Archive 2008
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke. The 'good men' are those in the corridors of power in the West, as Israel carries out its murderous campaign of carnage in Gaza.The Palestinians, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, pose no military threat to Israel. Israel knows this, the world knows this. Israel simply continues along the path that has been followed right from the beginning: violence. The state of Israel had a violent and bloody birth, but in the first few years, Israel had opportunities to build a multi-ethnic state. That alternative was rejected in favour of ethnic cleansing, continual illegal expansion, callous physical and economic oppression of Palestinians, periodic episodes of savagery against people who have little but their own bare hands to defend themselves.
After more than 50 years there is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is interested in peace or a two state solution. “The goal of the operation is to topple Hamas.” Haim Ramon, deputy to Ehud Olmert. "War to the bitter end." Ehud Barak. Both know that Hamas cannot be defeated militarily: the only way that Hamas will cease to be is if Palestinians cease to support the movement: attacking it is the most effective way of that support continuing. As far as 'the bitter end' is concerned, Ehud Barak is right only if by 'bitter end' he means the total eradication of all Palestinians. Even then, other Arab peoples and states would take their place.
What then is the way forward? For the Palestinians: study Ghandhi. A difficult pill to swallow, but non-violent resistance is not weakness and is more likely to achieve their aims - a viable state - than violence. Israel? My sad conclusion is that Israel's leaders are so steeped in bloodletting, so steeped in paranoia, that Israel's policies cannot change from the inside.
This is where the 'good men' are needed: to act. The USA in particular needs to stop colluding with evil. Barack Obama needs to act as soon as he takes over the presidency, making it clear that support for Israel is not a blank cheque, that diplomacy and negotiation is the only way forward. Labelling Hamas as a terrorist organisation and likening it to Al-Qaeda is, respectively, irrelevant and nonsense. Britain talked to terrorists who were inflicting far more casualties that Hamas. That process is still not yet over, but there is hope. At present there is no hope in the Middle East, because one party, Israel, shuns any positive steps (justifying the attacks on Gaza as a way of restoring national pride after Lebanon is just sick) and Israel's banker, the US, keeps supplying the military hardware and political support. If the credit crunch were to be applied to Israel, genuine negotiations might follow.
The 70th anniversary of the 'Kindertransport', the evacuation of Jewish children from Nazi Germany, has been marked recently. With hindsight, it was an obvious humanitarian operation and thus is indeed true. Nevertheless, it may be overlooked that such an obvious course of action
was not universally welcomed at the time and I suspect a similar operation would also be criticised today. So let us salute the courage of those who carried it out and those who cared for the refugees in their new homes. I have only known on such refugee, but I have some awareness of how it changed, indeed saved, her life. It is the more tragic therefore that the modern state of Israel treats Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews. I know that this statement will be fiercely contested but it is factually true in one crucial respect. The Nazis treated the Jews and the Israelis treat the Palestinians as second class people. In this respect there is no difference between them and it is this attitude as much as the actions which flow from it which I condemn. It violates a fundamental principle which should always be upheld: all people are equal, whatever their gender, race, age, religion, political views, wealth or lack of it, health or lack of it. If world leaders really started from that position and acted accordingly, the world would be a far better place.
The Anglo-Saxon economic orthodoxy is all to do with free markets, that the market, left to itself, will correct any imbalances, ensure that goods and services will be supplied to the right people in the correct quantities at the lowest possible price etc etc.
Faced with the results of irresponsible financial behaviour, there is an argument (the 'need for confidence' argument, the corollary of which, 'the need for responsible behaviour' is never mentioned) for government intervention in the financial sector. No such argument applies to the plight of the American car makers, who have simply become uncompetitive.
Any intervention is just political expediency. In other words,markets are perfect instruments for regulating the economy unless it's politically undesirable. Humbug.
The politicians keep talking about 'a global problem' when referring to the economic situation. What they don't say is that it is a global problem only because they have instigated or perpetuated this global problem.
It is not just an accident of nature. Western politicians especially have insisted upon free markets and the free movement of capital, mainly for their own countries' benefit. If they now wring their hands and simply blame the situation they should be reminded forcefully that the situation was of their making and that it can be un-made
by simply taking off the straitjacket that they have put on and thus enabling them to actually take steps to take care of their citizens. Niave question, but isn't that what we elected them for?
I have recently added The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein to the list of books on this site. If you have not read it I would urge you to do so.
We all have some awareness of America's agenda in global economic domination but the book reveals far more detail about more countries than I had ever realised. The most chilling realisation of all however is how determined and ruthless the Friedmanite process is.
Not content with imposing free market economics on defenceless countries through the IMF and World Bank, thus making the countries significantly poorer, laws are also pushed through in an attempt to make the changes permanent. One of my earliest articles on this site was Fable, likening the attempts by the US to dominate the world to Tolkein's lord of the Ring trilogy.
I wondered then about the One Ring - to bind all in the darkness. Well, there's a new candidate for this. Not a ring already forged which needs to be found, but a ring in the process of being forged, step by step, country by country. This gives us hope in that, if not yet forged and finalised, it can be unmade, reduced back to unformed metal. Politicians of all countries
need to reclaim their power to run their own countries. Citizens of all countries need to pressure their politicians to reverse the enslavement process whereby American corporations (for the most part, shamefully the UK also tags along) are taking over control of not just economies but the very culture of countries, throwing millions into poverty and unemployment in the process.
I urge you to read The Shock Doctrine. It will shock you and be horribly familiar.
There is an intriguing link between the furore over the arrest of the Conservative MP Damian Green and the seizing of material from the House of Commons and the European Court of Human Rights decision that
keeping the DNA of anyone who has been arrested but not convicted of any crime is a breach of human rights. The Home Secretary is "disappointed" by the decision. Presumably therefore she is happy that the police have taken Damian Green's DNA (as under UK law they are entitled to) and is happy for it to be kept forever on the police database.
If so, I doubt that she would be happy to say this in public.
Predictably, Israel has stopped 1,200 tonnes of rice, 750 tonnes of milk, 500 tonnes of oil, 500 tonnes of flour and 100 tonnes of medicines from being delivered to Gaza by ship from Libya.
Three small boats have been allowed to land, only for their occupants to be deported by Israel. However there are signs of a growing determination by countries to break the Israeli stranglehold or at the least to make the plight of the Palestinians more and more public. Turkey and Qatar
are intending to ship aid in the future.Meanwhile Israel continues with the usual threats: "There's no doubt we are approaching a huge military operation in the Gaza Strip." Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai said last Saturday, November 29th.
There are a number of issues that will be high on President-elect Obama's agenda, but in terms of furthering peace - worldwide - Israel/Palestine ranks highest. If he is to make a difference his policy and actions will need to be radically different from those of successive US administrations over the last fifty years.
"Since the 4th, [of November] we only had 16 trucks that entered Gaza and we need 15 trucks a day for the basics.
170 trucks are waiting for clearance outside. This is a hand-to-mouth situation. It is like working to serve a population of one million refugees with hands tied in the back."" said Deputy Commissioner General Filippo Grandi of the UN Relief and Works Agency.
UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Palestinian territories Maxwell Gaylard said "This is an assault on human dignity with severe humanitarian implications." "There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza." says Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Who do you believe? Well, Jordan sent 20 trucks of humanitarian aid to Gaza this week. When I was last in Northern Jordan a few years' ago, living conditions amongst the Palestinin refugees living there (driven out by Israelis from Israel) were such that they themselves were in receipt of UN humanitarian aid. The white UN trucks were quite conspicuous.
Two other contrasting figures. US aid to Israel in 2009 is planned at $2.55billion, up from $2.38 in 2008. The UN are appealing for $462million in aid for the Palestinians.
Brother, can you spare a dime.
Israel carries out yet another sickening sequence of provocation and violence against the Palestinians. Still claiming today (no less a figure than Shimon Peres) that Israel has left Gaza,
yet on November 4th Israel killed 6 Palestinians in a raid into Gaza, in spite of a truce. Predictably, bearing in mind the intense oppression that the Palestinians exist under, Hamas retaliated with rocket attacks into Israel, violence which I do in any way condone.
There followed the usual deadly and cruel events: sixteen Palestinians dead, a complete blockade of Gaza, including no food, fuel, medical supplies. I quote from the UN Refugee Agency: "This is both a physical as well as a mental punishment of the population - of mothers and parents
trying to feed their children - who are being forced to live hand to mouth. It is a further illustration of the barbarity of this inhuman blockade. It is also shameful and unacceptable that the largest humanitarian actor in Gaza is being forced into yet another cycle of crisis management." Why does Israel act like this? There may be several reasons. One assumption we have to make, which seems to be borne out over the years, that Israel always provokes violence if peace looks remotely possible - and the truce in Gaza had held for some months. More immediate possibilities in the current situation is to pre-empt any frantic attempt by George W Bush to salvage something from his reign by cobbling together some form of progress in the Middle East. Another is to fire a warning shot over the bows of President - elect Barack Obama. Depressingly, I favour the inbuilt Israeli instinct to fight, rather than seek peace. Even more depressingly, I wonder if the agenda for greater Israel is the dominant one in Israeli politics: that given enough time (100+ years? Israel is already halfway there) the Palestinians will gradually be driven out of all the occupied territories.
Something else Shimon Peres said in relation to Syria was that if Syria wanted the Golan Heights back, then Syria had to make moves. There is never any indication that Israel is ready to make moves and I also noted that Shimon Peres did not indicate that Israel would withdraw the settlers from the West Bank.
It is all one way. It is naked oppression and aggression. The world knows it and history will rank Israel since her birth amongst the most oppressive and evil regimes in modern times. Israel does not make the mistake of killing masses of the other. The strategy is more subtle. It is a long, slow strangulation. It reminds me of the sad fate of poor James Bulger: he was killed partly because he kept getting up. The Palestinians persist in getting up repeatedly.
As I have said many times, I do not condone violence of any sort, but let us make a couple of comparisons. Who would deny the right of the French Resistance to resist Nazi occupation? Who would deny the right of the Tibetan people to resist Chinese occupation? Why then are the Palestinians are denied any means of resisting a cruel and relentless semi-stavation over decades?
I am not a royalist but I enjoyed the BBC programme on the Prince of Wales yesterday and hope that it educated a few people in an awareness that he does an enormous amount of good
work and that his ideas are not mad. Most of them have been before their time. I particularly liked his plea for rationality to be placed in its proper context of one faculty that human beings have and that the other faculties be given their fair share of attention. Thinking
has been elevated far too high and for far too long for the good of the species and the planet.
I regret all three major UK political parties in their proposals to reduce taxation to boost consumer spending in the face of the recession.
Whilst the Liberal Democrats have at least targeted the less well off, these proposals are not Keynesian. They are rather a continuation of laissez faire capitalism, ie. the market would still be the arbiter of which part of the economy
grows and which does not, based upon individuals' self-interest and the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.This is where the Conservative doctrine of a 'small state' with little taxation is fatally flawed. It is all very well to say "it's your money, you should decide how to spend it", but no-one is able to choose to channel their money into, say, hospitals, schools, railways etc. Money for essential infrastructure should, firstly, be under the control of the government, not left to private organisations to choose which are likely to be the most profitable. Secondly, the money needed for such investment has to come from taxation, either corporate taxation and/or private taxation. It is this government-directed investment which is Keynesian and the advantage any government has over any other body or person is that government has a national perspective. Thus investment could truly be directed to where it is most needed and which is fairest for the nation as a whole. Such investment, as happened under Keynesian principles after the 2nd World War, has the effect of stimulating growth, growth which benefits all, both in the short and long term. It is too important to be left to the lottery of the capitalist jungle.
