Thursday, November 23, 2006

Perfect Analysis

David Aaronovitch, writing in The Times last Tuesday, has produced one of the best pieces of analysis of Middle East politics that I've read in a very long time. I wanted to write an article about this excellent piece of writing but, dear reader, I think I'll just leave you to read Mr. Aaronovitch's work for yourself.

Enjoy!

Murderous States

The murder of the anti-Syrian Lebanese politician, Pierre Gemayel, on Tuesday could well be the straw that breaks the Lebanese camel's back. As with the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Syria is the prime suspect and, yet again, the Syrian government has strenuously denied any involvement.

The title of Gideon Rachman's latest article on his international affairs blog for the Financial Times sums up the situation: "Lebanon on the Brink". Many used such words after the death of Mr. Hariri, but Hezbollah seemed to distract everyone with their renewed attacks on Israel, which eventually lead to the recent war.

While I say that Syria is the prime suspect, and while I don't want to prejudice the ongoing investigation, who else has a motive? If it wasn't Syria, it was Hezbollah - but then "Syria" and "Hezbollah" are virtually interchangeable terms. This is why I am not convinced by the change of policy in the United States, which now appears to wish to engage with Syria (as well as Iran). If Syria had lain dormant for a while - or at least refrained from murdering politicians who oppose its influence in Lebanon - then perhaps this could be seen as a sensible decision by the State Department but, given recent events (not just this murder, but also the almost constant stream of weapons flowing from Syria to Hezbollah before and during the war), would it not have been more sensible for the Bush Administration to have taken the line espoused by their Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton? He believes that "additional assassinations might be coming" and, when asked about possible Syrian involvement, he said, "We need to find out all of the facts, but you can take a look at the pattern of who gets assassinated in Lebanon..."

As with a great many people, I can't say I often agree with John Bolton but, on this occasion, he seems to be one of the more sensible voices around.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Afghanistan: A Violent Paradox

On this morning's "Today" programme (on BBC Radio 4), there was a report from a journalist embedded with a British patrol in Afghanistan. The reporter went on a patrol around a small village with them and, on the way out (after delivering some medicines), the group was ambushed by some Taliban fighters armed with machine guns. After a short skirmish in which the British returned fire with rifles and artillery, the patrol was approached by a resident of the village, who said words to the effect of:
"Every time you enter our village, you are attacked by the Taliban; and every
time you return fire, you damage our homes, our livestock, and our crops."

This is what I mean by a "violent paradox": on the one hand, the British forces feel a duty to protect the Afghan people and help reconstruct their country from the ruins created both by the Taliban and the war started in 2001; on the other, their very presence seems to beget violence, both against the troops themselves and Afghan civilians. This is precisely what annoys me about the level of argument currently portrayed in the media on this conflict (and, for that matter, Iraq). It is true that the presence of foreign troops antagonises a violent minority and irritates much of the rest of the civilian population, but much of the current debate is focused on a "rock solid" two-sided argument: do we withdraw out troops now (or at least according to a short-term timetable) or do we stay in for the long run - "until the job is done", to paraphrase President Bush?

This debate needs to rise above the level of pacifism versus aggression. As usual, the current two-sided argument is a gross simplification of the real range of views prevalent in the world and, as usual, I find myself torn between the two. On the one hand, the West can't leave its troops in Afganistan (and Iraq) indefinitely; on the other hand, withdrawing rapidly in the near future would almost certainly start a civil war. As I said: it's a violent paradox.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

International Influence

Do blogs influence politicians? Maybe so, since I just discovered that this blog has been visited by two people at the US Senate! Their referrers (i.e. the page they visited before mine, or the page that linked to mine) are also interesting: one searched Google for
investigation questions "palestinian coalition" association with hezbollah
and one searched Technorati for "niqab".

Ok, end of trivia, back to politics!

