Sam PF's Journal
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in the "Sam PF" journal:[<< Previous 20 entries]
|
01:22 am
[Link] |
Decisions, decisions
So, tomorrow is the 1st of May, international labour day, and here in Sweden they take it quite seriously and there are all sorts of demonstrations and stuff by left parties (and, curiously, the centre party), trade unions and others. I'm rather inclined to go on one in Stockholm, the question is which?
The Anarchists could be fun, but they meet at 9.30am. Since when did Anarchists get out of bed so early?
The VänsterPartiet (Left Party), who seem to be Socialist Feminists (Marxist origins but now fluffier), meet at 12pm at Medborgarsplatsen down in Södermalm, marching up to Kungsträdgården, which is a nice route and a civilised time.
There's a Syndicalist gathering in Sergels Torg at 11am. Another leftist party with them, just called something like "The Socialists". Not sure who exactly they are. Still a little early, particularly if I watch the episode of Bones that's just downloaded.
The Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats), all I can find on their website is the talk by some of their leader-like people in the afternoon. I can't believe they don't have a march as well, but I can't find it. They're wishy-washy reformists of course, but they'd probably have the unions with them. Hmm. From the Swedish Trade Unions federation (Landsorganisationen) website, they give exactly the same as the Social Dems. Just talking the talk, not walking the walk. Very strange.
Oh, finally. Shoulda been looking at the local website, not the national. Ah, a whole program which actually includes the Anarchists' thing. It's a demonstration for the Spanienfrivilliga. Spanish free will? Aaaaaaaah, the monument to the volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. Then there's visits to Anna Lindh's and Olof Palme's graves, then a gathering at 1 and a march at 2 followed by the talks. That's better.
Pretty much comes down to a choice bewteen the main moderaty socialist/trade union demo or the Vänsters, and either way there's an option on getting up hideously early for a holiday to honour the Spanish Civil War martyrs. The Vänsterpartiet are probably closer to me ideologically (apart from wanting to leave the EU which I don't), although there's something to be said for the big demo with all the trade unions and stuff.
Either way, I clearly need to learn the Internationale properly. (Yes I know, shocking that I haven't already.) But will they be singing it in Swedish or the original French?
Well, all this calls for:
Poll #1180499
Open to: All, results viewable to: AllWhich 1st May demo should I go to? Should I honour the Spanish Civil War martyrs? What language should I learn the Internationale in?
And Happy May Day/Beltaine!
ETAOh yes, and Happy Ascencion Day too! (Yep, going to that too later on.)
Tags: politics, sweden
|
|
11:59 pm
[Link] |
Every problem a nail
Yet more craziness and slaughter in Iraq, as forces of Nouri al-Maliki's government continue their assault on the Mehdi army militia in Basra. This attack has been loudly praised by George Bush, and US and UK planes have chimed in with air attacks.
Things have been pretty horrendous in Basra, controlled by rival Shia militias (including the Badr brigade, which is the militia of al-Maliki's Dawa party.), and their rule has not been pretty, especially for women. But so this is the way to solve it? Start an all-out civil war (on top of the various other civil wars still raging in Iraq) in an attempt to destroy the official 'bad guys'?
Juan Cole is probably the best available regular commentary in English on what's going on in Iraq. He reckons (amongst others) that this move is linked to forthcoming provincial elections in Iraq in October, in which al-Maliki and the US are distinctly afraid that Muqtada al-Sadr's party, of which the Mehdi is the militia, will win in the Shia provinces. The Sadrists are strongly against the US presence in Iraq, and have at times been engaged in direct armed resistance against US and UK forces, though currently they are on ceasefire. (Not that the other Shiite parties are that thrilled about the occupation, and Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of many Shia, including Maliki's party, has been a strong critic of the US presence. But US forces are what keep the government in power, so they go along.) So, destroy the militia, destroy the party may be the thinking. Whether it works is another matter, as the Sadrists are rather popular amongst the Shia, and the US - not so much.
So, Maliki, with the hand up his back moving his mouth barely hidden, vows to fight the Sadrists to the death. Attempts at negotiations are stifled. Basra - and now many other areas of southern Iraq - is turned into a warzone, the US and UK drop righteous bombs which only ever kill "militants" (except that Iraqi sources, including police and medical, have an annoying habit of revealing that actually they were civilians), and the humanitarian situation - never good, with the chronic failure of the 'rebuilding' project in Iraq to provide basic services - deteriorates further.
Thing is, it's not just Iraq. It's the same pattern in every conflict at the moment where the US see their interests as at stake. In Afghanistan, the heavy-handed military approach to dealing with the Taliban insurgency, where Coalition forces appear to be killing more civilians than the Taliban. President Hamid Karzai occasionally makes protests for form's sake, but he's not the one calling the shots. Talk to the Hand.
Then there's Somalia. Without a government since 1991, it was largely controlled by various warlords [1], although there was a theoretical Transitional Government that controlled only the town of Baidoa. In 2006, an Islamist group, the Union of Islamic Courts, captured a large chunk of territory, including the capital Mogadishu, temporarily ending the warlords' rule.
Now these were probably not an entirely nice bunch, but maybe that might have been an opportunity for, say, some sort of negotiations between the UIC and the Transitional Government? Maybe there'd have even been a vague chance of uniting the country? But noooo, the US decides (without any actual evidence) that the UIC are linked to Al-Qaida, and instead back an invasion by Ethiopia. The Ethiopians force the UIC out of Mogadishu in short order, but then comes the inevitable insurgency, plus the warlords return to Mogadishu, as always no-one is particularly keen on foreign occupation (and Somalia and Ethiopia have something of a history) and now aid agencies say that a humanitarian catastrophe is impending. Another triumph of US policy!