The UK government persists in its plans to introduce ID cards in the form of so-called fool-proof biometric data. Worse than the fact
that the whole idea is flwaed and ridiculously expensive, there are proposals to "accredit" businesses
The world breathes a sigh of relief, mixed with an enormous hope for a different future, at the election of Barack Obama. Yet two caveats need to be expressed.
Will he even get to the White House, or how long will he survive, knowing America's predeliction for assassinating presidents. This must be a real danger. Secondly, learning from the UK experience, when all the hopes of a bright new future under Tony Blair
turned to dust, can he stay true to his ideals, eschew the cynical 'realpolitik'. In this respect, will he be able to stand up to the wielders of power: the multi-nationals and the global finance industry. I, with so many other millions, wish him well. The world
truly needs an American president of vision, of humanity, of and for people worldwide.
The World Wildlife Fund's report that we are drawing from the earth at the rate of 30% more than the earth can renew comes as no surprise, but it may help to make people aware just how great the threat is.
It is interesting to read that the United States, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Denmark are the worst offenders when measured as usage per person. Denmark's inclusion is unexpected and knocks a hole in the perception that Scandanavian countries are responsible nations.
I have suffered another pc crash and have alsao been away - missing lots of the froth about the financial crisis. There is no doubt that there is a crisis, but the hour by hour, day by day details
are just froth. What happens over a longer period of time, the underlying strength or weakness of each nations' economy, the economic policies adopted by each nation for the medium and longer term, are what matter.In this regard I applaud the UK government's continued statements and ?commitment? to action on climate change and deplore the same government's plans to backtrack on proposals for allowing more flexible working practices. Treating workers like human beings should not be sacrificed on the altar of short term economic expediency.
Much as I dislike the sort of money that is paid to senior executives, especially in the financial sector, all the talk of regulating bonuses is misplaced.
What is required is a return to the regulations that required financial institutions to hold appropriate levels of assets against liabilities. It's not rocket science. Any organisation, let alone a bank, should know how assets match liabilities by time frame.
That is, how are short term liabilities matched to assets realisable in the same time frame, similarly for medium and long term financial positions. For those banks not being sufficiently prudent - and clearly any regulator must have sight of
the summary of these positions - remedial action would be required. Any financial institution failing to take such action, or between audits getting things seriously wrong, then the penalty should be a cap on dividends. We are always
being told organisations are accountable to their shareholders: let the shareholders in these circumstances act - by selling the shares when they see the expected return cut. It would be rather difficult for an organisation to maintain massive bonuses whilst cutting
dividends.
It is fascinating to read various comments about the practice of short selling: 'borrowing' someone elses shares for a fee then selling them, only to pick them up more cheaply when their value goes down
(which it tends to do of course) and then returning them to their owner. For instance: "Without short-selling, anyone can buy a stock, but only stock-holders can sell - this makes for an inefficent and asymmetric market.
With short-selling anyone can buy and anyone can sell, which makes for a more perfect market".
There was I naively holding the view that in order to be able to sell something you had to own it first. Also: "There are more than 20,000 individuals who short-sell shares through spread-betting companies."
Note the terminology: "spread-betting companies". Now many believe gambling is a legitimate activity, although I do not share this belief. However, how can anyone justify (and openly use the term) gambling when people's money, jobs and houses are at risk from such activity? It is a measure
of how used we have become to governments allowing the exploiters of free market principles and our disdain for those in the finance business busy getting rich at the expense of others, adding no value whatsoever to the economy that those involved do not even
bother to dress up the terms. It is true that a really sound organisation will only suffer temporary losses (and probably wouldn't be subject to such treatment anyway) but it is high time that financial markets were regulated like other activities so that you have to own what you try to sell,
that if you buy stock you have to keep it for a minimum length of time (anything else is just speculation ie gambling) and that financial institutions have to abide by a ratio of borrowing to assets as they used to. In these ways, financial
markets would operate as they should: facilitating the investment (and disinvestment) in organisations, without the parasitic middlemen being able to get their grubby paws on other peoples' money and gambling with it to their own profit.After all, we individual investors in ISAs etc are penalised if we remove our money in the short term (short term here being measured in years, rather then milliseconds).
So the FSA has (temporarily) banned short selling. Why was it ever allowed? It is pure gambling and gambling with other people's money, let alone with other people's jobs.
It has been nauseating to hear traders attacking this proposal, saying that it would hobble hedge fund and derivative trading. Hobbling such activity is one of the reasons why it should be banned. The sooner the world's stock exchanges get back to what they were originally set up for -
facilitating investment - the better.
At this time of financial turmoil it is irritating to say the least to hear commentators waffle on about difficult circumstances etc. The financial crisis was caused by the irresponsibility of
financial institutions in two respects. Firstly encouraging people to borrow more than was prudent or safe. Secondly to spread the risk indescriminately around in the hope that it would all turn out OK. Whilst people - usually those who are relatively innocently caught up in this -
will suffer, it is difficult not to hope that the crisis may be so deep and so prolonged that the developed world will be forced into changing the systems so that finance is once more run on a rational and fair basis. If this does not happen, all the misery suffered will be for nothing.
The column inches devoted to the failure of the London Stock Exchange yesterday and reports of 'furious' traders highlights how sick our financial systems are. The only people who are
inconvenienced by such an outage are the speculators, those people who grow rich by buying and selling by the millisecond, at the expense of the rest of us. No doubt there were many prepared to take advantage of the expected market changes as a result of the US 'nationalisation' of
the ludicrously named Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organisations. (Incidentally, these two organisations apparently supply 80% of US mortgages: so much for the princiople of a free market in the US) Historically, capital markets existed to enable people and organisations to invest in
organisations in order to profit (or risk a loss) by those organisations' operating performance. Such investment, such profit or loss, such performance, cannot be measured over milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days or weeks. No other factor of production can be liquid in the short term.
Land takes time to acquire and develop. Buildings and equipment likewise. Labour cannot move across the globe instantly and it takes time to train/induct staff into jobs. Yet money has been deliberately freed up to be instantly available, instantly transferable. We have seen recently an outflow of
funds from Russia which has little to do with the fundamental strength or weakness of the Russian economy. No, money was freed up towards the end of the twentieth century at the behest of those individuals, organisations and nations who had both the
funds and the knowhow to make more money by trading ie speculating, gambling, over ever shorter timespans. Their profits do not add one penny to the actual value of a state, except in taxation, which no doubt is also minimised. We also know that when the financial system goes badly wrong, as now,
that governments are so terrified of the power wielded by those 'playing' (horribly appropriate word) the market that extraordinary measures are taken to avoid the institutions being held to account for their mistakes. The taxpayer foots the bill.The system is sick, always has been sick since the Thatcherite monetary policy was sold to states and states, in their miserable incompetence, bought it. The world and the health of its citizens are held to ransom by a relatively few people and still, like the emperor's new clothes, we hear commentators parrot the 'market will adjust', 'the market must be left to correct the imbalance' phrases until you want to scream: 'The market got us into this mess, why should the market be able to get us out of it?'
The visit of Condoleezza Rice to Libya provokes a comparison. Libya finally 'obeyed' the US, 'came in from the cold' etc etc. Eventually, the US 'rewards' such
countries for their obedience. The comparison is Cuba. Cuba has not, will not, obey. Before Hurricane Gustav hit Cuba, there was brief mention of the readiness of Cuba to cope with hurricanes. Once the hurricane, much reduced in force, threatened New Orleans,
the mainstream media forgot about Cuba. I have had to search the web to find out what has happened.100,000 houses destroyed. 250,000 people displaced. No deaths, nineteen injured. Fidel Castro estimates the damage to be in the region of 4 billion USD. What help has been offered, provided?
Russia has already flown in two planeloads of aid. China has promised 300,000 USD. East Timor has promised 500,000 USD. Spain has shipped in 16 tons of aid. I can find no references to aid from countries like the UK, France, Germany, Italy. The US?
Ah, the US. The US has the possibility of 100,000 USD available, but only through relief agencies, not through the Cuban government. Some,like Barack Obama and Howard Berman, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, have called for the restrictions on contact and travel to be lifted in order to help Cuba. The US State Department's reply? "We do not believe that at this time it is necessary to loosen the restrictions on remittances and travel to Cuba to accomplish the objective of aiding the hurricane victims. Non-governmental organizations on the ground in Cuba are already mobilizing to provide such assistance."
The meanness, vindictiveness and sheer inhumanity of the US administration is mind-boggling.
The announcement that the UK government is to help people struggling to get mortgages now that the financial institutions have been forced to lend responsibly is
no doubt welcome for those wanting to buy/move house. It points up a fundamental flaw in the government's position however. Whenever people protest about how society works, or does not work, the government, wedded to the belief that 'the market'
resolves all issues, simply repeats the 'the market will adjust/cope' mantra. If this were really followed, the government would long ago have funded the building of more houses, thus increasing supply. Market forces indeed then would have lowered the price
of houses. What we see though is the usual hypocrisy. Markets are sacrosanct unless there is a real fear of becoming unpopular (or more unpopular). Once this is perceived, the free operation of the market can be meddled with at will.The same applies to energy. If the UK government had been mindful of its responsibilities concerning climate change it would have invested in renewable, by definition home-grown and controlled, resources. Instead, it forgot about market forces, one lesson of which is not to allow oneself to be subject to monopoly or near-monopoly supply, and allowed UK energy supply to be overwhelmingly dominated by Russia. The crisis in Georgia symbolises the risks in such a course. The sooner the UK invests in energy resources which are independent the better; it is apposite to suggest that the money to be spent on the 'independent' replacement of Trident could be much better spent on protecting our energy supply as well as helping to reduce the effects of greenhouse gasses.
The desire for South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be independent of Georgia goes back to the creation of Georgia after the break up of the Soviet Union.
South Ossetia, left to choose, may possibly, probably, vote to become part of Russia. Chechnya would vote to leave Russia. Kosovo certainly wanted to be free of Serbian rule. What is tragic is that violence precedes a diplomatic solution.
There are parallels in Georgia with Yugoslavia but the US/UK are wrong in simply condemning Russia for all its actions. It is unhelpful. Equally it is unhelpful and unjustified for Russian troops still to be deployed in Georgia outside the disputed territories.
What is really needed is for the countries/people concerned to get together and work towards a solution, instead of all this pseudo cold war posturing.
Amidst the arguments about whether or not BAA should be broken up or not, one aspect is ignored. An overall policy for transport in the UK.
The responsibility for this lies of course with the UK government but it is likely, as usual, to leave it to the 'market' to decide. There are powerful arguments for airports to be run by a single body, if that body were to be required
to operate within a coherent transport policy. A policy which also took into account environmental issues. In this scenario, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would not compete with each other and Heathrow would not have a third runway.