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Immature Democracies

"Abbas Says He May Dismiss Hamas Government", declared the New York Times today. Yet another example of a recently democratised country (or autonomous region, in this case) threatening to fall into chaos.

The Neo-Conservative aim of spreading democracy throughout the world, especially in "rogue states", seems all well and good, but it has several failings. One of these, I believe, causes the type of situation described by the NY Times, above. The Neo-Con attitude seems to be that democracy comes first, and then Western civilisation and associated norms follow. For me, this process is the wrong way round, and the latter aim is both ridiculous and arrogant. Firstly, the ground must be prepared for democracy, rather than the world's preferred method of government being foisted upon an unconvinced population. By "preparing the ground" I mean:
  • explaining the electoral process
  • establishing rules by which elections will be run, including:
    • what is and is not acceptable during campaigns
    • acceptable methods of funding for political parties and candidates
  • establishing rules for political parties in general, for example:
    • no party can be allowed to associate itself with any sort of militia or other armed group
My other major problem with the Neo-Con approach is the assumption that countries such as Iraq will want to adopt the Western way of life and that their population approves of Western culture. I do not accept the argument that some countries simply "don't want" democracy, or that it is an unsuitable form of government for them. However, I do believe that not all countries are ready for democracy at the present time; any country that has been ruled undemocratically for decades will need to adjust to any new freedoms.

To return to the NY Times article, I think that Mr. Abbas's suggestion to replace the current government with one comprised of technocrats is a good one, and could greatly improve the lives of the Palestinian people. I do not think that new elections would be sensible (although many people may now move their allegiance away from Hamas, given their poor record in government) as this would simply be propogating the problem of the Palestinian Territories' immature democracy. Until policy related to Israel ceases to overwhelm all domestic policy in the Palestinian legislature, elections will continue be counterproductive as the results will mostly reflect Palestinians' attitude towards Israel, rather than any concern for good governance.

And as for Iraq, what's Blogger's word limit?!

Monday, October 16, 2006

Veiled threats

There has much discussion about Muslim women who wear the niqab, a form of veil that covers the entire face apart from a slit allowing the wearer to see. The debate became public after the Leader of the House (of Commons), former Foreign Secretary and MP for Blackburn, Jack Straw, revealed that he asked Muslim women if they would mind removing their veil during the regular meetings he holds for constituents (known as "surgeries" by most MPs). It must be made clear that he did not demand the removal of the veil; he merely requested it. He later said that many women were happy to oblige but that he understood those women who refused his request.

More recently, it was revealed that a Muslim woman working as a teaching assistant at a school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, had been asked to remove her veil during class by the school's headteacher. She agreed, on condition that she was allowed to continue covering her face in view of male colleagues. There has since been significant discussion about where it is and is not appropriate to wear the veil - if at all. A government minister went so far (too far, in my opinion) as to suggest that the person in question be sacked.

This is another argument where freedoms guaranteed under various human rights conventions come up against perceived threats to social cohesion. On the one hand, human rights law (in general and, in Britain, the Human Rights Act) demands that people be allowed to wear whatever religious dress they choose; on the other, the government has a responsibility to maintain a cohesive, integrated society.

Trevor Phillips OBE, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, once said that Britain is "sleepwalking towards segregation" - he was right. If we continue to allow people to differentiate themselves to the exclusion of others, we will indeed end up with a society that becomes increasingly segregated to the detriment of all. However, we should not try to find a solution to this problem using legislation, as this government is so fond of doing. Instead, we should ensure that the debate within the Muslim community about the validity, in Islamic law, of the niqab (and, indeed, the headscarf or hijab) in Western society continues, and that those who see it as an absolute requirement for all Muslim women - a minority of clerics and scholars, I am led to believe - are shown to be both unrepresentative and unauthoritative. In this way, fewer women will feel obliged to wear such restrictive forms of dress and, hopefully, more will find that integration is not only better for them on a personal level, but that it is better for society as a whole.

