Various threats to humanity

In a piece posted on ZNet this morning, Dahr Jamail warns that a siege of Baghdad is likely to entrench Iraqis' view of the Iraqi National guard as "the dogs of the Americans," which will surely exacerbate the sectarian tensions, making peaceful withdrawel even less likely. More bad news then for Iraqis, troops in Iraq, and those concerned about peace in the Middle East.
This last category should include anyone who cares about the future of humanity, and averting the ultimate doom that could result from a nuclear catastrophe. This looks increasingly likely, as a month of talks at the UN on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty have made no progress. Those who make it to the penultimate paragraph of the New York Times story on the matter will discover the reasons. "Before the meeting, administration officials said President Bush wanted to move the discussion to smaller groups where nations like Iran could not block a consensus. The officials, who did not want to be identified because the negotiating stance was in flux, named the Group of 8 industrial nations and the obscure Nuclear Suppliers Group." Translation: nuclear non-proliferation will be discussed in arenas in which the authority of the hegemon is absolutely unchallenged.
Further developments threatening the survival of the human race will occur in outer space. As Tom Engelhardt points out, the Reagan Administration's "Star Wars" dream is far from dead.
And if all of that were not enough, we may rest assured that come July, as the British government meets the other members of the G8 (the "masters of the universe" as the sober Financial Times once described the club of the world's richest countries), they will make plenty of noise about the importance of addressing climate change, but nonetheless ensure that none of their rich friends actually have to commit to reducing carbon emissions.
Observers on Mars might not give the human race very good odds in its struggle for survival. But we do not have the luxury of idle speculation; if these trends are to be reversed, it's up to us to make it happen.

Ending the occupation

Ok, so this is how it is going to work: the occupation shall cease, the troops shall be brought home; Iraq will disappear from the headlines - but what will actually happen? Well the answer seems to be: this kind of thing. "An impenetrable cordon of 40,000 police and soldiers" around Baghdad. Well, at least if they're all Iraqi troops, it will produce a little less resentment than the sight of 40000 Americans and Brits surrounding the city - right? Nope.
1) This won't work properly. Mark Urban, brilliantly informed Dilpomatic Correspondant for BBC Newsnight reckons 40000 is not going to be enough for an effective "ring of steel." The effect then, is going to be that ordinary people cannot go about their daily business, producing more resentment towards the occupation, while the insurgents will continue their attacks. The FT reports that earlier plans to cordon off Baghdad were abandoned because car bombs are often assembled inside the city. Now there will be "roaming patrols" we are told, but even 40000 pairs of eyes can't spy on everyone.
2) Having Kurdish and Shi'ite soldiers implementing this cordon (to be "extended across Iraq" in coming weeks as the Iraqi government moves from a "defensive" to an "offensive" stance) is likely to throw the country in to an greater mess as sectarian tensions increase, and Sunnis feel increasingly dominated. This point is well made by Sabrina Tavernise in the NYT:

'for Sunni Arabs, who are about a third of the population, and are growing increasingly embittered as Shiites begin to run the country, the operation is a cause for concern. Some Sunni Arabs expressed fear that the raids, carried out by police and military forces that are predominantly Shiite and Kurdish, will take on a sectarian tinge and single out Sunnis.
"The feeling from Sunnis is that the Shiites and the Kurds with the help Americans are trying to undermine the Sunnis," said Mejbel al-Sheikh Isa, a member of the National Dialogue Council, a Sunni group that has urged participation in politics. "We won't be neutral in this. We feel insulted by this."'

Propaganda continues to make the aim of pacifying Iraq even more difficult. The insurgents (called "terrorists") are described as "increasingly desperate" in the otherwise reasonably sensible NYT story. In reality, they are achieving what have been their aims from the beginning: to make Iraq ungovernable for the occupiers and their lackeys (now in power).
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is reported either injured or dead. If he is killed or captured, it will be hailed as another great milestone in weakening al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, as is claimed of the killing or capturing of his supporters. It remains largely unrecognised that for slightly different reasons, both al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency are extremely decentralised, with most agents or "cells" acting autonomously. This means large-scale campaigns which result in 600 "suspected terrorists" being captured - even if they succeed in capturing "big names" - are counter-productive on a basic level: they do not significantly weaken the organisational capacity, and at the same time provide more support for these groups, by producing extreme violence and instability.

