Be Right Back12 Dec 2008Apologies for the lack of articles in recent weeks. We are currently in the process of redesigning and upgrading UK Watch to improve its functionality and add new facilities. Until this process is complete we will not be updating it with new articles, but keep us bookmarked! Many thanks, UK Watch collective.
Armistice day and the ‘glorious war’14 Nov 2008George Bush and Tony Blair ? leading architects of a war that has killed more than a million people in Iraq ? appear side by side. Bush wears a stars-and-stripes lapel badge, a symbol of belligerent nationalism and the self-declared ?war on terror?. Blair wears a poppy. The poppy is the enduring symbol of the hypocrisy of our leaders who take us to war. It goes back, of course, to the First World War, whose end is marked every year on Remembrance Sunday. The war produced an unprecedented wave of ?remembrance?. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was set up in 1917, for instance, and it now manages the graves of 1.5 million British and Commonwealth dead from 90 years of war. The missing of the First World War were many. Some men were simply sucked into the mud and drowned. Or they were buried alive when shells caused their dugouts to collapse. Or they just disappeared altogether, blown into thousands of tiny pieces and scattered. The missing became the focus of great battlefield monuments after the war. The 1927 Menin Gate in Ypres lists the names of 55,000, the 1932 Thiepval Memorial on the Somme a further 72,000. Remembrance Day itself was dedicated by king George V in 1919 ? it recalls the moment when the guns fell silent on the Western Front on 11 November 1918. Later, in 1921, the Earl Haig Fund, a charity for ex-servicemen, was launched, and the sale of poppies marked the build-up to Remembrance Day. It is named after Sir Douglas Haig, the British commander responsible for the mass slaughter at the battles of the Somme and the Passchendaele. Official Why did the British ruling class create this official industry of remembrance? The First World War was different in scale from anything that had happened before. It plunged the world into an abyss of barbarism, industrialised killing and destruction, waste, suffering, and grief beyond imagination. The result was a tidal wave of revolt against world rulers. Poppies, cemeteries, and remembrance rituals were the official response to popular anti-war bitterness. In 1914, men had marched to war with a chocolate box image of what it would be like. Heads were filled with dizzy notions of empire, nation, and glory. Enemies were demonised as militarists and baby-killers. Many saw the war as a great adventure and an escape from lives of drudgery and poverty at home. Nothing prepared them for what was to come. It was not that their leaders lied about the realities of modern war. They did not know either and were equally unprepared. They imagined a quick campaign, a decisive battle, a rapid descent on the enemy capital. The Germans expected to capture Paris within six weeks of the start of the war. What made it so different was that the First World War was a war of global empires and industrial mass production ? a distinctive type of war characteristic of capitalist imperialism. For 20 years, the global economy had been growing fast. At the time, people thought the great boom would go on forever. But beneath the surface of events, the mole of history was at work. Under capitalism, growth meant intensified competition as the giant corporations of the global economy clashed in a struggle for markets, contracts, and profits. Behind them stood the great powers ? imperialist nation states whose armies and navies had been used to carve the world into rival empires in the interests of their own capitalists. By the early 20th century, with most of the world divided up, the great powers increasingly confronted one another head-to-head. Tension mounted, defensive alliances hardened into hostile blocs, and a competitive arms race took off. The British Empire feared the growing industrial and military power of imperial Germany. The war that erupted in 1914 was a war to redivide the world. But the First World War was not only an imperialist war on a global scale. It was also a war of modern industry. Capitalism had created the corporations and empires whose collision caused the war ? and also the mass industries that were to make modern war so violent and destructive. Modern economies were able to equip, supply and transport conscript armies of millions. In 1870, the Prussians had defeated France with an army of 300,000. In 1914, they invaded with an army of 1.5 million. New technology transformed the killing power of weapons. Machine guns and heavy artillery dominated battlefields, creating a ?storm of steel?. The cost in lives exceeded all expectations. Between ten and 20 million people were killed. Millions more were maimed forever, returning home with bits blown off or minds deranged by horror and fear. Millions of others wept for lost fathers, husbands, and sons. The survivors faced a bleak world. The post-war economy collapsed, and the reward for many returning ?heroes? was the poverty and hopelessness of unemployment. Popular revulsion against the carnage fused with class anger against exploitation and privation at home. A wave of revolution swept across Europe. This potential had flashed intermittently through the early years of conflict. Opposing soldiers had fraternised in no man?s land during Christmas 1914. Many soldiers had practised ?live and let live? ? tacit agreements not to fire on one another. At home, as blockades and