As an aside, it is interesting to note the opposition to both the niqab and hijab by the governments of some majority Muslim countries, such as Turkey and Tunisia. The reformed Turkish state, led by Kamal Attaturk, banned virtually all forms of religious dress in the country's constitution, and the Tunisian government has recently asked the police to arrest women wearing the hijab on the street and demand that they sign a pledge not to do so in the future. It is unclear how the Tunisian population will react to its government's actions, but those Turks who saw the hijab as a fundamental basis of their religion acted as one - and emigrated. Hence the ever-growing Turkish community in Western Europe, particularly Germany. So, now we have a subtly ironic situation, where the hijab is banned in a Muslim country, and those Muslims who wish to wear it choose to emigrate to liberal non-Muslim (indeed, majority Christian) countries where they are allowed to do so!

All this leaves me in a quandary: either we (by which I mean Western Europe) bans the hijab, the niqab, and similar forms of dress, as other countries have done (at least in public places); or we continue to allow it, but make sure that the voices within the Muslim community speaking out against the veil are heard by all. The first solution goes against my general opposition to legislation against what is, basically, a human right, even if it could be considered a minor one when the social cohesion of Western Europe is at stake. The second, however, seems rather altruistic and, frankly, I don't think it has much chance of working. Realistically, however, I think that a combination of these two solutions will be attempted by most countries: attempts will be made to make the wearing of the niqab, in particular, even more against social norms that it is currently, but then various levels of legislation will be enacted to ban such clothing in public places/government buildings/schools/everywhere (delete as appropriate!).

Many have said that such legislation would cause a crisis with regards to human rights but, in my opinion, that has already happened. In order to solve this problem in the very long term, the whole idea of human rights needs to be reconsidered from the ground up. The basic principle that such rights apply to every human being in every circumstance, within reason, should still stand - otherwise, what's the point? - but such universal rights should be more limited than is currently the case. "freedom of religious expression", in particular, needs to be looked at very carefully, given the level to which religion - and, therefore, this right - is being abused by those who wish to kill innocent people to further their political aims; one human right - "freedom of religious expression" - is being used to deny another, much more fundamental right - "the right to life". To summarise, there must be an exemption stating that those who deny others the right to life should not be able to claim that they are doing so because of another human right; currently this happens implicitly every time a Hamas suicide bomber kills a dozen Israelis in Tel Aviv, and every time a truck bomb is driven into a government building in Baghdad. It is painful to say that some people do not deserve the protection of human rights, but when they deny the most basic right - that of life - to others, it is difficult for the world to justify such protection.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

The Enemy of Your Enemy...

...is your friend, as the saying (and lyrics from Asian Dub Foundation's song, "Enemy of the Enemy") goes.

The Thai Prime Minister was recently ousted in a military coup, lead by a senior army general. The coup was near-bloodless and received minimal condemnation from world leaders. The intentions of the coup's leaders are, as yet, unclear but they have promised to hold eletions within a year and return to full democracy within two years. It is also unclear whether or not (former) Prime Minister Thaksin will be allowed to stand in any future elections. However, previous coups have expressed similar sentiments in support of a return to democracy, and have delayed and delayed to the extent that they become de facto rulers for several years.

Several years ago, General Musharraf took control of Pakistan in a similar coup and was condemned as above. Now that he has retained power, his government is recognised by the vast majority of UN members - why? He has not won any completely fair election and has no plans to reform the laws governing those elections. Cynics would say that it is the general's support for the US "War on Terror" (a phrase that, IMHO, still demands quotation marks) that has gained him international support or, at least, tolerance. I'm not sure that's the whole story, but it appears to have some basis. The US seem to have rationalised the situation:
  1. He's not an Ilamic fundamentalist.
  2. He opposed the Taleban in Afghanistan.
Ergo, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

As the new Thai government hasn't expressed any particular position with regards to any important aspect of foreign policy, the world is reserving judgement. Perhaps this view is rather cynical; indeed, a more charitable person would say that the world is simply avoiding interference in what is, mostly anyway, an internal matter for the Thai people. Then again, is it not now clear that the West, and the US in particular, feels that it is it's right to "police" the world? If so, why are Western democracies not condemning more openly the Thai coup?