Although the Iraqi forces are not yet strong or well trained enough to take on all of the responsibilities of the occupation, the day will surely come, in the not too distant future. When it does, we ought to resist the temptation to celebrate the end of a destructive, violent invasion, but to reflect on the legacy we have left for Iraq: sectarian violence, political instability, infrastructural devastation. Iraq has become a society at war with itself. The potentially unifying nature of the almost-universal hatred of Saddam Hussein's monstrous dictatorship is of no significance after two years of devastation. The "threat" of "independent nationalism" - something the US and its allies have been committed to averting in the Middle East since 1945 - has, however, been averted, and control over the valuable energy resources of the region have been secured.
The war aims of those who launched the invasion have been achieved as they begin to hand the dirty work over to others. The anti-war movement wants to "bring the troops home" - its wishes will soon be fulfilled. As for the Iraqis, they are soon to be forgotten - consigned to the back pages of the newspapers until the violence flares again, when we shall solemnly shake our heads and wonder at the inexplicable inhumanity displayed in the crimes of others, ensuring that traces of our own responsibility disappear deep in to the memory hole.

The Democrats are coming!

The Sunday Times reports that "SENIOR American congressmen are considering sending a delegation to London to investigate Britain’s role in preparations for the war in Iraq."
Hmm... I wonder if they'll be admitted to Foreign Affairs Select Committee hearings. And whether they'll provided as much entertainment as Gorgeous George did in Washington.
In my view, Howard Zinn should be sent over for a 30-minute televised discussion with Tony. Ok... back in the real world, this could still be mildly embarassing for Tony, whose "place in history" seems to be slipping out of his control more and more every day.
Perhaps if, like Churchill, Blair was at least a competent writer, we wouldn't be in quite such a mess.

Why George Galloway deserves little "Respect"

Ok, so this is coming from a paper which is hardly a fan of Gorgeous George. But the Sunday Times reports that "associates" of the self-described "leader [sic] of the British anti-war movement" claim he has "a firm offer of a two-week lecture series in America...that could earn him a six-figure sum."
Now, this is probably about the most scrupulous way British MPs make money, and there are many more scandellous dealings around Westminster. But the reason Galloway irks me so much is that he has hijacked the strongest, most vibrant popular movement Britain has seen in years - the anti-war movement - declared himself the leader, and used it to revive his flagging political career, and his personal profile. The leaders of the Stop the War Coalition (Lindsey German, John Rees et al.) have been complicit in this, inviting Galloway to speak at every event they've held, and to use these engagements to build support for "Respect," (again mysteriously described as a "coalition," although with one man firmly holding the reigns) his political party.
One need not accuse him of inciting racial tensions to describe Galloway as a demagogue - he is a remarkably talented one, and a magnificent public speaker. One can easily understand why his repeated exposition of the simple truths about Iraq struck such a chord with people, while every other politician in the country was attempting to conceal the facts with vague comments and evasive answers. But even if Galloway is mostly correct on Iraq (clearly not when addressing Saddam Hussein directly, and saying "Sir, I salute your courage" [Galloway now claims he was addressing "the people of Iraq" - I'm afraid I have too much faith in his competence in English to accept that he addressed millions of people with the word "Sir"] but most of what he said about sanctions and war was correct) we must be wary of him.
He and "Respect" have made anti-war meetings unpleasant places to be, only aiding the dissipation of the movement. The fact is that he is not committed to the cause, but only to his personal gains. Of course solidarity is preferable to factionalism, but embracing Galloway is a far graver risk than that of splitting the movement, which has already dissolved anyway, partly due to his incessent electioneering. The left (on both sides of the pond) should refuse to give Galloway any support whatsoever. If it does support him, it will find itself used, betrayed, and severely weakened as a result.