Then there's Palestine. Leaving aside the US's ongoing unconditional support for Israel, there's their role in the intra-Palestinian conflict between Fatah and Hamas. which has been, of course, to stoke it up as much as possible. Ever since Hamas unexpectedly won the 2006 elections, they have been doing their darndest to overturn that result, leading an international boycott of the PA, plunging the Palestinians into even deeper poverty, and opposing all attempts at dialogue between the parties, continuing to boycott the unity government that was set up early in 2007.
Then of course there was the Hamas coup in Gaza, since when that territory has been kept under siege. As I said at the time, there was a lot to suggest this was pretty much the inevitable outcome of US policy of playing the two sides against each other. But recently there's been evidence that their role was even more direct than this, with Vanity Fair claiming to have leaked documents showing that the US was arming Fatah forces under Mohammed Dahlan, their strongman in Gaza, and was seeking to orchestrate a coup against Hamas - a policy which of course went horribly wrong with Hamas winning the battle instead.
Every time, every situation, the US policy is the same. Pick an ally, decide who the bad guys are, and pursue a military solution to wipe the bad guys out, and never mind how many innocent people suffer in the process. Pretty much every case where the US's baleful influence is felt, the result is humanitarian catastrophe. You think they might have noticed by now that it doesn't work? Except at one level it does work. Doesn't solve the problem, but it does succeed in dividing and ruling, preventing any unity amongst the subject population that might oppose US interests.
One final case where things may be going a little bit differently - Pakistan. There, the US had President Musharraf as their friendly dictator, pursuing the usual strategy against Taliban insurgents in the North-West Frontier Province. Rather horribly ineffectually, and with the usual dire consequences. But in February, parliamentary elections led to the overwhelming defeat of Musharraf's allies, and a governing coalition that has left the President isolated. And now the new government, unbeholden to the US, wants to try a different approach, with more talk and less killing. No, not suddenly becoming pacifist, and yes the insurgents they're dealing with are an extremely unpleasant bunch, but now that the Pakistanis are free(r) to choose their own approach, they've decided that maybe there's a better way than fighting until every last enemy is dead, no matter the cost. Good luck to them.
I hope, hope to God that things might be a little different with a new Administration - not that evil began with Bush and every past US government was pure as the driven, but there does seem to be a strong current in US opinion that is heartily sick of perpetual war, which might just find a voice in a Democrat Whitehouse. McCain, who gets far too easy a ride in the British press, let alone the American, quite clearly represents more, even more of the same - if anything, "no more Mr. Nice Guy", and I shudder to think what the future holds if he wins.
[1]Except for the self-declared republic of Somaliland in the North, which I gather is fairly peaceful, although it is not recognised by the UN, and the region of Puntland which is likewise de-facto self-governing
Tags: iraq, palestine, peace, politics, us politics, war
|
|
11:51 pm
[Link] |
Obama
Well, I must say I'm moderately impressed with Obama's speech in response to the furore over Rev. Wright.
I mean, there were some things that made my blood boil - notably:
Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
God forbid that anyone should point out the nasty bodies in the closet of American foreign policy. And no, Mr. Obama, the origin of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not in "hateful ideologies of radical Islam", but in the fact that the nascent state of Israel forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to make that state possible.
But I hardly expect any different from a serious US presidential candidate who pretty much has to kowtow to the Israeli lobby if they want to stand any chance. One hopes he might be slightly more inclined to listen to advisors with a more balanced view if elected, and somewhat less to the batshit insane Christian Zionist movement that has Bush's ear, but anyway.
But for the rest. I like the fact that he went beyond the platitudes about one happy united American family, and pointed out the rather obvious points about the continuing legacy of racism, continuing Black disadvantage, continuing discrimination - in fact, spelled it out in some detail. That America is in many ways still a segregated society. That he acknowledged the anger this generates, though it's not usually expressed 'in polite company'.
I liked that he didn't simply disassociate himself from Wright, but pointed out where such views come from (albeit that I would tend to think that what Rev. Wright said has much more validity than Obama gives it credit for.) "I can no more disown him than I can the black community". That he acknowledged that people can be full of contradictions.
I liked that he dared to raise the issue - if not the word - of class. Acknowledging also the anger of disadvantaged whites, but pointing out how that's been taken advantage of by the right, and how that is misdirected.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.
(Though, ha! at 'middle class' - no-one is working class these days.)
That the struggle for racial justice has to be linked to the struggle for gender justice and economic justice:
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans - the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
I like also the way he turned round his criticism of Rev. Wright:
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country... is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.
Neat. Politically pretty clever.
No, I don't see Obama as some sort of messiah - wherever he comes from personally (and he has a rather more radical background than he expresses now), he is bound by the limitations of the corporate-dominated American political system. With Obama is elected all the big corporate funders on whom he depends.
But I do see something potentially positive in where he comes from and the way of thinking he represents. The view of Christianity he comes from, as is also clear from that speech - the Christ who is on the side of the poor and downtrodden against the powerful and mighty - basically a form of liberation theology, as currently repackaged by organisations like the Sojourners, whose founder Jim Wallis I gather knows Obama pretty well. Maybe his candidacy represents a chance, or is part of a chance, to reclaim American Christianity from the forces of darkness that have held sway these past 30 years. (And even if you're not a Christian, given how pervasive Christianity is in America, something that's not likely to change in the near future, that has to be a good thing.)
I don't really expect a lot of electoral politics. It is not the whole of politics, not even the most important part. Whether you get your guy elected or not, you have to keep on pushing in the streets and in your workplaces and in your church, and hassling your representatives and giving them hell, even the ones you voted for when they're not doing what you want. That's what the Right has done, and that's a large part of why they've been winning. But electoral politics do matter, and if there's one thing I learnt from 2000, it's that the difference between an apparent Tweedledum and Tweedledee can be soooo much bigger than you could possibly imagine.
