankind. Or are George Bush and his successors really happy that future visitors to this planet from space
see the evidence and conclude that the US was largely responsible for the extinction of humanity?
I had hoped that with Tony Blair's departure I could be more supportive/less critical of the government.
However, Gordon Brown's comments on the measures he is considering on terrorism are disheartening. Extending the 28 day period ("internment" as Shami Chakrabarti said) continues the process of weakening the rule of law.
As for his words re "hearts and minds": providing extra funds to "win the battle" - 'winning' and 'battle' are inappropriate words for engaging with peoples' hearts and minds.
It indicates the underlying malaise in our culture: everything is a struggle, win or lose, dog eat dog. Words like 'cooperation' and 'working with' do not come easily to the minds of those in power.
Until they do we will continue to live in a relatively uncivilised society.
"Over the past five or six years, we have decided as a country that except in the most limited of ways, the threat to our public safety does not justify changing radically the legal basis on which we confront this extremism.
Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgement."
"We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first. I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong."
Tony Blair on how terror suspects are treated less harshly than he would prefer. Note the "even if a foreign national" phrase. This betrays his inability to see people equally and objectively and comes dangerously close to racism. Why should a person, of any nationality, suspected of any crime, be treated any differently to a person of any other nationality? We know of course that Tony Blair tried to discriminate in this way and the courts rejected this approach. Civil liberties should be the last aspects of a civilised society to be jettisoned, then only as a last resort in times of emergency, with strict time limits and repealed just as soon as possible.
This is also in the context of plans to give the police powers to stop and question people as they wish, in other words, without having any reason to do so. At present the police have to show there is a reason, eg. suspicious behaviour. If there is no reason, why should the police stop anyone? On a whim? Out of boredom? No, we know what will happen, in the absence of anything which can remotely be called suspicious (eg. a man carrying a chair leg, shot because it looked like a gun, but at least there was a semblance of a reason). It is a gift to all those looking to stir up trouble, claiming racist discrimination whenever the police stop someone who is black, or is, or looks like, a Muslim. Not having a reason makes the police task more difficult in that it lays them open to such accusations of racism and sets back the cause of good race relations.
It is also, clearly, yet another step on the road towards arbitrary police powers, in this case literally arbitrary. In other words another step towards a police state. When are we going to wake up? When will I be able to stop writing that phrase?
The arrest of 30 Hamas leaders by Israel in the West Bank has a depressingly familiar ring to it. This is not a way forward and I believe it is not intended as a way forward.
A few days ago I watched Rod Liddle's documentary on the West Bank (Channel Four). Rod Liddle is apparently a supporter of Israel yet used the words 'brutal' in describing Israel's actions and concluded that they are not the actions of a democratic state.
It may be a minority of Israelis who believe in the 'greater Israel' but that minority casually violates international law - all, all, all the West Bank settlements are illegal, every single house, yet the world does nothing.
Palestinian house that have been there for generations are destroyed because there is no Israeli permit: this is the equivalent to saying Roman ruins in the UK could be destroyed because they were not authorised by the UK government.
The so-called security wall cuts people off from their livlehood - Rod Liddle again, pro-Israel, concludes that the wall has little to do with security and everything to do with expansion of settlements and punishing the Palestinians.
We saw Israeli soldiers standing by as Israeli children threw stones at Palestinians in Hebron, we saw the new settlers allowed free access whilst the native Palestinians have to go through checkpoints to reach their own homes. The world does nothing.
Rod Liddle described the settlements as resembling American suburbs - appropriate as they were built with American money and are defended by American weaponry.I believe that those in power in Israel have no desire for peace, that they believe that somehow, over a period of time, Palestinian opposition will fade and wither away. To those people I would say "Look at Ireland". Peace is closer than it was, but we are 300 years down the line. Can Israel really contemplate hundreds of years of conflict and then still have to settle? Is that in Israel's interests?
Another shameful day for British 'democracy'. Private members' bills in the UK parliament do not pass unless approved, openly or secretly, by the government in power.
We can therefore take it that the government supported the Bill to protect MPs from divulging information as an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. The end of the Blair administration thus provides another example of hypocrisy. Promising more open government, passing the Act, then allowing
MPs to exempt themselves from having to declare their expenses in some detail. This goes alongside the plans by Lord Falconer to limit the number of requests for information.
So much for the promise of more open government. What is also shameful is that only 121 MPS bothered to turn out and vote. Two thirds of the elected representatives of the country could not be bothered to attend a debate and vote on an issue which directly affects the way the country views politicians.
This Gordon Brown said that he wants to put citizens in control and for government to be more accountable. Well, his acquiescence in the vote (he has said he abides by the vote - he didn't bother to turn up) is the equivalent of tying a lead belt round your waist before a sprint race.
Heaven knows I hope Gordon Brown will be better than Tony Blair, but this is not a good start in an issue of democratic principles.