How? The money that would be spent on the third runway would be channelled to the railways. Tax would be used to reduce the nonsensical use of air travel within the UK, once the rail system could cope.
Heathrow would specialise in long haul flights, thus preserving the UK's ability to provide an international hub. Gatwick and Stansted would concentrate on short haul/holiday traffic.It is already clear that Edinburgh and Glasgow do not compete with each other and that there is therefore little point in splitting ownership there. Other airports such as Southampton are either the only local airport or compete with other local airports owned separately. The argument is therefore about London and the wider principle that only a free market can provide efficient services. On the latter, I dissent but even if it is true, the catastrophic effects on the environment of unfettered travel by whatever means a free market can most cheaply provide it mean that government regulation with real powers is essential. Any other conclusion means that allowing private companies to maximise their profits is more important than the future of the human race.
Amidst the arguments about 'utility' (water, gas, electricity) prices, one aspect tends to escape notice, or be disguised by dishonest
statements by those in the business. When utility organisations try to justify the increases in prices, there is talk about investment and that the investment is for customers/consumers; that they are only thinking of the current and
future customers. This language is indeed appropriate for a genuine, non-profit oriented service organisation, but those privated utilities have one over-riding aim: to make money for their shareholders.
That is what private capital is all about. It's not a secret, but it is glossed over by industry and government alike. It is the reality of the aim and raison d'etre of private companies that make the privatisation of public services so
intellectually dishonest. Thus the interests of the consumer comes second to the need to provide shareholders with sufficient returns. This is not just a choice: it is a legal requirement of companies to maximise returns. So we then have
the need for regulatory bodies. It has been difficult to get at figures, but Ofwat, the water regulator, costs around £15m per year alone. It is unclear whether this is totally funded by the water companies, but even if this is so, it is
money that could have been spent on the supply of water. The powers that regulators have involve fining companies. So here we have three channels via which money which could have been invested in supply leaks away: profits to shareholders,
the costs of runnimg the regulators and fines for poor performance.None of this money would be frittered away if the services were public owned and run and the answer to the argument that extra costs without the incentive of the profit motive would be incurred just begs the question of adequate measurements being designed and implemented. There is also the principle of governments abdicating one reponsibility of government: providing essential services. Outsourcing this responsibility is just such an abdication.
There is also the spurious claim of competition, market forces etc. These industries are oligopolistic: few suppliers, many customers. Price fixing by one means or another is a great risk here, as any first year economics student knows. As we have seen recently, the changes in prices by each supplier follow remarkably similar curves. If competition were genuine there would be no need for regulators.
The conflict between Georgia and Russia highlights the trend in the world for the unwillingness of ethnic communities - especially
minority communities - to be ruled with a confederation of diverse ethnicities. Whether it is better for the ruling faction to be as conciliatory as possible in order to maintain existing states or whether it is better for smaller,
ethnically-based states to emerge is debatable. In some circumstances, the creation of ethnically-based states would result in large states. If the Kurds of Iran, Iraqm Turkey and Syria were to form a state it would have around 30 million
inhabitants. The creation of Kurdistan is not likely, but it raises the question of how fairly those countries with significant Kurdish populations treat them. Fair treatment is the only way - and even then may not work - to reduce or halt
separatist terrorism. The British had to learn this in Ireland: the oppression of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland was a significant factor in the re-emergence of the IRA.
(I am old enough to remember as a child the IRA being regarded as something of a joke, thus showing how unfair management of its people rebounds upon the ruling faction)There are always reasons why violence erupts. The tragedy is that politicians take up pre-prepared, partisan and own agenda positions, rather than addressing the real grievances which lie behind violence. There will be real grievances on both the 'Georgian' and 'Russian' sides, but it is unlikely that world leaders will spend much time examining these to try and seek a fair way forward.
So, the first US trial of those held at Guantanamo Bay has ended. It may have been fair, but ponder this question.
If a regime such as China or Iran had held suspects for years in a place like Guantanamo Bay, amongst accusations of torture, then put them on trial before a military tribunal, with jurors selected by the government's
Ministry of Defence, would the US have hailed such trials as fair and just? If not, why should the US expect other nations to accept their protestations of justice and fairness?
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but the failure of the Doha round of trade talks may mark the turning point of US hegemony. India and China in particular were able
to walk away when their wishes were not met. This says two things: that other countries are starting to be able to say 'No' under pressure from the US and that the US is in such a weak position, domestically, economically and politically, that agreeing to a fairer deal
was not possible. It remains to be seen, over the next few years, how the world will look when there is more than one country which exerts massive influence on the world - politically, militarily, economically, culturally - but I doubt that I shall
mourn the reduction in American influence.In a TV programme yesterday on China, someone was acknowledging with approval that China shows no sign of wanting to export its 'revolution' (ie Communism) to the rest of the world. This commentator was speaking from the US, the country which is doing and has done more than any other country to export its values, culture, political systems, judicial systems and political institutions to the rest of the world. A country which has the arrogance, aided and abetted by camp followers like the UK, to believe that its systems are so superior to others that they should be foisted on everyone else.
There is much talk of a windfall tax on energy companies with price rises linked to large profits. Firstly, profits are not being quoted in percentage terms and this is a case where
percentages matter: a profit of £100 on a product or service costing £1 is excessive; a profit of £1bn on a product or service costing £100bn is not excessive. Secondly,the energy companies are arguing that they need the profits for new investment.
Although there are investment rules which allow companies to set aside profits against tax, thus reducing the amount of tax the company pays, it seems to me that new rules are needed. The UK needs investment in energy production, especially 'green' energy. If the government
brought in tax rules which enabled companies to set aside more revenue free of tax for energy provision investment (and also had powers to direct that investment) then the country might see future energy provision not only being secured, but also being provided in a politically and
ecologically acceptable way, rather than the haphazard results of 'market forces'.It is also worth noting that the energy industry illustrates the inbuilt catch 22 of capitalism: that free competiton results in companies competing to outgrow each other, often by takeovers/mergers, thus resulting in a few large companies dominating the industry and thus reducing/eliminating competition - which is the raison d'etre of free market capitalism.
In a discussion on the NHS there was mention of how acceptable it is for business to be involved financially in education, especially in the new Blairite academies, as if
there was no question that this was a good idea. Well, I for one do not think it's a good idea. There is a confusion between education and training. It is the responsibility of the state to provide education for its children. This means directly: I believe
that privately-funded schools violate the principle of fairness. That includes all private schools, charitable or faith-based - whatever charity or faith it may be. Education should be about equipping children for life. Business (or faiths or private means) has no part to play in this.
Education should be independent of all those with a vested interest in what is taught. The task of business is to provide appropriate training specific to the jobs that business requires to be filled. If the powers that be had a grasp of this fundamental difference in the aims of education
and training then children might start to be educated in the skills and art of living. To think for themselves, manage their own lives, value the community of which they are a part and in which they have a part to play.A cynical addendum. 'To think for themselves' is what many governments are terrified of. Citizens who think for themselves are threats to those in power. It reminds me of a phrase I used in response to a senior manager: 'What you are asking me to be is a creative conformist. I can be one, or the other, but not both.'
Two pieces of news, one good and one possibly good. The detention Of Radavan Karadzic is unquestionably good news. The sooner the process of justice
starts the better. Would that Ratko Mladic were also in custody. All the victims of Serbian aggression deserve a process of justice.The other not so positive news was the 'agreement' between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. Dictators do not share power easily, or at all, and it is difficult to see how the MDC can become seriously influential in reversing the ruination of Zimbabwe whilst Robert Mugabe remains in any position of power. If he is weak enough to have to negotiate then he is probably weak enough to be removed. After all, Zimbabweans did vote to remove him.
It is sad to see the sports world meanly and vindictively queuing up to support the lifetime ban on Dwain Chambers. Yes,
there is every reason why someone taking drugs should be banned for a period of time. Yes, if there is evidence that the effects of drugs give an athlete an advantage over a period of years, then the ban should reflect that.
But lifetime bans, especially for what could be a single offence, are unfair and unjust. People who have committed far graver offences than Dwain Chambers serve their punishment and are then free to pick up their lives again.
Some, many, if not most, people do learn from their mistakes and are unlikely to offend again. The principles of repentance, redemption and restoration are important ones. These principles are swept away in a fever of Victorian sanctimoniousness.
From what I have been able to read of the judgement, the judge considered that the delay in bringing the case was prejudicial to Dwain Chamber's case and said "Many people both inside and outside sport would see this bylaw as unlawful.
In my judgment, it would take a much better case than the claimant has presented to persuade me to overturn the status quo at this stage and compel his selection for the Games" in a clear indication that the principle of a lifetime ban is of doubtful legality.
Note what the judge is objecting to: to compel the British Olympic Association to pick Dwain Chambers at this late stage in the selection process.Had the case been brought earlier, the principle of natural justice might have prevailed. As it is, the unfair punishment is still open to legal challenge unless the BOA changes its rules.
Who do your believe? Today, the following headlines summarised each newspaper's interpretation of knife crime in the UK.
Majority of knife crime confined to major cities (The Guardian), Crime falls, but stabbings not just an urban problem (The Times)Well, I suppose it depends upon the newspaper's political stance and agenda. There is a case to be made for media coverage on this or any other crime issue being part of the problem: how many young people are now carrying knives because they believe that everyone else is starting to? There is little anywhere however about the real problem underlying youth crime. The real issue is cultural. Children are relatively deprived nowadays. Deprived of an extended family (often indeed of any family at all), deprived of time spent with them by parents and older relatives, deprived of a society in which values other than economic are nurtured. These causes cannot be fixed by punishment, by draconian threats, or by bribes or within the term of a single government. Politicians need to be honest about this and work together for a gradual reinstatement of values that most people would agree with, but are thwarted from reaching out for because of the inbuilt pressures in society.
So the UK has exported cattle to Holland which were infected with bovine TB and the Dutch, quite rightly, are alarmed: they have been BTB free for nearly ten years.
Note the tone of the response in the UK: This could be bad news for the badger (The Times); a request by MEP Neil Parish for the intervention of the EU Bovine TB Eradication Task Force, saying also
"We are slaughtering 30,000 cattle a year and yet many infected badgers are still passing the disease on.
At some stage we will achieve a vaccine for badgers but even this will require a cull of infected badgers before we can start vaccination. In the meantime infected badgers face a slow and agonising death
in the UK." The implication here is, yet again, badgers are to blame. The poor badgers get the disease from cattle. It is the elimination of the disease in cattle that is the issue.
As for the EU task force, ten measure were agreed in 2006.1.Use of severe interpretation of the tuberculin test in infected herds and herds at special risk
2.Strategic use of the IFN-y assay
3.Increased frequency of herd testing
4.Implementation of the pre-movement test in areas and regions of high prevalence
5.Definition and application of the epidemiological unit of concern
6.More extensive use of epidemiological data analysis: indicators
7.Stamping out in infected herds: criteria, application and assessment
8.Wildlife removal/alternatives.