And as far as electoral politics go, Obama seems to me the best on offer Stateside at the moment. For a start, the fact that he does seem to have enthused such a movement behind him could be very important, if - if it keeps going beyond November.
(Yeah, not a US voter, though I am an American citizen (dual national), aside from the fact that what happens over there has enormous implications for the whole planet. 25% of the CO2 for a start. And gosh, my brother actually (I presume) will get to vote over there in November now he's in Cali. Hmm, interesting times.)
Tags: politics
|
|
11:36 pm
[Link] |
Jeremiah
Some interesting comments from a fellow-United Church of Christ Minister on Revd. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor, whom he has now repudiated over videos of a sermon in which he condemned the USA for its racism and described 9/11 as chickens coming home to roost. Also some good comments here. Hat-tip to ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) kynn in both cases.
Inclined to agree - his language might be somewhat OTT - but basically, OMG saying true stuff about America, and clearly stuff that resonates a lot with much of America's black population. Can't have that. As the first link points out, he is also speaking in the prophetic tradition of "speaking truth to power".
One thing I haven't seen commented on though is his name. Hello, JEREMIAH! Perhaps some of those so shocked and horrified that he could say such horrid things about the Best Country in the World (TM) should go back and read what the original Jeremiah had to say about his country and its rulers, who also believed themselves to be chosen by God and unique. And how it was the FALSE prophets who insisted that everything was fine, God was on their side, God bless America Judah.
A shame that Obama's felt the need to repudiate his mentor and friend, but I don't entirely blame him. Politicians may listen and hopefully learn from prophets, but they can't afford to be quite as honest.
Tags: politics, religion
|
|
09:08 pm
[Link] |
Stoppa kriget!
Went on an anti-Iraq war demonstration today, one of a number around the world to mark the fifth anniversary of the war in a few days time. Hum, trying to find a picture. Ah, here are a few. Not such a trendy activity these days, but the turnout was better than I expected - maybe up to 1,000. Dagens Nyheter said 'hundreds', which is consistent with that.
A lot of Iraqis there, who were carrying a giganimous Iraqi flag near the head of the demo. Sweden has been very good at taking in Iraqi refugees from the war, compared to other EU countries - though now they are apparently being monumentally stupid, with the immigration authorities apparently now deciding that there is not a war in Iraq, so they can refuse asylum claims to new arrivals. (Not sure of the details, whether they're actually sending people back). Also a large number of Iraqis, principally Kurds, from a previous generation of refugees, though I imagine many of their attitudes towards the war might be (understandably) rather different.
A plus point compared to the British demos was that there was a bit of a rally at the start as well as the end. With music, including a blues band from the Left Party, who gained loads of awesome points in my books by playing A las Barricadas. Also some hip-hoppers.
Lots of chanting in Swedish of course, which makes a change from the British ones - also quite good for language in terms of getting one's mouth properly round the sounds - somewhat like. I think my favourite was
Vad tänker vi om Bush?
Illa! Illa!
Hur illa?
Skit illa! Usch! Usch! Usch!
Also nice clear, slowly-spoken speeches, which is good listening practice, as my ear is lagging badly behind my reading and even my speaking. Could actually get a reasonable proportion of what they were saying, which is encouraging.
More seriously, a young Iraqi teenager, Ayat Suleiman and her father Ismail spoke - she had been badly injured by a US cluster bomb, leaving her with 65% burns. Four of her brothers, Ishak, Yakub, Yosef and Yassin (sp?) were killed in the explosion.
Cluster munitions are weapons that spread a large number - sometimes hundreds of small submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. Delivered from land or air, their aim is to act as an area-denial weapon. This makes them fundamentally indiscriminate, and even if there are no civilians in the area at the time, a significant proportion of submunitions (even so-called 'smart' ones) fail to explode, and remain as a deadly leftover - especially as a lot of them are brightly coloured and can look like children's toys. (One of Ayat's brothers did just that and brought one home, the source of the Suleimans' tragedy.) War is always hell, but cluster bombs add one more gruesome circle. There is an international campaign to ban them.
Current Music: A las barricadas
Tags: peace, politics, sweden, war
|
|
03:53 pm
[Link] |
Publication
In other news, a research report I co-authored, The Real Cost of Trident Replacement and the Carriers has now been published by BASIC, the British American Security Information Council. BASIC Press Release here.
It's had a long germination, having started out life as research for Greenpeace, as I mentioned when discussing an ealier draft here. But we are all very pleased with the final result! I hadn't realised how shiny it would be, having just been staring at Word documents of it thus far.
So. Do go read if you feel so inclined. Questions, comments, arguments welcome!
Tags: academia, peace, politics, uk politics
|
|
02:48 am
[Link] |
Deterring logic
One of the silliest arguments used by the pro-nuclear lobby in the UK, but which they totally get away with, is the claim that they were proved right by the way the Cold War turned out, that nuclear weapons Kept the Peace.
Now, a case can certainly be made that the 'balance of terror' between the US and the USSR made open war between them much less likely. (They exported it to the 3rd World instead.) The contrary case can also be made that we were actually very, very lucky, and came very close to annihilation during the Cuba missile crisis. But you can certainly argue that, had the US not had nuclear weapons, things might have been very different and quite likely less peaceful. Indeed, there's a very strong case that had the USSR not had nuclear weapons then Russia might well now be a nuclear wasteland; there were strong and persistent voices at high levels of US decision-making that advocated nuking the Soviet Union out of existence before they developed a sufficiently credible deterrent of their own.
But to argue that Britain's nuclear weapons kept the peace is really quite absurd. This would seem to suggest that the USSR were unconcerned by the US's vast arsenal, but were kept in their box by Britain's titchy but plucky contribution that the Americans have allowed us to have. The argument also totally fails to explain why Germany, Norway, Greece, etc. etc. enjoyed the same relative peace we did. One could, with just as much logic, claim that it was Sweden, Finland and Austria's neutrality that kept the peace, or Czechoslovakia's non-nuclear-armed membership of the Warsaw Pact that kept the peace; there is nothing more to any of these arguments than "X happened, and there was peace, therefore X kept the peace."