The tragicomedy of New Labour: anti-social behaviour

Let us briefly imagine that there has been a spate of bank robberies in the local area recently, and that they all have a common feature: the thieves have all used balaclavas to conceal their identities. If the police and local authorities responded by banning the sale of balaclavas in the region, what would the reaction be? The owners of the banks, I suspect, would be outraged at the ludicrous ineffectiveness of the measures proposed, and would very likely demand more effective measures to help identify the thieves. Ordinary people might share the outrage, but also be overcome with disbelief at a measure that so clearly misses the point, and fails to address the root of the problem totally, merely singling out one minor symptom. In a sane world, those who can do no better than propose the most ludicrously ineffective measures to combat criminal behaviour would quickly find themselves voted out of office.
It's also worth thinking through what the thieves might conclude from this. Very likely, the proposal would considerably diminish their fear of the authorities, emboldening them to conduct ever more audacious raids, safe in the knowledge that the police and authorities have no more effective means of deterring them than restricting certain items of clothing. There can be little doubt that even the least inventive theives would quickly find alternative means of concealing their identities (a hat and scarf would work well enough).
It would certainly be a worrying development indeed for those concerned about the state of society and for the rule of law.
Today, the rather upmarket Bluewater shopping centre in Kent banned youths wearing "hoodies" - ie jumpers with attatched hoods, a most practical piece of clothing in my view, that combines the best elements of the jumper and the coat - from entering, presumably for much the same reason as local authorities sought the right to use "ASBOs" to prevent some youths from being allowed to wear them in November. Later, Tony Blair was asked by a journalist about the move at his monthly press conference, replying "I think that's fine and I agree with it," The Guardian reports, adding that "the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, also voiced support for the complex's decision." This evening, BBC television's news analysis programme Newsnight (about as highbrow as BBC TV gets) will run a segment on it. "We all know the problem," presenter Gavin Esler writes in today's presenter-preview email "but what is the solution?"
I would disagree strongly with Esler here. It would appear that we do not "all know the problem," by any means. If the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister do "know the problem" then they are clearly deliberately pretending not to. On the basis of the pronouncements we have heard today, the assumption of the two leading politicians in this country is that the problem is jumpers. Let us be quite clear about it. The problem is most unambiguously not jumpers!
These men, in short, are acting in the manner of the authorities who would ban balaclavas to prevent bank robbery. They ought to be treated with utter disdain by the general public. But it is how the "anti-social" youths themselves will recieve the message that really concerns me.
They will, I would imagine, respond to the ban by concluding that the forces of authority are imposing ludicrous arbitrary restrictions on their freedoms. This is certain to further undermine their respect for authority which is plainly unable to legitimise itself, leading naturally to further social disorder, more "anti-social behaviour."
There are a great many root causes of "anti-social behaviour" in this country. The very fact that an extremely wide and diverse range of behaviour is lumped together in to one "issue" ought to be explored first of all. Blair gave a reasonable summary today: "street corner and shopping centre thugs, yobbish behaviour sometimes from children as young as 10 or 11 whose parents should be looking after them, Friday and Saturday night binge-drinking which makes our town centres no-go areas for respectable citizens, of the low-level graffiti, vandalism and disorder that is the work of a very small minority that makes the law-abiding majority afraid and angry."
Plainly, this is not one "issue." Children riding around council estates on bicycles swearing at people are most definitely not the perpetrators of "binge drinking" in town centres who Blair refers to. Quite simply, 9 and 10 year olds - even if a few consume alcohol - do not go to pubs, and are not the ones fist-fighting at closing-time. Again, graffiti and vandalism is likely the work of another set of people altogether. It is surely no accident that these various issues are confused together. The intention, plainly, is to obscure the root causes of all of this behaviour, in order to suggest that simple solutions will be effective.
The truth is, there are no simple solutions, because if there were, the political capital available from exercising their implentation would have been scrambled for by everyone.
There are ways of addressing these issues, but it is vital to the interests of power that some are suppressed. To give the most obvious example, the people more likely to engage in the kind of behaviour Blair identified are poor youths, living on council estates, with few prospects for the future or for employment and nothing constructive with which to occupy themselves. Those who have jobs likely engage in stultifying, repetitive (in short, boring), disempowering work for which they are compensated with barely enough to live on. Of course, addressing these circumstances, which give rise to "anti-social behaviour" of different varieties, is most certainly not on the New Labour agenda. There is an unspoken, but explicit commitment to continuing the Thatcherite policy of ensuring that in real terms, the rich become richer while the poor become poorer.
So, because one does not win popularity contests (aka elections) by proclaiming "there are no easy answers" and because the range of actions the government is prepared to take to address the issue does not extend to its root causes, New Labour are left doing their best to confuse a variety of issues by conflating them, and diverting attention away from the failure to address them adequately by diverting attention towards ludicrous policies that are associated with the issues concerned only at the margins, such as banning jumpers.
The fact that the media comment on all of this in sober and serious voices should alert us all to the fact that it is not doing what the media ought to do in a democratic society (informing people of the important issues) but performing the service of propganda (confusing the issues, or diverting attention toward irrelevancies). On the surface, all of this appears to be triviality. A moment's thought reveals problems of the gravest nature for those who care about democracy, justice and accountability.

"Back in 5..."

Lots going on in the world at the moment. Here, reshuffles. When will Howard go? When will Blair?
NPT renegotiations. A big discussion to be had (here and elsewhere) about nuclear power.
Judicial appointments in the USA looks like causing a bit of fistycuffs, meanwhile, a few souls are attempting to indict Tom DeLay.
Iran looking increasingly threatening, as is NK.
In Iraq, a decent in to chaos of proportions not seen since November's siege of Fallujah looks possible. "More than 60 people were killed in Iraq today when at least five explosions rocked Baghdad, Tikrit and Hawija." And this after a weekend in which US soldiers claim to have killed 100 fighters in and around Ramadi where they "almost" managed to snag al-Zarqawi. "At least 370 people have been killed in Iraq over the past two weeks in the latest wave of violence" the same Guardian story reports.