9.Re-appraisal of compensation schemes
10.Re-define and strengthen restrictions on animal movements
Only one involves wildlife and on that the same document says "Strategies to be implemented on wildlife and in particular the removal of infected wildlife need a sound scientific basis and, if applied, should be accompanied by a range of other measures." Italics from the original document. (Working Document on Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in the EU accepted by the Bovine tuberculosis subgroup of the Task Force on monitoring animal disease eradication)
The EU task force is unlikely to focus on badgers. It is more likely to ask the UK government why it has not made more progress in reducing the incidence of bovine TB. The EU provides funds: in 2007 Spain, Italy, Poland and Portugal received 50% of the costs of their approved programmes. In 2006, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Poland and Portugal likewise. 2005: Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal. 2004: Italy, Lithuania, Greece, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, and, wait for it, the UK.
In 2008, programmes were approved for Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal. It is quite easy to work out which countries are making the most effort.
It's about time the UK sorted itself out and took responsibility for the state of the nation's livestock: the ways in which livestock are reared, moved and slaughtered, as well as implementing scientifically-based measures to reduce the incidence of disease. Wild animals are the victims of our farming methods, not the main cause of disease.
Incidentally, in perusing EU documents, I came across approval for a programme to vaccinate foxes as part of the programme to eliminate rabies. If only we in the UK were so humane. Instead we see foxes as vermin or 'sport'.
Is it any wonder that Iran is trying to demonstrate a capabibilty for self-defence in the face of threats from, primarily, the US and Israel?
It is not yet proven that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons and the world cannot afford another mistake like the one which lead to the invasion of Iraq.There is a way forward: remain vigilant and talk. Extensive talking to those whom you regard as your enemies has a habit of causing you to realise that they are your friends after all and for them to realise that you are their friends too. Dialogue is the most effective way to settle disputes.
Thank goodness that Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, has listened to the scientific evidence and ruled out culling of badgers in England.
This culling would have cost millions, killed thousands of badgers and probably, based on the findings of a ten year study, made bovine tuberculosis worse. Instead, £20m is being invested in the the development of a vaccine for cattle.
It is bovine TB: it starts in cattle and the solution lies in the treatment of cattle - both in living conditions and medication - not in slaughtering thousands of innocent animals who are susceptible to a disease which has spread as
a result of how we raise cattle. Let us hope that the Welsh Assembly think again and listen to the science.
There is much media talk in the UK about the economy, how gloomy things are, how people are suffering. A study concludes that
a single person 'needs' £13,000 per year to maintain an 'essential' lifestyle in the UK.It takes me back to a visit to Zimbabwe a few years' back. Talking to a group of Zimbabweans, a sum of £100 was regarded as a fortune, no need to work anymore. Whilst that was over optimistic, even then hard currency was sought after because of the plummeting value of the local currency. This was just before Zimbabwe shut the world out: getting out involved negotiations and paying officials.
We in the West do not realise that almost all our possessions and spending can be regarded as luxurious, not essential, compared with the rest of the world. Our economic concerns are trivial.
There is much talk of South Africa bringing Robert Mugabe to his knees by witholding power supplies, of deeper sanctions etc. It strikes me there is another, non-violent way.
Rather than blocking the borders between Zimbabwe and the neighbouring states, let the US and Europe in particular pledge sufficient aid for those states, for a period of time, to enable those states to take in all
the Zimbabweans who wish to leave in the short term. If they can be cared for without prejudicing the local population (as has happened in South Africa), then so many people would literally
vote with their feet that Robert Mugabe's illegal regime would fall, after which people could (and should) return to rebuild the country. In the scale of funds available to the developed nations it would cost little: there are only around 13m people in Zimbabwe in total.
Cost is not the issue. The issue is the management of the movement of people - enabling them to avoid the undoubted brutal attempts to stop them leaving and counting/managing them in the countries where they seek refuge. If the neighbouring states were co-operative, it could
work and be possibly the least violent and least costly way forward as well as being quick: a mass exodus over a few weeks would surely be the undoing of the present regime.
The decision of the MDC to withdraw from the "election" in Zimbabwe is a wise one.
Wise because it may prevent further killing by government forces and wise because it is the most effective way of publicising the farce: if they had continued and inevitably had lost, through intimidation and vote rigging, Robert Mugabe
would have claimed a 'fair' victory. What now for Zimbabwe as far as the rest of the world is concerned? Well, Robert Mugabe has no legitimacy - he lost the previous election. He is therefore 'eligible' as an ex head of State to be
detained in The Hague on suspicion of crimes against humanity. The African Union should bar him from attending their meeting this week as their rules insist on any leader being democratically elected. The UN Security Council meeting today
could and should condemn the illegal regime in Zimbabwe. Aid to the starving in Zimbabwe should be stepped up, together with information as to why it is needed, if necessary by flying over Zimbabwe and dropping aid from the air: it is inconceivable
that Robert Mugabe would provoke a military invasion by attacking such flights. Finally, South Africa should abandon its craven appeasement of the regime in Harare and make it clear that only free and fair election are acceptable in Southern Africa.
Thabo Mbeki, as well as Robert Mugabe, has innocent blood on his hands.
Many commentators have dismissed David Davis's resignation as a stunt. On the basis that he stands to gain little and may lose a lot, I am
inclined to see it for what it is: a principled stand against the erosion of the rule of law and civil liberties. I hope he has the opportunity to put the case against the trend of the last ten years. People tend to take their
civil liberties too lightly: we have enjoyed them for so many centuries that we take them for granted. Well, the time is now long past when this is safe or even reasonable. The UK already has laws, as I have said before, that dictators
would love to have.
One of the key aims of the UK government had been to reduce child poverty. Figures just released show that child poverty has risen 3% in 2006 - 7.
Now 2.9m children are considered to be living in poverty.Since 1998, the UK has increased its spending year by year on the so-called nuclear deterrent by 70% in real terms: this year alone it is expected to be £1.7 billion. The government is also planning to replace Trident at a cost of £75 billion.
How many children would be lifted out of poverty if this completely useless weaponry were scrapped?
When will we get a government which cares for its people and allocates resources to those less fortunate nations, rather than the succession of governments intent at all costs to strut around the world stage waving its macho weaponry around, playing at being a world 'leader'. We and the world pay dearly for these delusions of grandeur.
If it's (sort of) summer, then my pc starts malfunctioning. So I have been off the air a while.MI5 do not want it. The former Labour Attorney General and former Labour Lord Chancellor do not want it. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not want it. Several Chief Police Officers have said they do not want it. Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, does not want it, adversely comparing the UK's present, let alone proposed, laws with the rest of Europe.
This is of course the truly awful cul de sac that Gordon Brown has driven into: the proposed powers to detain terrorist suspects without charge for 42 days. I welcomed the departure of Tony Blair and the arrival of Gordon Brown but the lack of judgement shown on this issue in particular is appalling. No one has yet to come up with an argument for it. The nearest I have read is the fatuous 'new technology makes it more difficult and longer to obtain evidence'. 'New technology' means computers and this lame excuse implies that the UK government is not as up to date in mastering computing as the terrorists.
Britain (before the nation actually became Britain) led the world in establishing a reasonably fair system of justice. Now, with the exception of the US in terms of Guantanamo Bay and its associated obscenities, Britain seems determined to lead the democratic world away from fairness and back towards arbitrary imprisonment, arbitrary treatment of individuals (why are people still being sent back to Zimbabwe?). We are sliding rapidly towards the use by the state of arbitrary powers and the only safeguards are the increasingly beleagured judges, frantically trying to see how these unfair laws can be interpreted in as fair a way as possible. To the judges' credit, some have achieved a degree of success.
Remember Donne: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". A different context, but the message is the same.
"We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable.
Defeating crime and terrorism is of the utmost importance, but we are not aware of any pressing need to justify the government itself holding this sort of data." That was Assistant Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford on the latest wheeze concocted by the Home Office, to store every telephone call and email centrally.
The Information Commission is an independent body set up to protect people's privacy relating to information .The UK government however is obsessed with collecting information and has a dismal track record in keeping it securely.In the present context of a catastrophic fall in support for the government and frantic efforts by Ministers to assure the public that their concerns are being listened to, a programme of draconian and costly schemes to retain data (ID cards, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 - which is the Act the Home Office is intending to widen) are bizarre. Freud had a word for it: thanatos. Death wish.
I note that the US Congress has voted to enable action to be taken against the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in that OPEC is refusing to increase the supply of oil to the degree that the US would like.
The argument runs that it is a cartel and thus anti free market principles (one of our modern gods, to be worshipped at all times and in all places). Congress is also responding to the perceived anger of the public at higher fuel prices at the pump.
Well, as far as the latter is concerned, US fuel costs $3.80 per gallon; here in the UK fuel costs £1.25 (around $2.40) per litre. On the wider issue, OPEC is doing the world a favour by restricting oil supplies. If the developed nations are forced to reduce the obscene
levels of energy consumption through car use, so much the better for the world in terms of climate change. I have read that fuel consumption in the UK has fallen by 2%, presumably in part due to higher prices. Not much, but it all helps.
Three cheers for the British legal system and the impartiality of judges. "The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers."
said the judges in throwing out the attempt by Parliament to be above the law and not have to disclose details of their expense claims. The argument that it would reveal where MPs live was rejected as spurious:
"The reality is that an individual who is determined to discover a residential address of an adult law-abiding citizen is likely to be able to do so by one legal means or another, and where the person concerned is the holder of a public office and in the public eye, such an inquiry is likely to be easier."
The judges also pointed out that: "Once legislation which applies to Parliament has been enacted, MPs cannot and could not reasonably expect to contract out compliance with it, or exempt themselves, or be exempted from its ambit. Such actions would themselves contravene the Bill of Rights."
As if spending £100,000 of taxpayers' money on the case were not enough (the House of Commons had to hire new lawyers when their first team advised that they had no chance of winning the case), to their shame, they have not immediately accepted the decision of the court.
They have until Tuesday to decide whether or not to apply for permission to appeal. If they do seek such permission (at more public expense)
hopefully it will be roundly refused. MPs need to understand that they are not above the law - law that they enacted.
"What happened here is possible everywhere": George Bush on the state of Israel. Well, yes, if you have the unqualified support of the US and around $100bn
in aid from the US, quite a few countries might be prosperous and enjoy the benefits of a democratic system."I suspect if you looked back 60 years ago and tried to guess where Israel would be at that time, it would be hard to be able to project such a prosperous, hopeful land" was another statement by the US President. Same comment as above applies.
A White House spokeperson, Gordon Johndroe, also said on the same subject: "The United States and Israel share a belief that all people have the right to live in peace, that democracy is the best way to ensure human rights, that religious liberty is fundamental to civilized society and that using violence to achieve political objectives is always wrong." Really? I doubt that the people of Iraq and the Palestinians amongst others would agree. The US and Israel, in common with most nations, sadly, employ violence in pursuit of poltical ends as a matter of course. Gordon Johndroe's words are just words without substance or meaning in the context of the violence meted out across the world by the US and the arms supplied to states of whom the US approves to use against their own and other people.
And yes, I am aware that the UK, France and other 'freedom loving', 'democratic' countries follow similar policies and actions. There may be a case for saying that other, non-democratic, countries behave more badly, but this still only makes the US and her allies guilty of a lesser level of crime. It does not absolve the US et al of responsibility for their own actions.
It is these moments that the words of Schiller that Beethoven set to music in his ninth symphony come to mind: all men will become brothers. We are just as far from that, if not further, as Beethoven was. The absence of worldwide brotherhood pained Beethoven greatly. It pains many people just as deeply today. If it pains world leaders, they show no signs of acting on their pain and the world's pain to further Schiller's and Beethoven's dream.