Perhaps these questions will only be answered in the contents of diplomatic pouches, but the West should consider if it really sees democracy as something to be spread vigorously around the world, or if it should take a more "softly, softly" approach, i.e. if it is with the US or against it, to paraphrase President Bush.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Syrian Attitude

Today's attack on the US Embassy in Damascus, Syria, followed the fifth anniversary of the 11/9 attacks (as I insist on calling them). This event was marked in Syria by the staff of the US Embassy observing a minute's silence and taking part in a short ceremony. The Syrian public largely boycotted the event and the government of President Assad took no part in it. Perhaps one could not expect a mass outpouring of grief on the streets of Damascus, but to expect the participation of a representative of the government is surely not too much to ask?

This event just goes to show the attitude of the Syrian public towards America; they don't just dislike US foreign policy (as much of the world does), they dislike the superpower to the extent that they have no sympathy for the 2,800 people who died 5 years ago yesterday. And when you realise how much they hate America, multiply that several times to reach the extent to which they hate Israel. Although Syria funds Hezbollah partly to retain some influence in Lebanon, it is seen by the Syrian public as a way to attack its most hated neighbour, perhaps to destroy it one day.

The US Government (rightly, IMHO) withdrew their ambassador from Damascus some time ago. (The embassy is now run by staffers.) Perhaps this move was prescient, given today's attack, but its wider significance is that it represents the way in which America responds to those who violently disagree with their foreign policy: it refuses to engage with them. The attitude of the US Government seems to be, "Hey, there's this isolationist state whose government hates our foreign policy - let's further isolate them by cutting diplomatic ties! All those in favour..."

This tactic has been shunned by the two main Palestinian political parties, Fatah and Hamas. While I intensely dislike both of these groups (Fatah for their corruption, and the suffering this brought upon the Palestinian people, and Hamas for their murderous tendencies, to put it mildly), their recent statement of a wish to cooperate in a government of national unity is very promising. It could easily lead to a de facto recognition of Israel and, therefore, to renewed peace talks. PM Olmert has already agreed to hold talks with Chairman Abbas, although he is still refusing to talk to PM Haniyeh of Hamas. Perhaps this Palestinian coalition as a whole will constitute a "partner for peace", as the Israelis call those with whom they feel they can talk.

With this development, and the gradual deployment of UN forces in Lebanon, my optimism is growing by the day.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Disproportionate response?

Israel was recently attacked by the Lebanese Islamic movement, Hezbollah, on its northern border. Two of its soldiers were captured and innumerable rockets and missiles have been fired at Israeli towns and, yesterday, the city of Haifa. Israel responded by shelling suspected Hezbollah positions with long-range artillery and by targeting air strikes at Hezbollah offices in Beirut. This response has been deemed disproportionate by many in the international community and, while they have the right to their opinion, the supposedly objective media does not. Most television and radio reports in the UK have seen Israel's action as a response to the capture of its soldiers; if this was the whole story, such a response would indeed be disproportionate. However, the reality is that Hezbollah has been firing rockets across the border for months, if not years, and the kidnapping was simply the straw that broke the camel's back: Israel is not simply responding in this way in an effort to retrieve its soldiers, it is defending itself against a long-running campaign of guerilla warfare, and the sooner the world's media recognises that, the better.

Monday, July 10, 2006

Why, Zizou? Why?!

The retiring French football captain, Zinedine Zidane, was sent off in yesterday's World Cup Final for head-butting Italian defender Marco Materazzi. Zidane today said, through his agent, that words had been exchanged and that Materazzi had made (in paraphrase) "very serious" comments about the Frenchman. Zidane went on to win the Player of the Tournament award from FIFA, football's international governing body.