I would suggest that in fact Britain's 'independent' nuclear deterrent made no difference whatsoever to the likelihood of war in Europe. Except for the undeniable fact that it added one to the number of countries with a very small but non-zero probability of starting a nuclear war by accident.
There is little more logic to the contention that we need nuclear weapons as an ultimate deterrent because 'you never know' what threats may lie around the corner. Somehow this doesn't seem to bother Australia or Germany or Sweden or Brazil or whoever. Ah, say the pro-nuclear lobby, but we're recognised as a nuclear power by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), so we're allowed to have this insurance policy, and they're not. Well gosh, all these other countries must be really kicking themselves that they signed the NPT in the first place and deprived themselves of the possibility of enjoying this indispensible safeguard. In fact, they must be seriously thinking about withdrawing from the NPT themselves; after all, if they're all thinking like that, then once one does it the rest will and you can't impose sanctions on all of them. Wait, they're not all thinking like that you say? Very strange.
Ah, the pro-nuclear folks further protest, but Britain is far more involved in world affairs than the rest, we are a global power, so we are much more of a potential target. What you mean is, we piss off enough of the rest of the world that some of them might actually want to drop a bomb on us some day, given the chance. In which case, how about not pissing them off? Anyone thought of that? (Oh wait, we piss them off just by being free, I forgot, silly me.) So what it comes down to is that we need nuclear weapons to back up our frequent use of military force to impose our will on weaker nations, in case any of these nations were to attempt to get us back. Personally I can do without that.
Now, it is not only the other side of the debate that can be guilty of weak logic. The 'good example' argument often deployed by our side, for instance. The other side can justly point out that Iran (for example) are not going to base their decision on whether to develop nukes (which there is no evidence they are doing) on whether the UK has nukes. With a hostile US on their borders, and a nuclear-armed Israel off to the west, it is the balance of these threats against the risk of bringing down the wrath of the US by attempting to get a bomb that will be the deciding factor for them.
However, there is an aspect of the 'good example' argument which I think is usually missed: the UK's decision might not influence a country that was bent on developing the bomb; but it might well influence the rest of the world in deciding what to do about it. If Britain is one of the countries leading the calls for sanctions against an emerging nuclear power (as we undoubtedly would be), then these calls are going to sound decidedly hollow coming from a country busy upgrading its own arsenal, arguably in violation of the NPT, despite facing no obvious threat. The stench of hypocricy might weaken our case somewhat. Thus, Britain's decision to upgrade Trident could well have negative consequences for non-proliferation after all.
Tags: peace, politics, trident, war
|
|
12:45 am
[Link] |
Trident replacement
As many will be aware, British MPs vote today on Government proposals to replace Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system tomorrow. Despite a substantial Labour rebellion expected, with two government resignations already, the government is expected to win the vote easily with Tory support.
The moral and strategic arguments on this are well-rehearsed; I shan't add to them, but refer you to two op-eds in tomorrow's Guardian, one from someone who supported Britain's possession of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and one from someone who opposed it, but who are both firmly against Trident replacement.
Where I will add my two-pennorth is regarding the economics of the issue, where my academic work and political interests have come together lately, in a report I and my colleague Paul done have been working on for Greenpeace over the past year on "The Opportunity Costs of Trident Replacement and the Aircraft Carrier Programme". For no doubt very good internal reasons, Greenpeace have not yet published it (though we are confident it will be published at some point), but you may read our final draft, which Paul presented at the House of Commons last week. The views expressed are the authors' own and not necessarily those of Greenpeace.
( more on the report )
So there we have it. Hopefuly Greenpeace will before long afford a more public outlet for this work than my Livejournal, but at any rate it's been presented before a fair few MPs and researchers, so hopefully it'll have had some impact.
Tags: academia, peace, politics, uk politics, war
|
|
02:17 am
[Link] |
Many elections
Well, the people of Northern Ireland are voting in their Assembly elections, with the possibility that this will lead to a restoration of devolved government, but nothing is certain. I won't comment further on this, because results are only half way in and it would be pure speculation, and because nhw will I'm sure have far more intelligent things to say once all the votes are counted.
Meanwhile at UWE, the Student Union are holding their annual elections for sabbatical and non-sabbatical officers. I have many fond and not-so-fond memories of SU elections at Warwick, where I was, at various times, candidate, campaigner and Elections Committee Chair. The latter was by far the most intruiging.
The elections now though, or what I see of them from my non-student standpoint, just depress me - and I don't think this is just a feature of UWE.
With one or two exceptions, none of the candidates seem to say anything. None of them seem to stand for anything or believe anything. For most of them, their principle appeal seems to be that they are a SUPERHERO who will fix everything that's wrong at UWE. One even goes as far as the Spiderman costume in his posters. Then there's the completely smarmy-git-looking Presidential candidate standing in a 'Your Country Needs You' sort of pose. Oh, they all have a list of fabulous things they're going to change at UWE, which are not remotely in their power to deliver, without the slightest hint as to how they are going to achieve these wonders. One is left to suppose that they are going to FORCE the University by SHEER FORCE OF PERSONALITY to do what they want because they're a SUPERHERO!!! Any notion that if students want to achieve anything they're going to actually have to get off their butts and campaign for it? Pray, do not use such ugly words in our presence. What is this 'campaign' you speak of?
Still less, any suggestion that the Student Union ought to be concerned with what's going on beyond the walls of the University (or the number 70 bus route.) Like what the Government's doing with the education system? Like the prospect of ever greater tuition fees? Let alone broader issues like the war. Trouble us not with such nasty, dirty, political stuff!