The 2009 budget requests of George Bush for overseas aid makes interesting reading. Inevitably I have been selective in quoting some figures but here are some: The figures are for aid requested for specific regions/countries, not the whole budget for US aid.
| Region | $ | % |
| Africa | 5,297,732,000 | 32.37 |
| Near East | 5,524,133,000 | 33.76 |
| S and Central Asia | 2,216,618,000 | 13.55 |
| Western Hemisphere | 2,048,612,000 | 12.52 |
| Europe and Eurasia | 734,028,000 | 4.49 |
| East Asia and Pacific | 542,847,000 | 3.32 |
| Total | 16,363,970,000 | 100.00 |
| Specific Countries | $ | % of Total above |
| Egypt | 1,505,400,000 | 9.20 |
| Iraq | 397,000 | 0.00 |
| Israel | 2,550,000,000 | 15.58 |
| West Bank and Gaza | 100,000,000 | 0.61 |
| Jordan | 535,441,000 | 3.27 |
| Afghanistan | 1,053,950,000 | 6.44 |
| Pakistan | 826,255,000 | 5.05 |
| Bangladesh | 106,835,000 | 0.65 |
The Near East therefore will receive more than the whole of Africa. Iraq receives virtually nothing. Afghanistan receives two thirds of Egypt's share. Israel receives over 15% of the world total and nearly half of the Near East budget. Pakistan receives eight times that of Bangladesh. Jordan receives relatively little, yet still over five times more than the West Bank and Gaza.
The obvious general conclusion? Aid is provided not by virtue of need but for political purposes. "Friends" of the US get much and those, like Pakistan, needed to be kept friendly, likewise. To those who say, well, why shouldn't the US help its friends, ther are three answers. Firstly aid should not be based on politics, secondly, how did the 'enemies' of the US become 'enemies' in the first place and thirdly, how did the 'friends' of the US become 'friends'?
I wonder what, if any, changes may be made by the incoming President?
Yet another example of our (UK) uncivilised mentality in the Civil Service and in government. Mayra Cabrera came to the UK from the Philipines
to work as a nurse. That in itself is an indictment of the UK: not providing enough training for its own health care needs. Arnel Cabrera, her husband, joined her. The NHS, indeed the very hospital where Mayra worked "unlawfully killed" her
(the official verdict of a UK jury) by administering an epidural in her arm, rather than her spine, after giving birth. Arnel would like to stay in the UK. The Home Office however has refused to allow him to stay.So, the UK government via its health service arm, the NHS, kills a wife and then the UK government via the Home Office, gets rid of her grieving husband. The pretext is that Arnel had sent their son to be cared for in the Philipines whilst the inquest and his claim against the NHS were in progress. The Home Office therefore said "It is considered that [Mr Cabrera] has not established a family life with his son in the United Kingdom. As his son [Zachary] remains in the Philippines there are no insurmountable obstacles to his family life being continued overseas."
Such a cold, mechanistic conclusion chills the blood. Do we employ robots at the Home Office?
The UN cannot deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza because there is no fuel. Fuel has been restricted and then cut off by Israel. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that the number of Palestinians
being allowed to receive medical treatment in Israel has increased 50% between 2006 and 2007 - from 4,700 to 7,000, however, in the same period, the number of those refused medical treatment has increased from 10% of requests to 18.5% of requests.
What a ghoulish 'game' Israel is playing with people's lives in two vital areas, food and health. The violence from Hamas is wrong and cannot be defended but it stems from the reality that Gazans have few alternatives to violence. Israel calmly, deliberately and
callously continues a process of collective oppression and killings that has few modern parallels.
Whilst I welcome scientific evidence on any subject, the conclusion that the natural cycle of the Gulf Stream may cancel out the process of global warming for a few
years is likely to be mis-used by those who do not believe the major scientific evidence that global warming is happening, humankind is a major cause and that the results could be catastrophic. It will certainly be seized upon by those powerful industry groups who
have a narrow, short term, selfish interest in continuing to sell products that accelerate the process of global warming.The underlying reality which gets missed is that we just do not know how the earth's climate system works. The 'natural' short term Gulf Stream cycle may not be happening: it may be the start of a more prolonged (ie centuries, if not millenia) shift, which has happened before, creating havoc with the global system. One result of such a shift would be to make North America and Europe uninhabitable. Poetic justice?
There is a simple and wise strategy when we are doing something that we do not understand: either proceed very, very, cautiously, or stop and consider. Humanity is adopting neither of these strategies. If humanity survives and if there remains sufficient archeological evidence and if humanity is capable of deciphering such evidence, then the leaders and all those living between 1950 and 2050 will be condemned for their sins of commission amd for their sins of ommission.
There were two articles in The Guardian on Saturday 26th. One, by Rabbi Jonathan Romain, in an article about faith schools, mentioned in the context of Passover
that we have to be watchful for new examples of breaches in freedom from persecution. Darfur, Rwanda and Tibet were mentioned. The West Bank and Gaza were not.By contrast, David Abrahams, a former treasurer of Labour Friends of Israel, writes positively of Jimmy Carter's dialogue with Hamas and indeed David Abrahams himself has clearly worked with all sides behind the scenes in the Middle East. He makes the point that all elected representatives have to be included in the peace process. I commend the latter writer and would wish the former be more aware of the oppression carried out in the name of his faith.
Meanwhile, Israel rejects the proposals by Hamas for a truce and continues to blame Hamas for everything. "We hold Hamas responsible for anything that goes on inside Gaza and to all the strikes [ie Israeli air and tank strikes]." said Ehud Barak. Hamas, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, are guilty of using civilian areas for their resistance. Four children under four years' old and their mother were killed today by a tank shell as they ate breakfast in their home. Presumably Ehud Barak blames Hamas for their deaths.
Everyone knows that to achieve peace in a conflict situation all parties who can influence the way forward need to be involved.
Yet Jimmy Carter, doing the the job that President Bush should be doing, is pilloried for talking with Hamas. Hamas is, like it or not, the elected representative body for the Palestinian people. The US is suppposed to
support democracy, but that depends upon the opinion of the US about those who other countries vote for. I deplore the tactics that Hamas uses but I deplore the tactics that Israel uses even more.
Whilst the US propoganda machine goes into overdrive about Hamas, Israel continues to announce the building of new houses in the West Bank - another hundred announced today - in flagrant violation of the agreed conditions of the peace process.
Israel also continues to increase its economic blockade/siege - call it what you will - of Gaza and continues to escalate the violence. Israel does not believe in the old 'eye for an eye' maxim.
Ten eyes for one eye, ten deaths for one death is the track record. No matter if the deaths are cameramen, children, whole families.If 'militants' in Tibet started to attack Chinese soldiers and civilians in Tibet and the adjacent provinces of China, would the US brand them 'terrorists'? I think not. Yet whatever ills the Chinese have visited upon Tibet - and they are many - the Tibetan people have rather less cause for violence than the Palestinians, who have been ethnically cleansed and subjected to violent oppression for decades.
In the face of this the 'democratic' West is silent. It falls to private organisations, private citizens - inside Israel too, as well as outside - to enable the Palestinian case to be made. Including one former American president.
At a time when the first 'newsworthy' signs of food shortages causing disturbances in developing nations we read that biofuel must contribute 2.5% of petrol in the UK from tomorrow, rising to 5% by 2010.
So we are using land - expending anergy in its cultivation - in order to fuel our luxurious car-based lifestyle whilst the poorer nations go hungry.
In 2007, the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines was urging the country to grow sweet potato and cassava for biofuels. This week we read that the Philippines is calling for an Asian summit because of the high price of rice, for which the Philippines is the world's largest
importer. The Philippines is capable of growing rice. This is one example of how markets and the sheer economic power wielded by the West distorts national economies.Biofuels are not necessarily more carbon neutral than oil, indeed may be just as damaging to the atmosphere, but the main issue is that emissions need to reduce, car and aviation use must reduce. The world needs food above energy.
Yesterday I referred to laws passed in haste being bad laws. Right on cue we hear that Poole Borough Council has been using powers granted to it under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to put a three year old child under surveillance for two weeks to check if the child's parents were entitled to apply to a local school (and have admitted to 5 other instances). Some 600 organisations were granted powers under RIPA, which was enacted
primarily to regulate surveillance and communications interception for matters of national security and serious crime. However, the relevant section on surveillance says:(2) A person shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance unless he believes—
(a) that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and
(b) that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.
(3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; or
(g) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.
Clearly, Poole Borough Council acted under (3) (b) - preventing crime, (assuming that trying fraudulent means to get your child into a school of your choice is a crime - how far above parking tickets and below murder is that?) but can be deemed to have fallen foul of (2) (b) - proportionality. Because it is badly drafted, (no reference to the seriuousness of the alleged offence or intention to commit an offence) the Act enables no fewer than 600 organisations to carry out surveillance on people who are believed to be contemplating any criminal offence, subject to a subjective and debatable view on proportionality.
So we in the UK can be spied upon by our local Town Hall for what? That we are suspected litter louts, so are followed around until we drop litter, or the local authority gumshoe gives up? That we are suspected of illegally using disabled parking spaces or using someone else's disc and said gumshoe is put on our tail?
The Act is draconian enough - what constitutes (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom - and of course the Secretary of State can authorise surveillance for any other purpose, conveniently not described or limited by the Act.
Of course, the taxpayer in the form of the Council Tax, foots the bill for all this surveillance. Maybe the surveillance itself can be deemed to be against "the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom"? I hope the taxpayers of Poole let the local council know what they think of the use the council is making of their money.
The judgement in the High Court yesterday condemning the decision to halt the Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) investigation into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia is
a welcome, but temporary assertion of the rule of law. Temporary because Lady Scotland, the present Attorney General, wants to add into the proposed constitutional reform bill powers to the Attorney General to direct the SFO to drop criminal investigations
on the basis of 'national security' or 'international relations'. In these circumstances, the BAE case and any others like it where a foreign government or member of the security services expresses displeasure, criminal cases could be dropped without any explanation, or even knowledge by
anyone other than the parties concerned. What a recipe for unaccountability, let alone corruption!The fundamental issue is quite clear and simple. Does the UK want to have a judiciary which is independent of the executive or not? If so, the Attorney General should not also be a Minister in the government. If the present arrangements continue and more powers added as proposed to the Attorney General's office, then criminal justice is not subject to the rule of law, as enacted, but to politically motivated decisions. This is directly in contravention of the aims of the Attorney General's Office:
The Attorney General, assisted by the Solicitor General, is the chief legal adviser to the Government. They are responsible for ensuring the rule of law is upheld. (The first sentence on the Attorney General's website. It is in bold))
Maybe the web site should have a caveat entered after those fine words 'unless foreign governments get upset or they are worried about national security, in which case they set aside the rule of law'.
Commentators make much of 'elected representatives ie Parliament, government, as against unelected judges', siding with some notion that the 'elected representatives' are in some way more accountable and that they in some mystical way discern the wishes of the public, whereas judges are inevitable 'fuddy duddy' and 'out of touch'. Well, the Attorney General is not elected/accountable. Judges should be above political pressure/considerations and to an extent, immune from day to day fashions, fears, panics. Good law takes time to create and be refined. We know to our cost how law created in haste and to match short term political considerations results in bad law.