Surely Zidane should have refused the award on the grounds that violent conduct should not be condoned in this way? It's not that accepting the award would make him a role model for young players; he already carries that status, as shown in the many press conferences before the final. However, it would have been an excellent show of integrity - and an implicit apology - if Zidane had passed the award on to the second-placed player, Italian defender Fabio Cannavaro.

Having said that, Zidane has already ended his career in a mixture of disgrace and celebration, so to deny him an award which he surely deserves, if the red card is ignored, might seem rather unfair. I am very interested to hear people's opinions on this one...

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Update: Unreported

(See original article: Unreported)

I have recently heard that the Israeli Government has found that elements of its report were incorrect. It now seems possible that the deaths were caused by an Israeli shell fired in error, possibly against orders.

It is interesting, however, that this item of news was much more widely reported than the original report, which exonerated the IDF. The media are ready and willing to attack states when they make mistakes, but when rebel/militant/terrorist groups make regular small-scale attacks on civilians (such as the numerous Qassam rockets fired every day at Israeli towns from Palestinian positions), this remains largely - to quote my original article - unreported.

Liquid Assets

Thames Water, the company holding the monopoly over water supply and sewage treatment in the Greater London area, is in crisis... or is it? The company made a profit of £450m on a turnover of £1.4bn last year, and returned £246m to shareholders in dividends - what crisis?

The other side of the story is that the company's water leakage record is scandalous. They have failed to meet their own targets on leakages from public water mains three years running, and are still replacing Victorian mains in many areas. Surely Victorian piping should have been replaced 50 years ago...

The company defends itself by saying that it has to make a profit or shareholders will not invest. This is simultaneously patronising and absurd, and shows why privately-owned profit-making companies should not be running public service monoplies like water supply. They also argue that they have fixed more leaks than the previous nationalised utility, but this entirely due to the ever-aging network and poor maintenance by said utility.

However, this does not excuse Thames from doing a generally awful job. Surely the first thing the chairman of the newly-formed monopoly company should have said at the inaugural board meeting should have been, "We must replace all of these Victorian pipes." It seems that such an obvious measure was overlooked in favour of cutting rates (relative to previous years' rises) to persuade the public that privatisation was working.

Yet again a privatised public service has failed, and yet again it is not accountable to anyone. The regulator, OFWAT, could fine the company, but they would argue that such action would reduce their ability to meet their targets in future years. (In any case, money raised from such fines goes directly to the Treasury and does nothing to help alleviate water supply problems.) They could also be ordered to cut their rates, but this would bankrupt the company as banks would refuse to offer loans due to "regulatory risk", i.e. the risk of said fines being applied.

In addition, there is no competition in the water supply sector. I am not proposing that there should be - indeed, I would prefer to see the whole system renationalised and amalgamated into a single company - but the gas and electricity supply sector is doing relatively well since market forces were left to do their work.

All this just goes to show that the purpose of privatisation is to move problems in public services away from government ministers and into the hands of unaccountable private businessmen, and a regulator which has no power to do anything to remedy the situation when things go wrong is no regulator whatsoever.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Unreported

It appears that much of the Western media has failed to notice the publication of a report by the Israeli Government, which concludes that the deaths of several people on a beach in the Gaza Strip were not caused by Israeli fire. The report provides evidence to back up this conclusion, including some taken from shrapnel found on the beach. The report states that no Israeli ammunition of the type of which remains were found on the beach was used that day. Therefore, there are only really three possibilities; the deaths could have been caused by:
  1. An unexploded bomb or land mine.
  2. A misdirected rocket fired from a Palestinian position.
  3. An Israeli soldier firing against orders.
I will deal with each of these in turn. It is possible that the beach was mined by the PLO in the past as a means of protecting the beach from Israeli troop landings, but the chances of a mine staying there that long, given the popularity of the stretch of beach in question, seem rather low to me.