Of course, it has been going this way for a long time, and I cannot play the old codger going "Students today, I don't know... now back in my day...."; for in fact it started going this way back in my day when I was at Warwick, the long, slow, receding roar of the tide of student activism. But for some years now it seems to have been bumping along at rock bottom. Many a time I and those of like mind stood against this tide, raged against the dying of the light, but with as much success as most who try to stop tides.
This is one of the reasons why I don't share the predeliction - expressed by many commenters to my last post - for Independents in political office as a good thing in and of itself. 'Independents' have come to dominate student politics to such an extent that they do not need to call themselves independents any more, as there is no other sort of candidate. Even the one candidate worth voting for (IMO) in the UWE elections, Tom Ramplin, a Stop the War, Respect and Socialist Worker activist, doesn't stand under a party banner. But the fact that these people are Independent of party or 'slate' affiliation does not imply, as some seem to believe, that they are independent in mind and spirit - on the contrary, my impression of them is that they are with few exceptions vapid, unimaginative and generally void of independent thought. I am almost certainly being too harsh here, judging them all by mere posters and flyers, many of them are I'm sure intelligent and thoughtful individuals, but they certainly don't seem to show it in what passes for their policy programmes. Elections are reduced to little more than popularity or beauty contests, attracting dismal turnouts from a justly apathetic student body.
Well, good luck Tom, anyway.
Tags: academia, politics
|
|
02:07 am
[Link] |
Britain to be democracy shocker
Well, ish.
Rather unexpectedly (to cynical old me at any rate), the UK House of Commons has voted in favour of a Wholly elected second chamber to replace the House of Lords, rejecting Government proposals for a 50% elected 50% appointed chamber. I guess the timing ain't great for the appointment-fans, what with the 'cash for honours' investigations n'all. "50% elected 50% auctioned" really doesn't sounds as appealing.
This is not the end of the matter, as the vote is merely advisory and, in a classic piece of absurdity, MPs also voted for an 80% elected 20% appointed chamber. It seems the government decided the idea of a preference-ordering vote amongst the various options was too complex for the poor dears, so they had to vote individually for or against every one of the nine options. They therefore missed a clear opportunity for comedy by voting for a wholly elected AND a wholly appointed chamber. (Last time they managed to vote against every option.)
However, the wholly-elected option won a far greater majority, and the government have indicated that they will go with the vote in future legislation.
There are plenty of caveats here. According to the Government's plans (more fully presented in their White Paper, the current appointed and hereditary peers are only likely to be removed gradually. The C of E Bishops are expected to keep their automatic seats - love 'em (most of them anyway), but giving a particular religious denomination's leaders a constitutional say in legislation is really a bit dubious in a modern democracy. On the other hand, if it makes us more amicably disposed towards, and therefore less likely to bomb, Iran by virtue of our shared constitutional philosophies, there might be some advantages.
There are a lot of other big questions - timing of elections (the Govt. is suggesting alongside the Euro elections), lengths of terms (15-years), size of chamber (540), and perhaps most importantly, the electoral system.
( gets slightly geeky here )
The other big caveat to the "Britain to be democracy!" party is that the Royal Prerogative is not in any danger of going - a whole raft of powers that theoretically reside with the Monarch, but which in practice are exercised by the Prime Minister, allowing hir to act without reference to Parliament in a rather scary number of ways. Including, most seriously, declaring war.
So a little way to go yet. (Aside from the whole political system being dominated by big business, but that's a whole nother story.)
Tags: politics, uk politcis
|
|
12:47 am
[Link] |
On demo numbers
It is well known that police and demo organisers always give wildly different figures for numbers at demonstrations. (The pro-hunting Countryside Alliance demo of 2002 being a noticable exception - hmm, wonder why). At last week's Stop the War demo, the organisers claimed 100,000, the police claimed 10,000. (Having originally said 2-3,000, which was clearly ludicrous.) I am highly suspicious of police figures, but obviously organisers have a clear incentive to exaggerate. It is hard to know what to think - the facile thing is to say "The truth is probably somewhere inbetween", but there's no real evidence for that. What exactly does 100,000 people look like anyway? If it happened to be 120,000, how would the organisers know that they should be exaggerating things up to 200,000 rather than sticking with the 100,000 they were planning on saying? There is no real good science of this, afaik.
Just once in a while though, someone gets caught in a blatant porky. Apparently one time at Greenham Common, the police estimate was actually lower than the number of protestors' cars in the nearby car park!
Regarding last weekend's demo, the police seem to have once again been a little overeager in massaging down the numbers. This from teh STW email bulletin (can't find website version):
"How do we know the figure of 10,000 was nonsense? The combined total of placards distributed at the start of the rally by Stop the War, CND, BMI and just two other organisations affiliated to Stop the War was over 10,000. Many more placards were distributed by other groups. Look at
any picture of the march and it is clear that only a minority carried placards. The ratio is around 5-10 people not carrying placards to one person carrying a placard. The maths is quite simple for the whole demonstration."
Granted that it's possible that some people took more than one placard (I sometimes do), and that the 5-10 people per placard may be just as wild a guess as the rest, the basic point would seem to stand that the actual numbers must have been much higher than the police estimate.
How does one estimate numbers at a demo anyway? (Apart from the traditional 'ideologically motivated guess')
Tags: peace, politics, uk politics, war
|
|
10:34 pm
[Link] |
Lacking a title
Weekend away at Unite for Peace, sadly without a poorly mirabehn, and mostly_a_cat. As Fellowship of Reconciliation have now sold the Eirene Centre in Northamptonshire where we used to meet, we were at Douai Abbey in Berkshire, which seems quite satisfactory, and is certainly more convenient for me, though not so much for the Midland folks.