Who knows whether or not there was corruption in the BAE case. What we do know is that the rule of law was thrown aside for political considerations.
It will be interesting to see how the American case involving Saudi Arabia proceeds. I criticise the US administration considerably, but I suspect that the US legal system is and will be rather more robust than that of the UK.
"I have pleasure in enclosing the final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle
TB (ISG). After nearly a decade’s work, I believe that the ISG has fulfilled its original
objective and can now provide you with a comprehensive picture of TB epidemiology
in cattle and badgers. Further research will doubtless improve the knowledge base, but
I believe that the work described in this Report will allow you to develop future policies
based on sound science.
The ISG’s work – most of which has already been published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals – has reached two key conclusions. First, while badgers are clearly a source of
cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can
make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under
consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. Second, weaknesses in
cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence
and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely
to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of
disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of
cattle-based control measures alone.
Our Report provides advice on the need for Defra to develop disease control strategies, based
on scientific findings. Implementation of such strategies will require Defra to institute more
effective operational structures, and the farming and veterinary communities to accept the
scientific findings. If this can be achieved, the ISG is confident that the measures outlined
in this Report will greatly improve TB control in Britain."Thus the covering letter by the Independent Scientific Group, set up by the UK government to investigate the link betwenn badgers and bovine TB. The group spent 10 years conducting research and submitted its final report in June 2007. The study cost £34m and killed 12,000 badgers in randomised trials to establish what links there are between badgers and bovine TB.
Again, from the above: "Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone."
Also: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England (Defra)conducted trials (the Krebs trials), starting in 1998. Badgers were culled for five years, but the trials were halted in 2003 because the incidence of bovine TB increased.
Bovine TB occurs on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man has no badgers.
Today we read: Welsh Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones announced yesterday a three-year £27m programme to cull badgers in specific areas of Wales. In order to do what? Certainly it will not eradicate bovine TB. Certainly it will kill thousands of badgers. Also certainly it will prove nothing. In North Wales, and I suspect this is not unusual, cattle are only inspected every four years.
The scientific evidence is against it. Common sense says that bovine TB in cattle must be controlled by measures involving cattle. I have found it difficult to get any information about bovine TB in Europe except that Germany, France, Scandinavia, Holland and Luxembourg are considered to to be free of bovine TB. Do we know how these countries achieved this?
One further point. Bovine TB is called mycobacterium bovis. The vaccine BCG adminstered to children is mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette Guerin, ie a live attenuated vaccine. Does the vaccine work on cattle? Apparently it can. In fact, there have been successful trials and the UK government plans to test the vaccine in the next 3 to 5 years, it was announced in July 2007. Spending to date on a vaccine is £18m.
So, other countries do not have bovine TB, but we don't know why. The UK government plans to develop and introduce a vaccine in the next few years. Independent reports and experience show that culling wildlife does not work and that the living conditions for cattle - as for humans in the nineteenth century - significantly affect the rate of infection. Bovine TB occurs where there are no badgers. Wales is about to spend £27m killing badgers in one or more small areas of Wales.
Welcome to the UK in the 21st century, a society supposedly based on rationality and scientific study. In fact a society run by politicians who obey various pressure groups, in this case the farmers.
It is depressing to write, to believe, but Zimbabwe seems fated to suffer further until Robert Mugabe dies - and then Zimbabwe will also suffer until stability returns in whatever form that takes.
The West can actually do little, apart from providing aid without conditions. Robert Mugabe's propaganda machine against so-called Western (ie white) interference is too effective for anything other than no-strings aid to be productive in terms of helping a process whereby Zimbabweans gain
the power to elect leaders of their choice. South Africa is the key to the solution but Thabo Mbeki says "I think there is time to wait, let's see the outcome of the election results." He must know full well that time grants Robert Mugabe the opportunity to regain power and probably by violent means too,
looking at the way the 'war veterans' have been encouraged to restart their campaign of intimidation. Election officials have already been arrested, charged with undercounting votes for Robert Mugabe. A few more instances of that and, hey presto, Zanu-PF won after all! That is the price of waiting patiently.
Is that what South Africa wants? If so, then South Africa is playing politics with peoples' lives. I doubt this, so Thabo Mbeki, having influenced events in favour of a fairer election, must come off the fence and publicly stand up for justice and fairness. It is time for the South African
President to embrace the role of elder statesman and put aside political calculations. Africa needs leaders who are wise, fair and who can change the culture across the continent and those wise and fair leaders have to assert their beliefs, loudly and clearly.
Whilst in principle the intention to provide much more aid to Zimbabwe is welcome, the conditional nature of the proposals is disturbing.
It appears that the IMF are insisting that exchange rate 'liberalisation' is a condition of aid. Such conditions have impoverished developing nations over the last two decades whilst enabling the multi-national corporations
and the financial gamblers based in the already wealthy nations to make more profits. Aid should generally be without strings and certainly should be in Zimbabwe, with the lowest life expectancy in the world bar none.
Even if Robert Mugabe steals another election, the UN should park aid lorries on the borders if necessary, drop food from the air. Anything to shame the leadership and provide some relief to his suffering people.
The Northern Rock payoff represents at its worst capitalism and the way that capitalism ensures that it is risk free.
Northern Rock traded recklessly, has lost its shareholders essentially all their money, has been bailed out by the UK taxpayer, yet its former Chief Executive Officer - the man who was responsible for the debacle - Adam Applegarth,
walks away with £760,000, payable in twelve monthly instalments, and given nearly £350,000 to top up his pension fund, which now stands at over £2.5m. He also has a subsidised mortgage on his £2.5m home.Two points. It may be legal, but this yet again demonstrates that senior executives not only are paid vast sums of money but take no personal risks whatsoever. Their huge salaries are supposed to reflect not only their ability but also their part in what the private sector always trumpets as a risk taking enterprise, as opposed to the 'no risk' public sector. Secondly, yes it may be legal but it is certainly unethical and no person with any sense of honour would take this money when thousands of employees are losing their jobs and thousands their life savings as a result of his recklessness. Adam Applegarth may never get another job, but then he doesn't need to. Some of his former employees may never work again either, but they pay the price, having done years' worth of honest work, only to be let down by someone seduced by the greed of the financial industry. A greed which is now causing so much pain, but not to those in charge. As usual the little people, the people who actually create products, provide services, pay the price.
Michael Martin, Harriet Harman, Sir Stuart Bell, David Maclean, Theresa May and Nick Harvey. These are the people who have brought Parliament into disrepute by appealing to the High Court against the decision of the Information Commissioner
that MP's expenses be published. They are also responsible for spending upwards of £100,000 of taxpayers' money in the process and Michael Martin then stifles any debate in the House of Commons by declaring the matter sub judice. Any House of Commons debate might have resulted in the embarrassing situation of MPs disagreeing with the Commission.Perhaps we should retitle MPs, who are presently 'Honourable' or 'Right Honourable' to 'Honest', 'Really Honest' and 'Not Very Honest at all'.
"We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast. The terrorists and extremists step in, they fill vacuums, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage."
So said George Bush yesterday. I'm not sure where he claims the Americans learned that, but it's the wrong lesson anyway. Terrorists moved in, filled the vacuum as a result of American troops invading and occupying Iraq. Saddam Hussein kept terrorists well away from Iraq: he needed to maintain his own authority.
The US is now saying that as a result of the invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda is being 'defeated'. al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before, so the American invasion simply made it possible for al-Qaeda to infiltrate Iraq, thus wasting thousands of lives 'defeating' an enemy that they created in the first place.Also, sadly, it does not really matter when the American troops are withdrawn. Whilst they are there, they are not only a target, but also a reason/excuse for violent dissent and continuing instability - unless they go the whole hog and annex the country - all this would mean is an elongated timetable for eventual withdrawal as empires always falter. Once they leave, barring a quite remarkable ability of the Iraqi people as a whole to reconcile differences, old scores will be settled. Too many people have been killed, too many people know who has done the killing for any sober forecast to be anything but gloomy.
Let us compare it with Israel/Palestine. No-one expects, even with a peace settlement, that Israel and a new Palestinian state will live happily side by side in the foreseeable future. Yet far fewer people have been killed in Israel and the occupied terrirories than the number of Iraqis who have been killed by Iraqis.
A country can be kept in order by sheer brute force: the Americans have just about done that in Iraq. Maintaining a country without naked force is far more difficult and long term process. Even success in creating an effective Iraqi armed forces contains dangers. It simply leads to the possibility of the emergence of a dictatorship by whoever commands the loyalty of the armed forces.
I would love to see the emergence of a settled, stable, democratic Iraq. Sadly, this possibility runs a poor fourth behind breakup or the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist state or a secular dictatorship. If the last happens then we are back to Saddam Hussein Mark 2.
Some small signs that the US and the EU are putting some pressure on Israel about even more illegal settlements.
"The EU reiterates that settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law" and Condoleezza Rice:
"The United States considers the expansion of settlement activity to be not consistent with Israeli obligations under the road map and we have made that very clear. I have also said that it is certainly not helpful for the peace process."Some small sign that Israel may be seeing the need for genuine negotiation: "To my great regret, we have not done what we should have done for a long time concerning the outpost settlements. We have to act as soon as possible. We will have to take decisions in one or two weeks. These decisions are difficult, but we will have to dismantle these outposts, at least some of them, because it troubles our relations with the United States. Everything damaging those relations impacts Israeli national security." Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon. However, the US is only talking about settlements after 2001. The illegal settlements have been going up since 1967. George Bush said some time ago that'events on the ground' need to be taken into account: this means turning a blind eye to decades of illegal activity. We aslo know that the word 'outposts' does not refer to settlements proper, only to those settled by Israelis beyond that sanctioned - illegal even so - by Israel. So I am not holding my breath for a breakthrough.
Over 130 Palestinians die in a few days. Thirteen Israelis die over the same period. No, this is not a point about proportionality. Each death was a waste, was unjustifiable: they do not lead to peace, they lead
rather to more violence. In this context I despair of such things as this: "We should pass a resolution or change the law if necessary so that the family of anyone who carries out an attack should have their residency permit immediately revoked and their homes destroyed."
Eli Yishai, Israeli Trade and Industry Minister. Such a law would contravene a principle underpinning any rule of law worthy of the name: only perpetrators are guilty and punishable. Collective punishment, whilst in fact carried out across the world by states, is not enshrined in law. It is the blind eye, the
official denials, which provide the fig leaf. For a politician of a so-called Western democracy to call for such a law shows how low Western democracy has sunk.The second point of despair, given the present situation is Ehud Olmert's announcement that up to 750 additional homes are to be built in the settlement of Givat Ze'ev in the West Bank. This, as has been remarked on before with similar actions, show utter contempt for the Palestinians and any peace process.
Israel once again pursues a narrow nationalist colonial agenda, contemptuous of her neighbours, the UN, Europe, Russia, the US and the world in general.
"We will use force to change the situation.": Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak about the operations in Gaza.
Can there be any more pathetic depressingly blinkered statement about the situation? 'Force' will not change the situation, other than make it worse and make the bitter aftermath more bitter and more long lasting.