Lots to talk about, folks, and normal service will return shortly, along with something substantial on the question of nuclear power and weapons next week. Stay tuned!

Everybody's doing it

Are all political conferences from now on going to take their staging plans from Kraftwerk shows?




President Bush at a news conference with the presidents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia today.

The end of "New" Labour, comrades?

Election results mostly in. Labour victorious, but their majority slashed to something like - 60-70 (depending on final results). George Galloway elected in Bethnall Green. Tories back in in St. Albans (how wrong I was!) and Blair sounding like he's trying desperately to appeal to the party. A victory speech this morning included the words “We’ve got a mandate to govern this country again. Yes there are good comrades who have fallen. But there are also extraordinary results that have come through tonight.” (FT)
Comrades? Yikes! Will Jack Straw be dusting off his volumes of Lenin's "Collected Works;" will Alun Milburn be re-opening his socialist bookshop? Strange things are afoot, it seems to me.
Anyway, as seriously as headlines like "Anti-Blair backlash gives Howard some heart" must be taken, at least, it seems, we'll see Gordon being installed in the not too distant future. Well you've got to start somewhere. Lib Dems looking very good for 2009 too; hopefully Britain will have tired of Mr. Howard's brand of whispered racism by that point.

Oh yeah, and our ludicrous electoral system (designed for a 2-party system) is in desperate need of reform, if you didn't know.

Stupid headline of the day award

Today's award goes to George Parker and Matthew Arnold of the FT for their frankly inspired "Chirac appeals to French stomach to gain Yes vote"
If you're a little confused, the crux of the story is that "Jacques Chirac, French president, appears set to convince Brussels to approve his plan to slash value added tax on restaurant meals, in the latest European Union move to boost the Yes camp in next month's referendum on the EU constitution."

Vote Kennedy; wake up with Brown!

A last minute plea to all you would-be voters out there. Let's begin with the obvious: all the election propaganda is nonsense. Labour are campaigning on the basis that a vote for the Lib Dems will let Howard in. Every analyst worth 1/10th of his/her salary knows this is ludicrous. Labour are going to win it either way. However, they fear that if the Lib Dems do well enough, their majority could be cut from the current 160 to as few as 50 seats. (see the James Blitz FT story cited in last post: '"Anything over 75 is good for Blair," said a Labour strategist. "If it's between 50 and 60, he can survive, but it will be difficult."')
What will this mean? Well basically it will mean the government is in a somewhat precarious position for the next parliamentary term. It will mean that the changeover of power from Blair to Brown will have to be done sooner rather than later so that Brown and the party can consolidate public support in preparation for the election.
So those who'd rather see Blair leaving his residence sooner rather than later want to cut Labour's majority as far as possible.
Of course, a hung parliament (Labour-Lib Dem coalition anyone?) could be hugely entertaining, even if not very likely.
But the less seats Labour win, the quicker Gordon will be moving next door, which is about the best case scenario for the next 2 or 3 years.
So slash Labour's majority, and Blair will be consigned to sitting smirking in the House of Lords and editing his political diaries before you know it! Vote Lib Dem!

Note: These realisations about Brown only occurred to me when I read this column by Greg Palast, so I'm much indebted to him, and also to James Blitz for the story I mentioned above.

It's all coming out

The couple of weeks just before a general election can be a horrifically boring time in British politics; generally, we hear the same tired old arguments about who is going to put more police on the street and nurses in hospitals being repeated ad nauseam.
Of course, there has been plenty of that in the last few days, but there have also been a large amount of information coming out about Iraq. Today, the Sunday Times has revealed a secret memo, circulated to only a few high-placed officials (and er, Alistair Campbell) from July 23rd 2002. It reveals the US military plan to engineer a war with Iraq.
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections...It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force...We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."

Of course, the idea that 250000 troops just happened to be in Iraq when Saddam crossed the threshold of non-complicance and "forced" war on US/UK could never have been taken too seriously, even though Blair has been able to trot out this ludicrous chronology of events unchallenged in interviews in UK in the last couple of weeks. But this document confirms that the wildest of "conspiracy theories" so heavily denounced just before the invasion were in fact correct. It will be interesting to see how long the political fallout lasts; tomorrow is a bank holiday which means shorter evening news programmes, less detailed analysis pieces in newspapers and probably less interviews with top politicians. It could be Tuesday before this is really thrashed out, and people go to the polls on Thursday.

As for the likely consequences of all this focus on Iraq in the past week, James Blitz's column in Friday's FT seemed to sum it all up pretty well. Theyre going to win, but the majority could be cut to about 50 seats - meaning that Blair might have to hand over the reigns to his successor sooner rather than later. If this does happen, the 2009 election could be fascinating, with the possibility of a real 3-way race for government, something the country desperately needs.