Normally we have various sessions, discussions, sometimes speakers, on one topic or another, but this time as our weekend coincided with the latest Stop the War demo in London, we spent the Saturday there.
A good day out, nice to be going with a bunch of people I know well, though the lack of effectiveness of these demos is rather dispiriting to me at any rate. Between 10-100,000, depending on whether you believe the random numbers made up by the police or the organisers (I don't believe either, nor do I believe that "the truth is probably somewhere in the middle"), but pretty much lacking in political impact either way. Although we seem to be sliding ever closer to war with Iran, which would be an untold catastrophe, there seems to be a total sense of apathy and... torpor amongst people about it - and Stop the War seem to just keep on bashing their heads against the same wall, another demo every six months, congratulating themselves on how many people are still coming and how this is the greatest anti-war movement ever, and just absolutely no new ideas about how to actually mobilise people and have an impact. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for mass demos. I make a point of going on them whenever I can. But if marching from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square every six months is all we've got, we're screwed. (There was the demo at the Labour Conference in Manchester 6 months ago which, hypocrite, I missed as I was on my way back from Turkey, but still pretty much just another big demo.)
Still, a good day out. Seventeen of us, nine adults and eight children, the eldest of whom have been growing up with our little group (7 now). Just before the march set off we had a group photo with the FoR banner just outside Hyde Park, and all of a sudden there was this feeding frenzy of cameras around us - including some quite professional-looking ones - all wanting a piece of us! Either it was the whole "Look - cute children campaigning for peace!" thing, or a "Look at these terrible people BRAINWASHING their children and taking them on DEMOS ALONG WITH OMG MUSLIM FANATICS!!!!" thing. Hopefully the former.
Thursday evening I was in Birmingham, planning the next Called to be Peacemakers conference. Gah, I was most remiss in barely blogging the last one, before or after. We're planning it for late Octoberish again, date tbc, general theme of Conflict Resolution/Transformation (at all levels). Martha, the FoR worker doing the main organising, seems pleased to treat me as an honorary young-person (or at least a slightly-older-than-young person wot comes along in a nominally organisey/helping-out capacity), and seems to think me being around is a Good Thing despite my advanced years, so I stick around. There were several of the new people from the last conference along at the planning meeting, which is an encouraging sign. Anyway, watch this space for further details.
*sigh* Monday beckons ever larger. Rarely a popular day of the week, this year I have had the supreme joy of starting the week with an 8.30am seminar. I'm sure 8.30am classes must count as Cruel and Unusual, for both students and teachers. And that's the first of six hours teaching, so I finish the day a crumpled-up ball of deadness. Ah, well. Set internal dukebox to Boomtown Rats.
Tags: life, peace, politics, uk politics, unite for peace, war
|
|
01:08 am
[Link] |
ESOL and asylum-seekers
We had a UCU (Universities and Colleges Union) branch meeting at UWE today, which included a talk from people from the Bristol Defend Asylum Seekers Campaign on a subject I've managed to miss: the government's plans to cut funding for ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teaching for immigrants, asylum seekers in particular.
All while the Government (and many others) keeps on telling immigrants how they must learn English to integrate.
Our speakers told us about a weekly drop-in centre they run in the city centre for asylum-seekers and others to aid with their English language learning, both to supplement formal teaching with extra conversation practice etc., and to provide some sort of service for those who currently lack access. They have more demand than they can possibly deal with, and that's before the cuts to funding. There is no lack of willingness to learn English, there is a lack of opportunity.
The Government apparently justifies withdrawing ESOL funding from asylum-seekers on the grounds that most get rejected and they're now speeding up the process of deportation. However (1) appeals processes still take quite a while; (2) even voluntary deportation still takes a long time, and many failed asylum-seekers sign agreements with the government allowing them to stay for a considerable period but agreeing to leave thereafter; (3) Some people can't go back because their countries won't take them - for example Eritreans ethnically cleansed from parts of Ethiopia recently; and
(4) Perhaps most importantly, a lot of asylum-seekers denied refugee status will, with exceptionally good reason, do everything they can to cling like limpets to this country rather than be sent home, for as long as possible, because although they do not meet the extremely strict criteria for refugee status, they face persecution and death if they return home.
Here's some examples, and this is another thing I was more or less aware of but where I'd pretty much taken my eye off the ball - Iraqi asylum-seekers are routinely denied refugee status, and we are now attempting to send them back, as it is supposed to be 'safe'.
And another place from which we routinely deny asylum claims, and where we routinely try to send asylum-seekers back to their country of origin.
Darfur.
Yep, the two most bloody and lethal conflicts on the planet right now, and we reject asylum claims from people fleeing them, and try to send them back.
There is a Parliamentary Early Day Motion EDM 383 to ask your MP to sign. Usual place, Theyworkforyou.com to get in touch easily.
ETA: There is also a mass lobby of Parliament on the subject of ESOL next Wednesday, February 28th. See here for more details. Hat-tip st_egfroth.
Tags: academia, asylum-seekers, politics, uk politics
|
|
10:43 pm
[Link] |
He who wields the dagger
There is a saying that is often used in UK politics along the lines of "He who wields the dagger never wears the crown" (or seldom wears the crown or similar.) I just had occasion to quote it in a totally irrelevant context, but it set me wondering as to where this comes from. I'd sort of assumed it was some literary reference.
I Googled "He who wields the dagger" however, which seems to be common to the different versions, and there were only about 50 hits, almost all of them relating to UK politics. The common reference point seems to be the dethronement of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1990 (Which, were it not such a happy event would have all the hallmarks of classic tragedy.
( For those who aren't familiar with the events )
Thus Heseltine, who wielded the dagger, did not wear the crown. But although a lot of the links that quote this line, often in connection with the potential unseating of political party leaders, describe it as an 'old saying', I can't find a reference to anything before the Tory coup of 1990. One link says "As Brutus discovered...", but it is definitely not from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, nor from Antony and Cleopatra, where it might also fit. Nor yet the Histories, as I checked on this rather good Online collection of Shakespeare scripts.