Force solves nothing and for Israel, at such a high level, to persist in such declarations, means that Israel is not interested in peace, only in blaming the other. There is no doubt that the plight of those trapped in Gaza
continually gets worse. For some insight into this look at Rafah Today. I have provided a permanent link to this site on my Links page.
If a non-Jew had referred to Israel's threats to Gaza as being a shoah - the Hebrew word for holocaust - there would have been a furious reaction from Jews and Israelis.
Yet this word was used by the Israeli Deputy Defence Minister, Matan Vilnai: "As the rocket fire grows, and the range increases – and they haven't yet said the last word on this – they are bringing upon themselves a greater Shoah because we will use all our strength in every way we deem appropriate, whether in air strikes or on the ground."
Note also the phrase "they are bringing upon themselves a greater Shoah" and he also said Israel "had no choice". In other words it's all the fault of Hamas and the Palestinians. Such is the ethical bankruptcy of the Israeli government. There is always a choice.
Hamas has a choice to use terrorism or not, Israel to send in aircraft, tanks, or not. The West chose to invade Iraq. Ghandhi chose the path of non-violence. The most effective example I can think of to support the claim that there is always a choice is the example of a condemned man about to be executed.
No, he has no choice about whether he lives or dies. He has no choice about when he dies and the method used to kill him. He does have a choice about how he dies, a choice about the manner of his dying.Israel has a choice. At present Israel is exercising a choice to murder Palestinian civilians. According to AP today, 75 Gazans have been killed in three days, over half of them civilians. Thirteen Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets in the last seven years - thirteen too many, but against 75 Palestinians in three days, the disproportionate use of force is indefensible. It is not legitimate defence, it is collective punishment and rightly illegal in international law. The silence of world leaders is deafening.
Protesters demonstrate on the roof of the Houses of Parliament. All very embarrassing, but the aftermath reveals how far the British justice system has gone down the wrong road.
The protesters were arrested under the Serious and Organised Crimes Act. Carrying out a rooftop protest, with no violence, no damage - this is "serious"? Maybe there is a clause in the Act specifying Parliament, in which case it's another example of politicians saying
thet are different and special. We know they went through security, so no weapons or bombs could have been involved.Another example this week of this government's obsession with draconian, anti-justice measures. Not content with presuming that terrorist suspects are guilty without charge and locking them up indefinitely, the government now proposes that suspected drug dealers have their assets seized on arrest. The principle of 'innocent until proved guilty' is further eroded. The threat to drug users to stop benefits if they drop out of rehabilitation clinics is another example of how this government always reaches for the stick if anyone may be breaking the law. Whilst 'innocent' grandparents are to be encouraged to take care of the children of addicts, the 'naughty' addicts just face threats.
It is crude, simplistic, black and white thinking.
There has been little comment on the root cause of the Northern Rock saga. The authorities proclaim that trust is necessary in financial markets without taking the necessary steps to generate trust.
Trust has to be earned. If the public are to trust that their banks and financial institutions are sound - after all financial institutions earn their profits by using other peoples' money - then the grotesque gallop into unfettered capitalist competition has to be reversed.
Northern Rock failed because it took too many risks (with other peoples' money) in the pursuit of profit. What is needed is a return to regulatory measures to prevent the reckless use of other peoples' money. In other words, the requirement to lend only within the presribed ratio
of lending to assets etc. Financial institutions clearly will not regulate themselves responsibly. Governments must therefore do it.Whilst I have every sympathy with the employess of Northern Rock at the prospect of redundancy, this will be inevitable. The fault for this will not lie with the UK government. It lies with the reckless actions of Northern Rock management.
I missed this story when it happened and for some reason the BBC has returned to it, as it was documented at the time. I refer to the failure back in 2005 of the police to comply with
a UK magistrate's arrest warrant to detain the Israeli Major General Doron Almog on suspicion of war crimes in Gaza. Having been tipped off, the Major General simply stayed on the aircraft at Heathrow and was allowed to leave. The reason the police gave for not obeying the warrant
was a fear that there may be an armed confrontation. Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, apologised to Israel for any ambarrassment caused.Question. What do you think the police action may have been in the event of a suspected Islamic terrorist sitting on an airplane at Heathrow; or Radko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic? There is no way that aircraft would have been allowed to leave. So this is another example of double standards. More than that, it makes a mockery of British justice. It may be that Major General Doron Almog had no charges to answer. It may be that the magistrate (the Chief London Magistrate) exceeded his powers. Whatever. The due legal process should have been followed and we know what the authorities do with aircraft on these occasions: move them to a remote part of the airport and wait/negotiate. Had it then been proved to be incorrect, that would have been the occasion for an apology to the individual and to Israel.
As with the posting on February 14th, one rule applies to the rich and powerful - Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US - and another to the poor and oppressed - the Palestinians in this case.
Further to the above. The police can shoot an innocent man, but whom they suspected of being a terrorist and of carrying a bomb, underground in a crowded train and
they are found not guilty by the IPCC of any misconduct. The same police force can fail to carry out an arrest warrant on a man - on his own apart from aircraft staff and possibly his own bodyguard - sitting in an aircraft some distance away from the general public and are found not guilty
of any misconduct: "The IPCC has concluded its investigation into a complaint arising from the failure by police to execute an arrest warrant for war crimes in respect of retired Israeli general, Doron Almog, on September 11, 2005.
The IPCC found no evidence of any police officers or member of police staff improperly disclosing information with regard to executing the warrant.
The IPCC was further satisfied that there was no breach of the Police Code of Conduct by officers failing to enter the aircraft to execute the warrant."
Conclusion? Whatever the police do is allright by the IPCC.
As predicted, the US Senate passes a law prohibiting the use of torture in the form of waterboarding and President Bush says he will veto it.
"The reason I'm vetoing the bill - first of all, we have said that whatever we do... will be legal. Secondly, they [the Senate] are imposing a set of standards on our intelligence communities in terms of interrogating
prisoners that our people [presumably the CIA] will think will be ineffective."What this appears to mean is that the US will act within its laws. The US Senate, as a US lawmaker, passes a law prohibiting waterboarding. In order to continue to act within the law, the President simply strikes out the law.
This is democracy? What is the difference between this and a dictatorship, in which the ruler can simply overturn decisions of the elected representatives? Yes, I know that a two thirds majority can still overturn a presidential veto but the whole process is open to the charge that an American president can say: "Pass whatever laws you wish, as long as I agree with them".
He goes on to say, in the same context: "It should send a signal that America is going to respect law." By that we can infer that 'law' here means Presidential decree, not the law that the representatives of the American people wished to see.
He also has his own position on the 'innocent until proved guilty' principle. On the Guantanamo detainess: "Take Guantanamo. Look, I'd like it to be empty. On the other hand, there's some people there that need to be tried. And there will be a trial. And they'll have their day in court. Unlike what they did to other people. Now, there's great concern about, you know, and I can understand this. That these people be given rights. The - what - they're not willing to grant the same rights to others. They'll murder. But, you gotta understand, they're getting rights." These people are clearly guilty in the President's mind and in the UK, maybe in the US criminal justice system (but the Guantanamo detainees are outside this system, so much for their 'rights') such a statement from such a source may be seen as so prejudicial to a fair trial that the trial is abandoned. Such issues are not niceties. Justice should not only be done but seen to be done. Cavalier statements from a head of state show contempt for the law, the same law that President Bush claims he upholds.
The UK government appears to be basing its case in defence of dropping the corruption investigation on the fear that Saudi Arabia would stop supplying intelligence and that
this would put British lives at risk and it was therefore in the public interest. What this implies is that the UK government believed or knew that Saudi Arabia would deliberately stop cooperating as a result of Saudi affairs being investigated.
Is this not the fear or actual knowledge of blackmail? Is it not the responsibility of Saudi Arabia to determine what reaction to take and the responsibility of the UK to determine how to run its criminal legal system?
Could not the UK government have allowed the investigation to proceed (thereby losing a valuable order - the likely real reason for the pull out) and then, if it went to trial, confronted the intelligence issue at that time, rather than
cravenly saying "Oh, all right then, we won't bother proceeding"? I do not take the threat to British lives lightly, but we compromise and compromise when it comes to business and powerful other states' interests.
Meanwhile we lock people like Lotfi Raissi up for five months without any evidence and then refuse him any compensation after releasing him. The connection? The British Crown Prosecution Service held Mr Raissi on behalf of the US.
Mr Raissi is an Algerian, a pilot and happened to be in the US when the 9/11 terrorists were thought to be training. On these facts he was dragged from his house naked and locked up for 23 hours a day in Belmarsh prison as a result of an extradition request by the US.
Even so, he was (relatively) lucky. The British Courts eventually refused extradition in 2002. Had he been arrested in 2003 he would have been extradited to the US immediately and probably ended up in Guantanamo Bay.
Another example of the craven way the UK behaves towards the powerful and how low the justice system has sunk - no, that is probably not fair on the judges - how low the criminal justice system as skewed by government laws has become.
The UK government is considering appealing, in the usual response to issues relating to ordinary people.
Another connection: the UK government is backing down on proposals to increase the tax on non-domiciles. Another example of rolling over on one's back and submitting when the rich and/or powerful are involved.
Whether or not the six people now to be brought before a military commission are guilty or not, there can be no justice here.
The US administration, via its various executive institutions, has violated so many laws and fundamental human rights. Extraordinary rendition in itself is illegal. Creating a category of person called an "enemy combatant"
is a legal fiction with no precedents and then neatly denying people in such a category rights they would have if civilians or military personnel takes away any fundamental human rights to humane or fair treatment - the 'rules'
such as they are being made up as time passes. Defining the whole process as a war as in "war on terror" is also a legal fiction. Those who carried out 9/11 are guilty of acts of international terrorism and as such are subject to the US criminal legal system.
Holding people at Guantanamo Bay under both harsh conditions in relation to visits, representation etc and also subjecting them to torture also are grounds for concluding that no trial could be fair. (The CIA still holds the view that waterboarding may be justifiable
in certain circumstances - if the US administration were in any way civilised it would simply ban this and any other forms of torture. As it is President Bush is threatening to veto any Bill to this effect. How does he square the use of torture with his sincere Christian belief?)
It simply a macabre farce to place these men on trial as if they were military personnel, they are not. Finally, and this is also a general comment on the US system of justice as a whole, requesting that the death penalty be considered, keeps the US in the 'uncivilised' category of nations.
I am aware that many nations still maintain the death penalty. That does not make the Chinas and Irans of this world right either.There was an American commentator yesterday using the phrase "take them out and kill them". Those people are present in every nation. Any nation which claims to be civilised needs to have a way of marginalising them. Killing people via a legal system is simply judicial murder and murder nonetheless. Following such a deeply flawed process there can be no justice for the accused and no justice for those surviving victims of 9/11.
Is it any wonder that people hold politicians and the political process in contempt? I quote from the report of the Electoral Commission on
Wendy Alexander's case of impermissable donations: "The Electoral Commission has also considered the possibility that criminal offences may have been committed in this case. Specifically:
Under section 56 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the offence of accepting and retaining a donation from anyone who is not registered on an electoral register in the UK at the time of the donation. It is also relevant to consider whether all reasonable steps were taken to avoid this" and
"In respect of a possible offence under section 56, the commission has concluded that, while Wendy Alexander did not take all reasonable steps in seeking to comply with the relevant legislation, she did take significant steps." and
"Having considered all the circumstances, the commission has decided that it is not appropriate or in the public interest to report this matter to the procurator fiscal."