What the Palestinians are doing to each other in Gaza is a tragedy. Clearly every gunman has some responsibility for being part of such a destructive process.
Gaza has next to nothing and what it has is being further reduced. A parallel can be drawn with animals who are subjected to abhorrent experiments which demonstrate how animals, indeed any creature, reacts when cooped up under excessively stressful conditions:
agressive behaviour towards others and self destructive behaviour result. To this extent, Israel and the international community bear a large part of the responsibility in not honouring the promises made to the Palestinians when the state of Israel was established.
In answer to the likely charge that I am just blaming the Israelis and letting the Palestinians off, let me put this scanario forward. The international community decides to take a substantial portion of Israel away, dividing the country geographically and allow little if any access between the two areas.
I believe Israel would resist this - and call it justified armed resistance. The international community may term this resistance terrorism. What Israel and Israelis would not accept is the proposition that their actions are their fault for not peacably accepting the decision and their situation.
I abhor violence and cannot agree with it or condone it, but in some circumstances I can understand it. In the scenario above I would understand Israeli violence, just as I understand Palestinian violence.
The underlying problem is that no difference of opinion over land or sovereignty can be resolved unilaterally or by force. A lasting agreement can only be achieved with the genuine acceptance and support of the people affected.
The process of working towards that in Israel/Palestine has yet to start and the events in Gaza do not make the start of that process more likely. All that Israel can and should do at present is to in some way reduce the stresses being experienced by those living in Gaza eg. allow more trade, hand over the tax revenues etc.
All else must come from the Palestinians themselves. For peace to come to Israel/Palestine the occupied territories need to have some economic, social and political stability. All stand to gain in progressing that process.
I see that the Uk government is planning to close 2,500 local post offices. This links with the opening up of the Royal Mail to competition and forcing what is and should be public service into a profit-oriented business
whilst expecting it to still provide a service which is bound to be unprofitable eg. delivering mail to remote households, which its competitors will not touch with a bargepole.
Local, rural, post offices - usually linked to a shop - provide something beyond merely supplying products and services at a profit. I lived in a village with one shop and an associated post office. Something died in that village when the shop/post office closed.
The social contact - within the shop and the walking from home to shop and back again - helped maintain social cohesion and a sense of belonging.
Older people or those who cannot drive become dependent upon others to fulfil basic needs. Metropolitan people may be surprised to know that many villages have only one bus a week, that is, if they have a 'public' transport system at all.
I note also that the Confederation of British Industry wants the government to persevere with 'reform' of public services ie. persist in trying to make them efficient by making a profit. Efficiency and profit are two different things.
Profitability is not the only way to measure efficiency and some services can never be profitable as such. Police, fire, ambulance, probation, prison servicess all come immediately to mind as not for profit operations.
All can have devolved management and be subject to measures of efficiency such that local management that fall more than X% below the best (or the upper quartile, or whatever) can be disciplined, replaced, redeployed.
This could also be done without the multi-million handouts with which private industry rewards failure.The profit motive, private, individual gain, are the new gods. Despite Labour's claims that they have reversed the Thatcher doctrine of 'there is no such thing as society', there is precious little evidence of action to support social cohesion. What most often fall from ministers' lips are phrases like 'global competition' and measures like ASBOs when things go wrong. A fundamental responsibility of government to defend, maintain and improve the welfare of its citizens is abandoned to the capricious and indifferent workings of the free market.
The reports that the UK government are transferring the grants to help under-age carers from central to local authorities has raised fears that what help is currently available will be further reduced.
However, this is not the main issue. The main issue is a social system that regards five year old and upwards children caring for adults as acceptable. As a counsellor I have seen far too many adults whose lives have been seriously affected by their childhood experiences of caring for one or more parents.
The role reversal creates, in some, not all, a disproportionate tendency to worry about others, leading to chronic anxiety states and an overwhelming sense of guilt and inadequacy. Their relationships become skewed or dysfunctional and depression is a common way of coping with the underlying feelings of
anger (anger of which they are often unaware - how can a young child accept and deal with feelings of anger towards a parent in need whom they love?) at the unfairness of the situation they had to cope with.
For it is unfair, grossly unfair, to expect a child to fulfil the role of being the main carer. What is necessary is for society, via the appropriate agencies, to accept that role - assuming there are no adults able to do so - and facilitate ways in which children can provide whatever support appropriate to their circumstances and age.
For the children do have a role to play and many are eager to help. What many people do not realise is how responsible most children feel for all sorts of things that in fact are not their responsibility.
It is unfair to take advantage of that sense of responsibility and leave children 'holding the parent'. This simple reversal of the phrase 'left holding the baby' illustrates how wrong the practice is.
We owe our children far more support in this area than they get. It is a part of my workload that I should not get and I would be happy not to have it.
I had been hoping that Nicolas Sarkozy did not win the French presidency because I believe that he will threaten the last bastion in Europe - France - against the Anglo-Saxon free market capitalism jungle 'philosophy'.