Heathen that I am, I have not yet read all of the Bard's works, but I rather suspect it is not from Shakespeare at all; it sort of fools you into thinking it's some sort of Shakesperean reference by its weighty, tragic theme, and its rhythm (though it is not in pentameter). But I'm beginning to think that it is of much more recent origin, possibly coming out of the events of 1990 themselves. One of the links attributed the quote to Heseltine himself, though I'm not sure of the reliability of that, or when he's supposed to have said it.
And thus I turn to teh wise intarwebs, to see if any of you out there have any clue as to the origins of this saying; is it some literary reference, or quote by some ancient statesman or whatever, or is it of much more recent derivation?
It's rather ironic if it does originate from as recently as 1990 or thereabouts, as this supposedly ancient principle tends to be cited as The Key Reason why Gordon Brown must not make any decisive moves to unseat Tony Blair. Especially as, if one looks a bit further back than 1990, it's utter bollocks. The one who wields the dagger very often does wear the crown.
Is it possible that Gordon Brown is being held back by such a bugbear? And might he yet, for fear of becoming a Brutus, end up as a Hamlet?
Tags: politics, uk politics
|
|
12:11 am
[Link] |
More on BAE and the Saudi deal
I have posted a fair bit recently on the allegations of corruption surrounding the gigantic Al Yamamah arms sales to Saudi Arabia by Wolfram & Hart (UK) plc BAE Systems, and how the UK Government called off the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the deals, which appeared to have been getting quite close to the bone.
Well, Campaign Against Arms Trade have not been content to leave it at that, but along with the Cornerhouse Foundation, a small but incredibly active anti-corruption charity, are seeking a judicial review of the decision, on the grounds that it is (in our opinion) flagrantly contrary to the OECD Convention on Bribery to which Britain is a signatory.
Well, the latest twist (as we have just press released) is that BAE Systems recently received confidential and legally privileged material belonging to CAAT relating to the proposed challenge. The material has been returned to CAAT voluntarily, but BAE has refused to state how it came into possession of the material. CAAT is therefore seeking an injunction next Friday (2nd Feb) compelling BAE to assist in identifying the source of the leak.
I'm afraid I can't say much more about this at the moment, given that as a member of CAAT Steering Committee I am a party to these proceedings.
Though I think I might call to mind some of the interesting (flocked unfortunately) history on this kind of matter.
Tags: arms trade, bae systems, politics, uk politics
|
|
11:38 pm
[Link] |
Al Jazeera interview
Well, had the interview on Al Jazeera English. Think it went pretty well - had about 3 minutes, and I got pretty much all the main points I wanted to across - it was, it must be said a pretty friendly interview, in the context of a very friendly piece. And well, in terms of arguing how badly wrong the government is on this one is pretty much an open goal. Still, I think I was reasonably punchy. What I'm less sure of is how I was visually, although the person at the BBC Bristol studio from where the IV was conducted says I was fine. I've only done one TV slot before, so not very used to it. Also, not being able to see the interviewer at the other end. Constantly tempted to look down at the monitor, which is bad because I was never looking good in the monitor, which is because I'm not supposed to be looking at the monitor, but straight at the camera, even though the camera isn't showing me anything back.
I was hoping to catch a repeat on a later bulletin, but it seems to have been bumped from the news cycle. But I've been told I can get a DVD.
This all relates to the government's decision to call off the Serious Fraud Office investigation into alleged bribes by BAE systems to the Saudi government to secure major arms contracts. There's been some more developments - today it transpired that MI6 have disputed government claims that continuing the investigation would have led to the Saudis halting intelligence co-operation, pulling away one of the government's few remaining legs to stand on. In any case, as I said on AJ, the OECD convention on bribery to which Britain is a signatory actually doesn't allow a prosecution to not be pursued on the grounds of either economic interest or relations with another country. In fact, Britain is to be asked to explain the decision to an OECD meeting, although no action is expected to follow from this.
The other juicy little titbit that's just come out is the secret $12m payment to a Swiss bank account by BAE to a Tanzanian middleman in connection with a 2002 sale of a $40m military air traffic control system to Tanzania. That deal was heavily criticised at the time as being overly expensive and far in excess of Tanzania's actual civil aviation needs. Then International Development Secretary Clare Short unsuccessfully opposed the deal. At the time it looked like the Tanzanian government had been duped into buying an unnecessarily fancy system. Now it appears that they were in fact bribed, with the full connivance of the UK government.
Yep, BAE appear to have bribed the rulers of one of the poorest countries on earth to spend $40m of their people's money on something they didn't need, while Tony Blair, even while seeking the moral high ground on debt relief etc., looked on with approval.
I expect I will have more to say about Wolfram & Hart (UK) in the coming days, but that'll do for now.
Tags: arms trade, bae systems, politics, uk politics
|
|
12:56 am
[Link] |
Rowan in Bethlehem
Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, along with British RC Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, Free Churches Moderator David Coffey and Armenian Patriarch of Great Britain Bishop Nathan Hovhannisian, visited Bethlehem today, passing through the illegal Israeli wall that has virtually surrounded the city, separating it from Jerusalem and strangling it economically, with unemployment soaring to 65%, and a growing exodus of especially its Christian population.
Rowan Williams described the wall as a "sign of all that is wrong with the human heart".
The visitors were all granted honorary citizenship of Bethlehem, an offer that is to be broadened out in 2007.
For more info, visit Open Bethlehem.
Another very good article on Palestine on the front page of tomorrow's Independent, on the plight of pregnant women in a land under occupation, seige and international boycott.