The "Qassam" rockets regularly fired at Israeli towns by members of Palestinian terrorist groups are known to be highly unreliable and regularly misfire, but this usually results in injuries to the people firing the missile rather than innocent bystanders. In any case, the missiles are not so poorly made that they would end up in completely the wrong place - their main weakness seems to be range control.

And as for an Israeli soldier firing on a Palestinian family on purpose, who would do such a thing? There have been incidents of Israeli soldiers killing civilians on purpose but such cases are few and far between and are prosecuted vigourously by the military authorities. Again, this seems unlikely.

So, my conclusion is that the whole incident was some sort of freak accident. I'd say my 1st option above was the most likely, but I will be very interested to hear the results of investigations by the Palestinians.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Why should we suffer?

By "we", I refer to students.

The Association of University Teachers (AUT), a trade union to which many British university lecturers belong, recently decided to take industrial action over pay. The union is demanding a 23% pay increase; the highest offer made by the employers is about half that. The industrial action will consist of lecturers involved in setting and marking examinations (the majority) not doing so. This could delay results and might even delay graduations.

This is a serious threat. However, why does the AUT feel it necessary to make the life of students misery at a time when we are all under enough stress as it is? If the union has a quarrel with its members' employers, why does it have to bring students into it? The National Union of Students (NUS) supports the action because it says that higher pay will mean higher quality education - but at what cost? I have sympathy for the lecturers' cause, but their industrial action is irresponsible at best. I can only hope that the UCEA (the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association) can sort this out before it turns into a national outrage and a disaster for a great many students, finalists in particular.

Update: I have just heard that the UCEA has said that some universities might have to lay off some staff in order to finance the pay rises - is this what the AUT want?

Follow-up: Nuclear Power

(See "To build or not to build..." for background.)

Tony Blair today announced that he believes that there should be a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK. As I said in my recent post, nuclear isn't the perfect solution but it's the best we've got as far as solving the energy crisis goes.

Good luck to him (and/or his successor) getting it through Parliament though - it won't be an easy ride.

Human Rights of Convicted Criminals

Nine Afghans were recently granted leave to remain (and work) in Britain after, in 2000, they hijacked a Boeing 727 on an internal flight in Afghanistan and forced it to land at Stansted Airport, near London. Mr. Justice Sullivan ruled that although in normal circumstances they would be deported back to their country of origin, this was incompatible with the Human Rights Act (an implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights) as sending the nine back to Afghanistan might endanger their lives.

What seems to have been missed in this case is that not only was Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling completely compatible with British law, it complies perfectly with the European Convention. Many, including the Prime Minister, have called for amendments to the Human Rights Act, but I find it difficult to see what could be changed without forcing Britain to withdraw from the Convention.

The Government have found themselves between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand there is the majority of public opinion, which wants foreign criminals promptly deported; on the other hand there is the principle of human rights. It is rare for the majority of public opinion in a Western liberal democracy, such as Britain, to be opposed to the Human Rights Act, as it stands, but that's where it currently is - even if few would admit it.

Now the Home Office has to decide what it can do to stay within the rules of the Convention while preventing a similar ruling being given in the future. Needless to say, this is a near-impossible task. The obvious solution would be to put people in prison, but then what should be done once their sentence finishes? The train of thought then leads us to life imprisonment, but that would be impractical, expensive, and unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps we could deport such criminals to third countries, but which countries would stand up and say, "Yes, we want some criminals!"? Or, we could say that criminals lose their human rights as soon as they commit a crime of a certain seriousness, but that goes against the most basic principle of human rights (that they apply to everyone in all circumstances) and then we have an argument over what "level" of crime would warrant the removal of the perpetrator's rights.