Whilst France maintains some remnants of civilisation: care for those that need it, decent public services etc, then there was hope that the world might gradually bring to an end in the short term the madness which has gripped politics and economics.
If France joins the capitalistic free for all, the change to a more compassionate world may take longer. I hope that the French people will resist having the Anglo Saxon model forced upon them and I hope that they can resist this process peacefully.
There has been no rain here in the South of England for weeks. A relatively small pointer in comparison with, say, the drought in Australia.
But these thoughts are not just about global warming. Global warming is just the latest manifestation of a fundamental flaw in humanity's relationship to the life support system by which it lives.
Since Descartes, we have believed in rationality, the scientific approach and the superiority of humankind over the rest of the inhabitants - animal, mineral or vegetable. Actually our belief in our superiority goes back much further,
but the 'age of reason' consolidated it. So we poison the land on which we depend by the use of 'pesticides'. A pest is defined as an organism which is harmful or inconvenient to us, but do not they have an equal right to life?
Yes, we can protect ourselves from harm, but the wholesale eradication of so-called pests is wrong. Ethically, certainly, but also because of the effects on the land itself, becoming impoverished and less fertile as a result of the 'scientific' approach.
I say 'scientific' in ' ' because economic motives ignore the full scientific argument, it is a partial application of science. We know that organisms fight back, prompting an escalating war between 'science' and nature.
I use the words 'war' and 'fight' because that indicates the futility of this process. Wars can never be won, but in this 'war', nature will endure, in some form.Science, or the misuse of science, also leads into more horrendous mistakes. Fertilising the land in an ultimately destructive way can be excused to a degree - at the level of the need for food it has some short-term justification. Genetic manipulation, however well intentioned, cannot be excused. Firstly it shows a profound lack of respect for other living, sentient creatures. Secondly it is tinkering with the unknown: there is some evidence for instance that personality is in some way embedded in the tissue such that the recipients of human transplants acquire personality traits of the donor. How much more therefore is not known about the effects on the animal which is being genetically manipulated for medical reasons and the consequent effects on the human being receiving the results of that genetic manipulation? We simply do not know what we are doing but justify it on the grounds of the end justifies the means. This means that the prolongation of human life, the alleviation of human suffering, is more important than the welfare of any other living being, indeed, than anything else, including the earth itself. What arrogance. What folly.
It is time - indeed the time is long overdue - for humanity to set aside the selfish belief that the earth in all its variety is there solely for the benefit and pleasure of humankind. It is time to blend with science the respect for and humility towards nature in all its manifestations. In this way science can work with nature, be an ally of nature. Note the last phrase. "Be an ally of nature" is not the same as "making nature our ally". We are not superior to nature, we are a part of it, not it a part of us.
A word on the prolongation of life. We have to ask the question why and we have to ask the question in what circumstances and at what (non-economic) cost. A few years' ago, my 15 year old dog, previously healthy although nearly blind and deaf, suddenly worsened. That day, to use the euphemism, she was 'put to sleep'. This was an act of compassion and I could even make out a case that she looked (literally) to me to make a decision for her. I am not advocating euthanasia as such, but there are questions about the purpose of prolonging life as a matter of course. A short life can have profound meaning, sometimes echoing down the centuries. We only have to think of Mozart. We can mourn for the person and for ourselves and we can also rejoice and celebrate the life purpose. Extending human life for the sake of it, clinging onto life for the sake of it seems to me to risk challenging nature - a challenge we will ultimately lose. The purpose of life is not measured in mere years. Experience does come with age and thus inform purpose, but age itself has no meaning. There is something about an appropriate length of life, whether long or short, and there is certainly such a thing as a good death.
I have been thinking about the increase in private equity takeovers, the status of the UK - by the IMF - as a tax haven and have come to the conclusion that in the UK, maybe in the West generally, we are living in a pre-revolutionary age.
I say this with caution: the UK laws are now so draconian that I must make it clear that I do not advocate or encourage revolution. I merely forecast it and it may conceivably take a non-violent path.
But the increasing inequality is unsustainable and the growth of private equity takes formerly public companies into the private domain of the few. When those few pay little tax and are increasingly seen to be insulated and isolated from the rest of society, behind the electronically and militarily defended boundaries of their mansions,
then disquiet will lead to unrest to.............what? Looking back we can clearly see the causes of, say, the French Revolution, future historians may wonder how the privileged of the 21st century could not see how their behaviour alienated the rest of the population.
Final note to the powers that be. I am not encouraging violence. I abhor violence and wish for social justice to be achieved peacefully.
Lest there be any doubt about global warming. Today I had to prune an olive tree - in Southern England - which is only a few years' old but has already borne fruit.