So, the commission checked the 'reasonable steps' test, failed her on that, then invented the term 'significant steps' and cleared her on that. In criminal law, someone has to be found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt', not 'beyond significant doubt'. If the 'Wendy Alexander' test were applied in the courts, lots of criminals would be found not guilty.
The other rather more important issue is that for the rest of us mere mortals the police would automatically be involved in an investigation when the police have reason to believe that the law has been broken. It may be that the police in this case, as in many cases, decide not to pursue an action. Even if they do, the prosecuting authority may decide not to proceed. These matters however should be strictly within the normal legal processes. Politicians should not be assessed in the first place by their own club. Doctors and surgeons for instance do not go through a professional filter before the police get involved in any possible criminal case. Doctors and surgeons are at least as honourable as politicians.
"The use of intercept evidence characterises a central dilemma that we face as a free society - that of preserving our liberties and the rule of law,
while at the same time keeping our nation safe and secure." Gordon Brown in Parliament today. It is nothing of the sort. The conditions that Gordon Brown insists on before allowing such evidence are all to do with the protection of the security
services and nothing to do with the rights/protection of the individual. In fact, he says nothing about "preserving our liberties": the security services are free to bug whomsoever they like. The conditions are to avoid the accused from accessing
the evidence obtained unless the security services agree and as long as it doesn't cost too much to provide. Justice therefore, yet again, is limited to a budget. These are the sort of conditions:Giving intercepting agencies the ability to retain control over whether their material was used in prosecutions
Ensuring that disclosure of material cannot be required against the wishes of the agency originating the material
Protecting the close cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies
Ensuring agencies cannot be required to transcribe or make notes of material beyond a standard of detail they deem necessary
Pretty well a full house in protecting the interests of the security agencies. They clearly own the information that they have obtained by spying on individuals and the individuals have no right either in it being gathered or how it is used.
Gordon Brown was honest in this respect: "These conditions relate to the most vital imperative of all, that of safeguarding our national security." In other words, security overides individual freedoms. Anything can be done in the name of national security and anything is being done. One day the citizens of the UK will wake up to the fact that all the apparatus of a police state has been built on that basis of 'national security'. An apparatus waiting to be exploited by the desperate or the ruthless. When it is too late.
It is not enough to believe 'it couldn't happen here'. The question should be 'can what is being done be misused if it happened here'. The framework for actually implementing a police state is largely in place already.
As with the limited enquiries over the Iraq war, the UK government persists in authorising only limited and therefore relatively useless enquiries
into matters of great public interest and concern. Jack Straw's enquiry into just the issue of whether or not conversations between Labour MP Sadiq Khan and Babar Ahmad were bugged is only relevant to the two individuals.
It will not reveal at all what level of surveillance is now carried out in Britain. It will not even reveal to what extent MPs are bugged, let alone to what extent supposedly confidential conversations between lawyers and their clients
are monitored. It is far more important that this rule of confidentiality is upheld, except in very unusual circumstances. Let us not forget that many such conversations involve people who at that time have not been found guilty of anything,
indeed may not even be the subject of charges. Unless there is an enquiry and future processes are agreed and made clear then the British public would have to draw the conclusion that any communication they enter into may be monitored by the
authorities for whatever reason (not, of course, disclosed) those authorities deem appropriate. Sadiq Khan apparently was (is?) regarded as 'subversive'. What sort of McCarthyist state are we living in? A state I think that regards anyone who
is concerned with the liberties of individuals as being subversive. Running this site presumably puts me into this category. Reading it places you into the same category. The UK government seems determined to get to know everything that
we say, write, communicate in any way, usually justified by the weasely terms 'war on terrorism' or 'state security'. In a supposedly free society we are governed by people who increasingly think and behave like dictators relying on the secret
police to control and curb those who hold views that do not toe the government line.
There is much wild talk about banning MPs from employing family members but surely that is unnecessary and unfair.
It seems to me there is a simple and reasonable solution. Any employee of an MP (for that is what, effectively, they are) should be expected to do what any other employee is expected to do: turn in the hours,
do the work, pay the tax, NI etc. All this to be documented as every business has to do. Appoint a small, independent firm of auditors authorised to carry out annual and spot checks on the payments, records of hours, work etc.
Any MP found to be breaking the rules ie paying a family member more than the hours/work warrants is out of Parliament and in court on a fraud charge.On a wider issue, it is clear that MPs regard themselves as above the law. Decisions to refer cases such as Peter Hain, Wendy Alexander, Harriet Harman and Derek Conway to the police should not depend on MPs, or MP's committees. If the police believe any other citizen of breaking the law, they investigate. Why should MPs be any different?
This is a shameful day for Israel and the Israeli judiciary. Three judges have ruled that it is lawful for Israel to reduce fuel and electricity supplies to Gaza as
a form of "economic warfare". The judges' position is that Hamas breaches international law by its use of terrorism. Fair enough. What is not fair enough is to wage "economic warfare" on the whole of a population, civilian as well as military/militant.
The Geneva Convention states: "Article. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal."
Israel is doing the very opposite of this. The argument that Gaza is not "occupied" is specious: Gaza has no independent status and its relations with the outside world are totally dependent upon Israels' consent.So, the Israeli judiciary considers it right for economic warfare to be waged against the whole population of territory for which it is the occupying power. I cannot see how anyone can justify this under any code of law.
Everyone will have noticed the 'volatility' of the financial markets recently. What tends not to be commented upon is that many people/institutions will have gained substantially
during this period. This is the unethical heart of free market capitalism. At its simplest, a trader gambles on a downturn, just before others do, sells, then buys when the market has gone down, gambling that it will rise, taking the profit if and when it does.
When we come to such 'instruments' as derivatives, the essential nature of the activity is absolutely clear: gambling. Sums are effectively bet on the future price - little money actually put down. If the gamble comes off - large profits.
In order to reduce the possibility of the equivalent loss, the risk is spread around. Do it accurately and fast enough - little risk and fat profits, except someone's profit is someone else's loss. It has nothing to do with investment and the sums involved are far greater than the 'real' money in the world.
It does not add to the productive capacity of the world, rather it reduces the availability of funds for genuine investment, profits being frittered away on expensive lifestyles. Gambling is not illegal - in the West at least - but it is an essentially selfish activity:
gaining as a result of chance or skill at forecasting events in a particular area. It never should have a place in how money is made available for investment, investment which is for the production of goods and services, via which people obtain jobs in order to buy/use such
goods and services. International finance now has little to do with oiling the wheels of commerce and industry: rather it serves to channel vast sums of money into a few hands. Jerome Kerviel at Societe Generale would have escaped with barely a rapped knuckle had his gambles come off,
merely a reprimand that he did not follow procedure. Had Societe Generale made profits as a result of his unauthorised activity you can be sure there would have been no police investigation.
It is an incidental point maybe, but this "All they have to do is stop firing the rockets towards Sderot and other places in Israel, and immediately there will be no problem with the border crossing."
(Arye Mekel, an Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman, in relation to Gaza) is an example both of blaming Palestinians and downright lies. The present blockade of Gaza is no doubt to do with the rocket attacks, but to imply that before that there was a normal process by which people and goods passed between
Gaza and Israel is a lie. Palestinians in Gaza have been living in a prison for over 50 years. The recent blockade is simply a ruthless (as exemplified by Ehud Olmert's recent use of the phrase "without mercy") intensification of the inhumane conditions imposed on those imprisoned.The extraordinary reaction of the Palestinians to a small chance to break free, temporarily, from that prison, to have some freedom of movement, testifies to the horrors inflicted upon them over generations.
I am pessimistic however that the world will finally accept the real plight of the Palestinians and put real pressure on all parties, not just the Palestinians, to negotiate an honourable settlement. Maybe if the world's media stopped using the word 'prison' for Gaza and substituted the word 'ghetto' (my guess that Gaza is the largest single ghetto ever inflicted on a population), then not only might the people of the world put pressure on the politicians, more Israelis might see just what their country is doing.
"We need to understand that when Gaza is open to the other side we lose responsibility for it. So we want to disconnect from it.
We want to stop supplying electricity to them, stop supplying them with water and medicine, so that it would come from another place.": Israel's Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai.
But Israel is responsible for Gaza, responsible for every man, woman and child in Gaza. This responsibility is not only neglected but the present blockade is excessively inhumane and against all common decency, let alone
international law. The massive outbreaks at the Rafah crossing are a powerful and poignant testimony to what Israel has been doing to the inhabitants of Gaza.If Israel wants reliquish responsibility for Gaza it has two options. Progress the peace process for a Palestinian state or set Gaza free separately in the meantime, thus allowing trade by sea, air and land. I say this to the Israelis who would reasonably say that this opens up the possibility of more terrorist attacks on Israel: Israel bears some responsibility for the build up of that terrorism and a free Gaza could be held accountable for its actions. At present the militants simply point to the oppression of the Palestinians and say "We have no option".
International law is quite straightforward: the occupying force is responsible for the occupied population. While the stranglehold on Gaza continues, Israel is responsible. Israelis also suffer from the inhumane treatment of Palestinians, from terrorism and the effects of being part of a society which is acting unlawfully and unethically. It really is in Israel's interests to settle the issue of a Palestinian state. The greatest single obstacle to peace is the power held in Israel by those wanting a 'greater Israel'. They should be persuaded or told to give their imperialistic dreams.
Firstly, apologies for the gap in posting and the fact that the site has been relatively inaccessible in January.
There have been some technical problems but these have been resolved and everything appears to be normal now.
UK readers might want to look up the BBC programme shown last night and Friday evening, Earth Pilgrim narrated by Satish Kumar.
It is a wonderful expression of non-violence, respect for nature and recognition that we are dependent upon nature and nature upon us. It is well worth watching.
"The vision of a Palestinian state is one of contiguous territory. Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the territory of a state."
A remarkably enlightened statement by George Bush. On the other hand he also said, referring to Hamas that they "have delivered nothing but misery." Perhaps international sanctions, constant air attacks, cutting off fuel supplies etc etc, might just have something
do with the misery of those living in Gaza. Whatever, the aim of the US President, this late in his career, is his own legacy. If he had really been passionate about peace in the Middle East, this would not be his first visit to Israel and the West Bank in his eight years' of
his presidency.
Two connected items showing how percentages are well or badly used. Apparently in Sweden one principle of their criminal justice system is that prison sentences are avoided as much as possible
(UK government please note) and also that fines tend to be scaled according to the wealth of the perpetrator, ie effectively a percentage. This is fairer than set fines which for wealthy people are mere pinpricks and no deterrent.Meanwhile in the UK the government persists in applying percentages unfairly. The proposal to limit public sector pay to 1.9% would result in a nurse getting just £385 per year extra whilst an MP (before expenses and any additional responsibilities) would get £1,152 per year extra. A nurse and MP living in the same area have roughly similar extra demands upon their income as the cost of living goes up. As usual, the rich get (relatively) richer and the poorer get (relatively) poorer.