( full text of Rowan Williams' speech )
Tags: palestine, politics
|
|
03:20 am
[Link] |
Book review: The Blood Never Dried
I’ve lately finished reading a rather good book, The Blood Never Dried, subtitled ‘a people’s history of the British Empire’, by John Newsinger. I heard him speak at a Socialist Workers Forum in Bristol last year, and he was extremely interesting, and I had long been inclined to buy his book.
(The title comes from a quote from the Chartist leader Ernest Jones in 1851; "On its colonies the sun never sets, but the blood never dries".)
The book is carefully researched and referenced, though it is certainly only presenting one side of the story. But the story it presents is compelling, horrifying, even sickening.
Gordon Brown recently said that we should “stop apologising for the British Empire”. (I wasn’t aware that we’d ever done so.) Leading historian Niall Ferguson has recently presented the other side, in “Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World”, arguing for the positive side of the British Empire. The issue is of particular relevance in our day given the newly aggressive imperialism of the US and the UK.
I have always been, by instinct, against the concept of Empire, British or otherwise, but have always had the idea somewhere in my head, in a place that is rather difficult to shift, that the British Empire wasn’t as bad as many others, say the French or the Spanish or the Portuguese or the Belgian (and all of those certainly have the most unspeakable atrocities to their record). I think there’s a general perception out there in this country, from the history books and the media and so forth that there was a basically well-meaning intent behind a lot of what went on, albeit misguided, arrogant and prone to excess; and that the British Empire (and perhaps other empires too) brought many benefits as well as harm. (Indeed the view that we brought them civilisation and democracy etc. remains, I think, quite prevalent.) I’ve always known that this is a load of bollocks, but the idea seems so pervasive in our culture that it’s been hard to shake from one’s mind.
This book does a pretty good job of that. If you think that the British weren’t as bad as the rest. If you think British imperialism was at least to some extent well-intentioned. If you think that we brought benefits to the people we conquered. If you think we gave up our empire voluntarily. If you think we left India because Ghandi’s non-violence led our leaders to see the justice of the Indian cause; or if you just want to learn a lot more about a significant and sorry chapter in world history, in a reasonably condense form, then this book is well worth a read.
( read on )
What is eye-opening about this is the picture of the slaves not as passive victims, waiting for God and Wilberforce to deliver them, but active agents of their own emancipation. Well, duh, one might say. But it is a story most of us hear so rarely, I think. It is all about Us. The British guilty of slavery and the slave trade, certainly, but the British also eventually choosing to end it.
I could go through every chapter thus, (and may post further on all this), but my brain is fading, and you should read the book anyway!
Tags: book reviews, politics
|
|
01:19 am
[Link] |
Breathtaking
This is almost beyond belief. Actually, nothing is beyond belief. Just that it should be done so brazenly.
I posted a couple of weeks ago about the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribes paid by BAE Systems in relation to arms deals with Saudi Arabia, leading to the Saudis threatening to cancel a new £6bn contract for 72 Eurofighters. Well now the British government has stepped in, with the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith calling a halt to the investigation.
Lord Goldsmith's statement said "It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest." he spoke of damage to diplomatic and security relationships with Saudi Arabia if the investigation continued. This is astounding. Politicians have intervened in a judicial process, have suspended the rule of law, at the behest of one of the most corrupt and tyrannical regimes on the face of the planet. BAE are effectively told that they are allowed to carry on bribing to their hearts content. There are no words. There really are no words.
But the hand controlling the puppet here is not principally the Saudi government, it is BAE Systems, of whom the late Robin Cook said that he had never known Tony Blair to take a decision that discommoded them. We have known for a long time that the government essentially belonged to BAE in matters of arms exports; now it seems that the entire legal system of this country is theirs to play with where it affects their vital interest.
Tony Blair still plays the Christian card. Talks, like butter wouldn't melt, about how we mustn't 'betray' the people of Iraq. About the virtues of democracy. About how African governments must crack down on corruption. "You may disagree with me," he seems to say, "but I have followed my conscience. I have acted for what I believe to be right." For anyone paying attention, that lie ought already to be palpable; but if it wasn't then, it is now.
One day the House of Saud, that presides over a regime of brutal execution, torture, total suppression of free speech and suppression of women (another of Blair's favourite causes when it suits him) almost unrivalled in the world, will fall. Then we will see how much it was in our "national interest" to support them so absolutely and unconditionally, to bribe them billions to buy our arms, and now even to prostitute our entire legal system to their wishes.
Tags: arms trade, politics, uk politics
|
|
10:35 pm
[Link] |
Veiled comments
the_alchemist has made one of the best comments I've seen so far on the whole veil issue raised by Jack Straw a few days ago. To quote the_alchemist's conclusion:
Everything women wear has some kind of negative connotation, roots in something sexist, because our culture and society - every culture and society - arose out of one in which women were systematically oppressed, and is still shot through with sexism. The only sensible response to this, particularly if you're a man, is to cut out all the 'buts' from "I uphold your right to wear whatever you like".
Only thing I'd add: what I most dislike about Straw's comments, now supported by Gordon Brown is this thing about wearing the veil being a "visible statement of separation and difference" and making "integration" with the "mainstream" more difficult.
Well, tough shit.
Since when did we all have to be part of the "mainstream"? Since when was it a bad thing to be "different"? And if a group of people want to be separate, well that is their business. Cloistered monks and nuns separate themself, and dress accordingly as a "visible statement of separation and difference". One could say the same of the Hasidic Jews of Stamford Hill. Goths and various other subcultures dress in a way that makes them look "different" and not part of the "mainstream". And yes, some people feel uncomfortable when they see people dressed that way. Deal with it. People are different. We believe different things, wear different things, do different things. It's utterly shocking that the "backlash against multiculturalism" means this even needs to be said.
Tags: politics
|
[<< Previous 20 entries] |
0 (0.0%)