The point though is that I was removing branches about 50mm thick. The thought occurred to me, as I stacked them in the wood store, that next winter I will be burning olive wood in my woodburner. Olive wood native to the UK. It would have been unheard of even just a few years' ago.
It seems that the latest and most horrific shooting tragedy in the US will not bring to a halt the continuing tragedy of the blind spot in the American psyche.
Even the day after the shooting, people were expressing the opinion that it would have been better for the other students and staff to have had guns so that the gunman might (might) have been stopped sooner.
The 'justification' for the right to carry guns stems from the pioneer days. It is not only inappropriate now, it is illogical. If we look into the mind of a criminal, say a burglar, or a pickpocket, what is the most likely reason for him to arm himself?
The probability that his victim is armed. Reduce that probability, which is lower in other countries, and gun crime is lower. So the right to have the means to defend oneself by firearms demonstrably increases the risk of being shot.
Yet America insists on keeping the risks high. Do most Americans really want to continue to live in a Wild West culture? If not, how can the will of the majority be thwarted for so long in a democracy?
It is very sad when you look at what the UK is doing and preparing to do: still bogged down in Iraq, thousands of lives being lost, millions of pounds being wasted; intending to waste billions of pounds on replacing Trident.
Meanwhile, money needs to be spent on measures to reduce the pace of climate change; money needs to be spent on alleviating poverty around the world; money needs to be spent on providing adequate public services in the UK.
It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how the British public would want money to be spent. Iraq and Trident would come some way down the list I think.
Tony Blair has no reverse gear, he said. The word 'gracious' is not in his vocabulary either. He thanks the Iranian people but not the government for the relaease of the sailors, but clearly it was the Iranian government who released them.
The next day, as the detainees were arriving home, he accuses Iran of fomenting terrorism in Iraq. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. Timing is important. The world I think will see this as churlish ingratitude. If Tony Blair really wants the UK to be respected in the world he needs to stop the 'I am right, they are wrong'
'I can tell people what to do' attitude. Otherwise, Iran does and will, come over as being rather more civilised than the UK. Simplistic? Well, people around the world have different views, are not so blinkered.
The BBC last night was trying to find 'inhumane' treatment: they have so far come up with solitary confinement. There may be more serious revelations, but set against Guantanamo Bay, the indefinite detention of suspects in Belmarsh, the routine separation of suspects in custody to reduce/avoid collusion, this 'charge' was hardly worth the air time.
No prizes for guessing whose winning the propaganda war. Iran 'pardons' the uK sailors and says thet will be released as 'gift' to the British people.
Iran also says that an Iranian envoy will be allowed to visit the five Iranians detained by the US in Iraq, but a US spokesman says they are only considering a request for this.
Will the West ever learn?
Would anyone like to explain the difference between the five Iranians held captive by the US in Iraq - the five having apparently disappeared, who knows they may be at Guantanamo Bay - and the 15 UK sailors and marines seized by the Iranians?
It seems to me that both acts are wrong in that there are no signs of either group of detainees being allowed access to diplomatic assistance or being charged in any way. If we get back to the basic rules of international law, both groups are entitled to diplomatic and legal assistance and both should be charged or released.
If there is any other difference it comes down to both sides simply asserting that they are right and the other is wrong. It is this assertion by Tony Blair that has deepened this crisis. Instead of concentrating on the main priority: getting acces to the sailors and getting them home as quickly as possible, he has indulged himself as
usual in his belligerent stance, always looking for confrontation, even when he actually has no cards to play. He always presents himself as someone willing to confront, to argue, to use force if he thinks fit.Meanwhile, I guess that the US is furious that the Royal Navy was stupid enough to get so close to Iranian waters without adequate defences in place. Presumably the Royal Navy is aware that Iran is a potentially if not actually, hostile nation?
I am willing to believe the UK government that the sailors seized by Iran were in Iraqi waters. I am certain that Iran has the responsibility to allow access to the sailors and that
Iran is not exercising that responsibility adequately. However, we are seeing the results of the treatment of Iraqi detainees and the failure to provide justice to Iraqi victims. It is that the UK government's bleatings over the treatment being 'unacceptable' etc ring hollow.
The UK government, to its shame, has no right to lecture any other country on the treatment of prisoners of war, detainees etc. We have forfeited that right until we are able to prove over a period of time that we treat people of every race and creed equally and fairly. At present we do not.
John Bolton recently affirmed that the US is not an imperial nation. I have not had the pleasure of debating the issue but a dialogue might go something like this:
'So, if the US is not an imperial nation, why all the US military bases around the world?' 'To protect the United States' strategic interests.' 'Which are not imperial in the colonial occupation sense but imperial in the commercial interest sense'We are currently hearing of how Liverpool, for instance, grew rich as a result of the profits from the slave trade. So does the US grow rich - at the expense of other nations - as a result of its commercial empire. I used to work for a US corporation. I saw the revenue streams back to New Jersey. The US does not explicitly enslave people or populations but the commercial stranglehold, financial stranglehold, backed up by visible force, ensures that other nations do not step out of line. When they do, as in the case of former ally Saddam Hussein, the response can be brutal.