This is one issue where I genuinely have no opinion other than to say that something has to be done. What that "something" is, I'll leave to the powers-that-be.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Funding the Palestinians

I was delighted with yesterday's announcement that the "Quartet" group (The UN, USA, UK and Russia) had set up a trust fund into which money would be paid in order to support the Palestinian people. The international community has been arguing amongst itself about the merits or otherwise of funding the Palestinian Hamas-led government, given Hamas' hardline stance, but there is one general consensus: the rest of the world cannot punish the Palestinian people for their choice of leaders. It has seemed obvious to me for some time that a trust fund such as that now set up - which gives money direct to individual people or to public projects via NGOs - is the only sensible way to stop the Palestinian territories from going bankrupt.

If this move helps the Palestinians to understand that the world is not against them as a whole, just against their terrorist groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) then it will do a world of good in the Middle East conflict as a whole.

Monday, May 08, 2006

To build or not to build...

Debate in many countries, Britain included, has recently turned to the future of electricity supply, and the argument that, however much we invest in renewable energy technologies, they will never contribute significantly to our electricity grids. In Britain in particular, there simply isn't the space for wind farms or the rivers for hydroelectric dams. Tidal power is a promising technology but it appears that it will also be unable to fill the energy gap. So... the debate is now all about nuclear power and, specifically, the value of building new nuclear plants.

For me, nuclear power is the only solution to the energy gap. It may have many problems of its own - nuclear waste, high initial costs, risk of meltdown - but these can be reduced through investment in research, something that has been lacking in recent decades. When these very serious problems are compared to those of fossil fuels - there won't be any left soon, to put it bluntly - and renewable sources - not enough generation capacity - it becomes apparent, in my eyes, that nuclear really is the least of three evils. By all means we must continue to build wind farms, where practical - off-shore if possible, and to develop new renewable energy technologies but, in the mean time, we must act now by commissioning new nuclear plants before our dependency on fossil fuels drives us headlong into World War Three.

The British Government is due to publish its "Energy Review" shortly. Many believe that it is a stunt designed to show that nuclear is the best option, and many anti-nuclear activists bemoan this as if it's bad science: it isn't. It will be no government whitewash (or indeed hogwash) to suggest that the commissioning of new nuclear plants is the best option in the medium term, it just makes sense:
  1. We will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels dramatically within a few years.
  2. We will be able to take our time developing new renewable technologies rather than rushing them through to solve short-term energy supply problems.
Having said that I strongly support nuclear power, I am equally strongly against nuclear weapons. Whatever Iran's intentions, it is certainly rich of Britain and America, et al, to demand answers from the Iranians when they are not only in possession of large numbers of nuclear weapons (to me, that is not the main problem) but they are destroying them - as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - so slowly it beggars belief. Perhaps once the nuclear arms race is over, we can concentrate on the mass benefits of nuclear fission rather than its application as an agent of mass destruction.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Resignation

Under what circumstances should a politician resign? If he/she is running a department should any minor misdemeanor by departmental staff be a resignation issue? Certainly not. If he/she murders someone in cold blood? Certainly, although the judicial system should take care of that. So, what about all the possibilities in between? At what point does a politician become responsible for the actions of his/her underlings and what level of responsibility demands the rolling of heads?

All these questions have come to the fore, yet again, in British politics recently with the actions of Charles Clarke (former Home Secretary) and John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister). For those readers not into the intricacies of the Westminster "village", the former presided over a period when hundreds of foreign criminals we not considered for deportation upon release when they should have been, and the latter had an oh-so-traditional affair with a secretary in his department.

While the actions of Mr. Prescott might be immoral, it's debatable whether or not they demand the use of the governmental axe. Those of Mr. Clarke, however, are inexcusable. It would seem sensible to me that making such a serious sequence of errors over such a long period of time and failing to inform the Prime Minister, even when asked about it directly, and then ignoring several reports identifying the problem should demand an instant resignation - but not in the world of New Labour! Mr. Clarke refused to fall on his sword and had to be sacked by Tony Blair in his recent reshuffle.