On Iraq, the current line, now that most people have forgotten about regime change being illegal, is to justify the invasion on Saddam's appalling human rights abuses. On this basis, there is more justification for invading Zimbabwe. There is little to say in favour of Saddam Hussein except that he enabled his people to be educated (commentators are presently saying that Iraq has a chance to achieve democracy because of the high level of education, conveniently forgetting to mention that, as absolute ruler for 30 years, Saddam encouraged or allowed that). Robert Mugabe cannot even claim that and he is no more or less of a threat to the US than Iraq under Saddam who took care to keep terrorists out of Iraq. We know that invading Iraq was about far more than protecting the Iraqi people. Our children's children will learn the truth in their turn as we now gradually uncover the truth behind such episodes as slavery.
I heard that the Iraqi government is talking, to some degree, with some 'insurgents', 'terrorists', call them what you will to see how differing political and religious aims can be reconciled.
The example of Ireland was cited. Are you listening Israel? Are you listening, USA? Dialogue with Hamas, or its successor 'terrorist' group is inevitable sooner or later if peace is to be achieved. Why not make it sooner?
British 'justice'. An Iraqi civilian suffers 93 injuries in British Army custody and dies. One honourable soldier pleads guilty to ill treatment.
The judge at the courts martial refers to an army 'closing ranks' - alternative words to 'cover up'. Treatment such as hooding and being put in the 'stress position' - outlawed in the UK 30 years' ago are freely admitted to.
But the army covers it up. Moreover, Colonel David Black of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment said the case had been brought by an "overzealous and remote officialdom" and was obviously irritated by anyone or anything that gets in the
way of the army getting on with their job, which, presumably, includes beating and torturing civilians to death. The individual soldiers who carried out the beatings know who they are. The officers in charge know who did it.
It may indeed be difficult if not impossible to prove charges in the face of corporate silence. But we know it happened, we know who was there. The case should have been brought, but its outcome brings nothing but shame and dishonour on the army and on Britain.
It is reported that Ian Paisley is demanding £1bn in aid to agree to share power with Sinn Fein. Well, if tha's what it takes.
Ian Paisley has repeatedly put obstacles in the path to peace. This time his bluff will be called. The citizens have indicated their wish for devolved government and for parties to work together.
If the DUP find some lame excuse to pull out this time the population I suspect will never forgive the party and Ian Paisley in particular. Perhaps he will have a mind to consider his legacy.
It's a start. The EU agreement that 20% of energy will come from green power sources by 2020 and that 10% of cars will run on biofuels is welcome.
Add the commitment to reduce emissions by 20% from 1990 levels, thus avoiding the "20% of a higher figure" escape clause and some progress might be made and other nations might, just might, be encouraged to follow suit.
'Old Europe' still has a part to play in the world and in this case a potentially beneficial part.
There has recently in the UK been a furore over the murders of young people and concern over the number of young people who carry guns.
This week the government welcomes proposals which aim to cut benefits for lone parents when their child reaches 12. Does no-one make the connection? Children whose parenting would be thus weakened at the vital adolescent stage will become more
vulnerable to peer pressure, joining gangs etc. The benefit proposals are also depressingly focussed on the costs to the community of providing benefits to lone parents. There is no mention of the valuable, indeed invaluable work done by lone parents,
mainly women, in raising and nurturing children. Taxes are well spent in enabling women not to have to work and to devote time to raising children. Effective parenting is vital for the future of society.
The government should be doing more to encourage it, rather than forcing mothers into the economic jungle at the expense of their children.
The UK government will have a debate next week on replacing the Trident nuclear weapon. It is widely assumed that the government will win the vote.
Why? Where are all the Labour MPs? Even if the Conservatives vote for it, a majority of Labour MPs voting against would severely embarrass the government.
What happened to the Labour Party that was against nuclear war, nuclear weapons? How can MPs square voting for extending Britain's nuclear weaponry whilst deploring the possible development of nuclear weapons by North Korea and Iran?
Because those that have shall keep and those that have not shall continue to have not? The same argument which keeps a few of the world rich and most go hungry, tha same argument which in the UK lightly taxes corporations and the wealthy.
Because the UK is a 'good' nation and can be trusted, whilst Iran and North Korea are not to be trusted? How many times has the UK government under Tony Blair gone to war? When was the last time Iran or North Korea invaded another country?
Whilst I hate purely economic arguments, there is no doubt that the many billions of pounds could be better spent e.g. on education (Tony Blair's first priority, remember?), health care, etc etc.
The deterrent argument fails too. In the foreseable future no nation is likely to provoke a nuclear response or threaten this country to warrant the threat of a nuclear response.The UK should be bending all its efforts in reducing nuclear proliferation and not replacing Trident would be a good start to this.
Those who did not see BBC's Newsnight ptogramme last night might like to click on the following link
Land struggle of Israel's Bedouin . The extract only covers part of the news item and it was news to me that Israel treats the Bedouin in such a harsh manner, but, regrettably, it came as no surprise, having seen so many Palestinian refugees living in Jordan.
Meir Sheetrit, Minister of Housing talked of offering 'settlements' to the Bedouin, there was the assertion that before Israel was created there was no-one in the Negev desert - presumably these non-Bedouin were the same as the non-Palestinians who did not live in what is now Israel.
A BBC phrase about the attempts to force the Bedouin to re-settle included the word 'concentrate', as in 'to concentrate the Bedouin in defined areas' This brings up three echoes from the past.
The British concentration camps for the Boers in South Africa, the Nazis concentrating Jews in the ghettos, the Americans forcibly moving native Americans into settlements. Those three precedents were wrong. The Israeli attitude to the Bedouin is wrong. The film footage showed the conditions under which Israel expects the Bedouin to live,
the supposed civilised, modern facilities. They are so bad that the Bedouin prefer to live in their own shanty towns (shades of South Africa). Another echo: a Bedouin shanty town surrounded by a fence to try to keep them away from the, in the BBC commentator's word, "leafy" Jewish neigbourhood nearby.
I commend the extract and the item may also be watched - for a time - online.
There was the start of a series on Newsnight on BBC2 last night on the Blair legacy. Fittingly, it began with gambling, both in the accepted sense of the word and in the inclusion of the financial sector.
Jeremy Paxman toured a financial institution (Morgan Stanley) and seemed genuinely to want to know what all the activity added to the economy, citing the understandable purpose and value of a cement factory, but expressing puzzlement at the value added by a financial institution such as Morgan Stanley.
The spokesman simply could not answer, coming up with the concept of 'ideas', without being able to cite one example. The truth is simple. The Morgan Stanleys of this world exist to facilitate the movement of money in order for those with money to acquire more money. This facilitation is carried out by a variety of means -
perhaps this is where the 'ideas' come in - whereby money is moved at what is calculated to be the right time in order to make short term gains for the owner of the money. There is no doubt that a high degree of skill is involved in this process, but it adds nothing to the wealth of the world. For we know that
the supply of money is finite at any point in time: the minting of more just leads to inflation. So the mere moving of money for immediate gain results in equivalent losses to those gains made by the owners of money and those who are paid excesively for those gains. To be sure, the losses may be a long way along a tortuous chain,
but losses there are.That the gains acquired by the financial facilitators/speculators are excessive was illustrated by the following piece on a London hotel. An hotel which provides Maseratis as courtesy cars, an hotel where a room costs £1,900 per night. An hotel where one city slicker treated all those present one evening to, presumably, food and wine, to the tune of £35,000. It is likely that not all those present were known to him beforehand, since he decided to treat everyone that evening to celebrate a 'good day' in the office. A good day. Not a good year, not a good quarter, not a good month, not even a good week. A good day was sufficiently enriching to stand splashing out £35,000. Jeremy Paxman was also treated: to a cocktail sprinkled with gold dust.
Wealth, and the lavish spending of it, is not wrong in itself, but this extravagance is in the context of a country criticised by UNICEF for the way in which its children are treated, the UK coming in 20th place in the developed nations. A nation in which hospital wards are being closed for lack of money. A nation which is also many many times better off - even the poorest, those on the streets, have access to running water, even in public toilets - than most countries in the world.
I said that lavish spending is not in itself wrong, but that needs qualification. The sprinkling of gold dust onto a cocktail - a regular custom it seems - is, quite simply, decadent. Gold has uses. It is an expensive commodity. It is thus a perversion of its qualities to drink it, or simply waste it.
Such decadence brings to mind the decadance of Rome before the fall. The developed nations have time to avoid such a fate, but the unfettered greed of capitalism, if left unchecked, will plunge the developed world into chaos, civil strife and a new dark age.
So the US and Israel, apparently with the agreement of the 'Quartet' (US, EU, UN and Russia) have agreed the terms that the Palestinian Authority must abide by even before
the next meeting. Ehud Olmert said: "A Palestinian government that won't accept the Quartet conditions won't receive recognition and cooperation. The American and Israeli positions are totally identical on this issue."
So not only are there no demands made upon Israel - not even a fig leaf of impartiality - but the demands take the form of an ultimatum. Is it any wonder that the Palestinians in particular and the Arab world in general do not trust these governments and insitutions?
However much you may hate, fear, despise the 'other', no agreement is possible without genuine dialogue. Negotiations can be tough, but if they are no negotiations but ultimata, no lasting settlement is possible. Pr-emption - in action and words - is always wrong.
Thank goodness for a judge with common sense. Lord Phillips was absolutely right explicitly to throw away the rule book and free
the woman who tried to commit suicide taking her daughter with her. Is it too much to hope that prison sentences will become less likely for those who are no threat to others?