So, it seems that my earlier assumption was right: anything but murder is fine...

Friday, April 07, 2006

James Miller

I've been following the case of the British film-maker James Miller with interest. For those of you who haven't, he was in the process of making a film called "Death in Gaza" about the lives of children in the Gaza Strip when he was shot dead while walking towards an Israeli Army position. He and his crew were holding a white flag illuminated by a torch and had fluorescent markings on their clothes saying "TV". Despite this, the video of the incident shows shots being fired from the direction of the Israeli position.

An inquest held by a London coroner (at St. Pancras) recently recorded a verdict of "unlawful killing". For those of you unfamiliar with the British legal process, this verdict implies that a criminal investigation should take place in the country where the death occurred. During the case, the coroner described the shots as being (my paraphrase) "slow, deliberate, and aimed". Therefore, he concluded, the jury should return a verdict of unlawful killing. (It is common in British coroner's inquests for the coroner to instruct the jury in this way.)

There was an inquiry by the Israeli Defense Forces held some time after Mr. Miller's death, which focused on a Lieutenant Heim. The Lieutenant was cleared of "misuse of firearms" and the Israeli authorities did not proceed with a prosecution for manslaughter (they had said earlier that a charge of murder was out of the question) due to insufficient evidence.

Mr. Miller's family, speaking after the conclusion of the inquest, said that the Israeli authorities must prosecute Lieutenant Heim for manslaughter or murder now that a verdict of unlawful killing has been recorded. I find such demands ridiculous. Israel is a democratic country and has a very respected legal system. The investigation there has taken years and there is still insufficient evidence. I do feel for Mr. Miller's family but they are in no position to demand that a foreign country wastes money on a prosecution which is unlikely to succeed. No matter the truth of the events surrounding Mr. Miller's death, if there is insufficient evidence then nothing can be done: this is in the nature of a democratic judicial process.

However, I am concerned about this case and the implications if anyone were to be convicted of a criminal offence related to it. For example, Mr. Miller could not have expected to be entirely safe in the Gaza Strip, one of the most dangerous places in the world, so he was putting his life at risk by filming there. Soldiers who are all-too-used to seeing Palestinian terrorists hiding bombs in ambulances are within their rights to be suspicious of a group of people walking towards them waving a white flag in the middle of the night. By no means am I justifying the killing of James Miller, far from it, but to characterise his killer as someone who is just "trigger-happy" is unfair. Incompetent, possibly, but not trigger-happy.

I have often wondered if the same furore would have occurred if Mr. Miller had been shot by a Palestinian. It seems to me that those who wish to (politically) attack Israel jumped on this case as an example of Israeli brutality and disregard for human rights, despite the fact that less foreigners die in Israel - a country under constant threat of attack by terrorists - than each of its Arab neighbours individually - countries generally regarded as 'safe'.

James Miller probably was killed by an Israeli soldier, but demanding that further judicial proceedings take place with insufficient evidence does not help anyone.

Welcome

Hi, I'm Allan - welcome to my blog: Radically Centrist!

First, I'd like to explain the title of my blog. Chambers dictionary defines "radical" as:
"in favour of or tending to produce thoroughgoing or extreme political and social reforms"
and "centrist" as:
"having moderate, non-extreme political opinions".

These may seem to be opposing definitions, but let me explain. I believe that left- and right-wing politics do not conform to the maxim of "pleasing most of the people most of the time" - for me, the fundamental aim of any political system. The ideals of centrism are generally undefined, in my opinion. The main aim of the centrist is to find a middle ground between the conventional left and right wings, represented (traditionally, but not necessarily in the current political climate) by the Labour and Conservative Parties in the UK, the Democrats and Republicans in the USA, and the Social and Christian Democrats in Germany. In this way, the maxim, above, can be achieved.

In future posts, I aim to set out my opinions on various topics (not necessarily strictly political) and determine if I can achieve my favourite maxim.