I happen to agree with the UK government that some form of road pricing is necessary; I happen to disagree with the UK government that building nuclear power stations is necessary.
I profoundly disagree with the stance of the UK government on both issues however when it is clear that whatever the public says, the government will do what it wants anyway.
It makes a mockery of the term 'consultation'.
The bird flu outbreak in the UK illustrates the dire state of an industry which rears animals for food.
I was brought up taking my share in raising poultry and pigs: I know something about the subject. The transformation of agriculture into agri-business has been catastrophic in terms of animal welfare.
The particular point I would like to make here though is this. Food processed in the UK from animal 'products' can carry the label 'UK' even though the animals, or parts thereof have been imported from godness knows where.
A simple regulation would require suppliers to state 'Processed in the UK from [turkeys, pigs, whatever] imported from [country]. This would enable customers to exercise a choice and would also enable the UK authorities to
regulate the more effectively the welfare of animals raised in the UK. In this way, customers would at least be able to choose between food from animals raised in unknown conditions and those raised elsewhere.
It would also give more power to those striving to improve the welfare of UK raised animals.
All praise and power to the European Commission in their effort to reduce car emissions by setting mandatory targets.
The tired old arguments of becoming uncompetitive etc won't wash. A start has to be made somewhere and a spokesman was right when he said we cannot have cleaner cars and cheaper cars. We have to choose and
we have, for the planet's sake and our grandchildren's sakes, to choose cleaner. Let us hope for more honesty and plain speaking from those in power.
There will be no effective action on climate change until the two Western gods have been deposed: economic growth and free market capitalism.
The god of economic growth fuels more and more carbon emissions and the whole purpose of free market capitalism - apart from making money for those with money - is to create demand to feed economic growth.
So the whole sorry process escalates. Today is a pessimistic one in that I wondered about the principles of growth and decline. In the natural world, with a few exceptions like sharks - species form - flourish and proliferate, then decline and die out.
Maybe that will be the fate of humankind whatever we do. Who knows.
Well, the scientists have spoken. The scientists have said what we have all known for some time: climate catastrophe looms.
So, will the US stop looking at 'technological' solutions - which create emissions in their creation and maintenance - and start reducing emissions?
Will Tony Blair start saying that anything anyone does will help, rather than being completely negative and say the US, India and China are essential.
Leaders everywhere not only have to take action but also encourage everyone to make their own contribution. The planet is in our hands. Mine. Yours.
Just a small example of what is wrong with our consumerist society. A Fiat Punto, 44,000 miles from new. The nearside windscreen wiper has failed.
In looking at this and speaking to a garage, the design means that it will fail in this period, as the rubber mounting wears and the arm just falls off. Ok, poor design, presumably the rubber mounting can be renewed.
Er, no, the whole unit has to be replaced including the motor. Current price £120+ before the cost of fitting. The old unit will presumably just be thrown away. This symbolises our attitude to the earth's resources and is one reason why climate change is such a problem.
I am old enough to remember the day when an independent, true mechanic, could have devised an economic solution, but those days have gone. So for the sake of a piece of rubber costing pence (forgetting the bad design in the first place), I will spend upwards of £150 and some more of the
earth's precious resources will have been frittered away.
The reports of police collusion and cover ups in Ireland brings back to the issue of double standards. At the same time that the UK government is trying to bring in legislation
to punish those merely suspected of crimes such as drug dealing, without any attempt to go through a due legal process, the response when the police are suspected of collusion to many murders is muted to say the least.
Tony Blair: "This is a deeply disturbing report about events which were totally wrong and which should never have happened. The fact that they did is a matter for profound regret, and the prime minister shares that regret.
But this is also a report about the past, and what is important now is that, under the new structures introduced along with the formation of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, these events could not happen now.
What matters at this stage is that the whole community supports that process of transformation."Note the emphasis on 'the past'. Note the emphasis on the future. Note the absence of any indication that further action against those who may be responsible may be taken. In other words, it is past, it can't happen now, time to move on. Not a word about justice for those killed and for their families. Then again, we have got used to Tony Blair not being concerned about justice.
Peter Hain, the Minister responsible, did say that those responsible might face charges, but added "That is a matter for the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland, it is a matter for the Chief Constable and it is a matter for his historic inquiries team" , thus neatly distancing himself from that process. Furthermore, he has ruled out out a public enquiry, and also said "Those involved - a small number of officers - failed in their fundamental duty to protect the community. That was in marked and stark contrast to the thousands of courageous RUC men and women who behaved throughout the most dangerous and difficult times with professionalism and integrity. As the report acknowledges, policing in Northern Ireland has changed radically since the Patten reforms were implemented and new robust systems are in place to ensure that the failures of the past will not and cannot be repeated. The Ombudsman's report strengthens and reinforces these. Hugh Orde has accepted in full the recommendations where they relate to the PSNI. Indeed many have already been implemented The failings set out in this report, serious as they were, lie in the past and should not cloud our view of policing today where there has been a fundamental reform of police intelligence gathering and new arrangements established for the sharing of information across the PSNI."
In other words, just a few rotten apples, most police officers were brilliant, couldn't happen now, let's move on. Again, no mention of justice for the murdered and bereaved.
There is a thread which runs through this and other similar occasions. If s/he wears a uniform, then that's OK, just a mistake, no need to take it too seriously. If s/he does not wear a uniform, guilty as thought, no need to bother with a legal process, detention, restriction of liberty etc etc.
There really seems to be an attitude that those in uniform - police and military - are right, and even when wrong are condoned because their chief aim is to defend the country. And we know that anything is justifiable by this government if it can be linked to 'security'.
It is welcome news that Israel, at last, is giving the Palestinians some of the Palestinians' own money.
It is is only one quarter - $100m out of more than $400m which Israel owes the Palestinians, but it is a start. Is it too much to hope that Israel is finally seeing that the appalling poverty and suffering
of the Palestinians is not in Israel's interest? Let us hope so.
The UK government is planning to go yet another step twards throwing away the rule of law and dispensing arbitrary 'justice'.
Serious Crime Prevention Orders will be served on those suspected but not charged with any crime. The orders can restrict free movement, prohibit the owning/use of a mobile phone, associating with others, business deals and associates.
Breaches of the order could result in five years' imprisonment. Lest you think this is only for the top 'gangsters' - even though they are still entitled to bening charged and tried like everyone else - think again.
An order could be imposed on someone suspected of, for instance, fly tipping and poaching. Not only are these measures actually or potentially unfair and contrary to any sense of natural justice, they will be unworkable.
The real 'Mr Bigs' will either quietly disappear - and still remain active - or take the matter to the European courts. Europe being rather more civilised than this UK government, which is profoundly undemocratic and dicatatorial, is
likely to throw out the orders. This will then fan the anti Europe media flames. I await the day when Parliament and the executive come to their senses and stop being quite so stupid.
Sending more troops to Iraq and the strikes on Somalia perpetuate the failed and unethical policies of the present US administration. They send the continuing and destructive message that force is what counts.
Force is the only means to get one's own way. Well, the lesson that force provokes force in return has not been learned and shows no sign of being learned. There is also a paranoia at work.
Somalia is taken over by an 'Islamist' faction, which creates order for the first time in decades. Rather like the paranoid thinking on Communist regimes, Islamist states are by definition bad, so pre-emptive strikes on terrorist suspects are launched in support of the unjustified invasion by Ethiopa.
The result is a newly-destabilised Somalia, more civilian deaths and a totally understandable increase in anti-American and anti-Western feeling.
Even if the strikes were absolutely accurate, even if those that were killed were terrorists, it is still wrong. It is the imposition of arbitrary judgement (not justice) on those who are deemed (on what evidence?) to be a threat.
It is state murder and can never be condoned and of course is always condemned by the US and her allies when those they disapprove of do the same.
I have today written about the future of Iraq. It can be found here. The future of Iraq
Civil liberties' groups are right to protest about the US plan to fingerprint all visitors. There are many ethical objections to this, but the main threat to justice is a practical one.
Let us take the example of a terrorist leaving a fragment of a fingerprint behind at a training camp (one example cited by the US for the policy). It is probably not possible to tell from which finger, of which hand, the print came.
Now take the 4m UK citizens alone who go to to the US each year. That's 40m fingerprints per year. The odds are quite high that a part of one of those fingerprints might match the fragment, even though, if the rest of that one fingerprint, there would no longer be a match.
The US has a right - given to them by the present UK government - for automatic extradition without any evidence being shown. So, if you, Joe Bloggs, are unfortunate enough for a fragment of your third left finger print, say, to match a fragment of a terrorist suspect fragment, you could be extradited
to the US and face a difficult process of proving your innocence. Worse, the more data is stored, the more likely that errors occur. Thus, for those 40m UK fingerprints per year, if the error rate is .01%, 4,000 fingerprints may be mis-attributed.
That is, it may not actually be your fingerprint that partially matches a terrorist's print. Each year that passes increases the risk. So, in ten years' time, that Florida holiday might prove expensive in terms of stress, time and money.
Hats off to John Prescott for saying what he thinks about the way in which the execution of Saddam Hussein was handled. It makes a refreshing change for a serving politician - especially from this UK government -
to be straightforward. On the subject of Iraq, it makes you wonder just how much worse it might get and yesterday we heard a US advisor, in support of more US troops, saying that the US had never had a policy of ensuring or imposing security on Iraq.
The extra troops would now enable the US to do this. Apparently the US troops so far have been used for training purposes, not security. More Alice in Wonderland stuff.