shortages cut into living standards while war profiteers pocketed millions, strikes and street protests erupted. Mutinied In 1917 it broke through into mass struggle. The French army mutinied on the Western Front in the spring. The Italian army broke and headed for home in the autumn. Both revolts were limited. But in Russia, revolt turned into revolution and an end to war. It started with mass strikes and protests in Petrograd and other industrial centres, but it quickly spread into the army. Soldiers refused to attack. Gung-ho officers were shot. Russians fraternised with Germans and Austrians across the line. Soon, following the example of the workers, the soldiers were forming democratic councils and taking control of the army from below. The ferment of revolt culminated in the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 and an end to the war on the Eastern Front early the following year. As the ?contagion? of revolution spread westwards, Germany?s war leaders launched a final desperate offensive on the Western Front. But they failed to break through ? leaving the German army facing defeat while the German working class was in revolt at home. The armistice of 1918 was a product of incipient revolution ? Germany?s rulers surrendered for fear their army would mutiny and the state collapse. Even the winners were scared. Britain, France, and Italy all experienced mass strikes, giant demonstrations, and a huge growth of the left. Legacy Because of this political upsurge, the legacy of the war was bitterly contested. Official remembrance rituals are one of the results. Official remembrance looks two ways. It mourns the dead and regrets their loss. But at the same time it glorifies their ?necessary sacrifice?. The war was terrible, the argument goes, but the price was worth paying. That is why Blair can wear a poppy. We, too, mourn the dead. But our mourning is mixed with bitter anger against the rulers and the system that create such carnage. The poppy is tainted by the hypocrisy of warmongers and imperialists. It is better to wear an anti-war badge, representing a struggle to end war by challenging the rulers and the system that cause it. There is reason for hope. The First World War created modern industrialised war, with its murderous firepower, its aerial bombing, its starvation and ethnic cleansing. But it also spawned a universal hatred of war and mass movements to end it. The anti-war movement of recent years has revived that tradition. And now the crisis of capitalism has reopened the argument for a socialist world that could abolish war forever. Neil Faulkner is an archeologist and historian based at Bristol university.
Is a recession good news for the BNP?14 Nov 2008Conventional wisdom suggests that the British National Party will benefit politically from a recession. Government ministers certainly seem to think so. Journalists think so. And the BNP themselves certainly think so. With unemployment likely to hit two million by the end of the year and house prices dropping 15% in the past 12 months, most people are feeling the pinch. The government?s response to the credit crunch might have boosted its poll ratings in the short term but it could be the far-right BNP that benefits when the recession really bites. ?Economic meltdowns are one of the drivers of political revolutions, and the BNP must be ready to take advantage of the mess all of the other parties have made of the economy,? David Hannam, the BNP deputy treasurer, told a party meeting recently. He went on to explain the party?s line of attack. ?Each immigrant who entered Britain decreased job prospects for native British workers. Our freedom is linked to the financial state of the country, and in a recession it is the workers who are first and hardest hit. The truth is that in an economically declining society, the worker is hit, but even in a so-called economically growing society, it is the worker who also gets hit. Successful monopolies are a by-product of globalism, and it is monopolies that decrease the demand for workers.? His view is backed by party leader Nick Griffin who is confidently boasting that the BNP will benefit enormously from an economic downturn. The belief of a far-right gain is supported by the Labour MP Jon Cruddas. ?I?ve got a sense of foreboding about what lies ahead,? he told the BBC. ?It will make a qualitative difference in terms of the context within which they?re allowed to perpetuate their scapegoating and myth-making.? The government, meanwhile, is worried that an economic downturn would result in increased racial tension and violence between communities and even terrorism. In a 12-page internal memo, leaked to the Conservatives two months ago, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith relayed her concern over the consequences of an economic crisis. ?There is a risk of a downturn increasing the appeal of far-right extremism and racism, which presents a threat as there is evidence that grievances based on experiencing racism are one of the factors that can lead to people becoming terrorists.? The memo added that a downturn would affect the need for migrant workers, particularly in jobs such as construction where they make up a large proportion of the workforce. ?Increased public hostility to migrants? was predicted to result from heightened competition for employment. The government is so concerned that it has recently established a new police taskforce to monitor racist violence. Controversy Last month the new Immigration Minister controversially weighed into the debate. Phil Woolas told The Times that immigration became an ?extremely thorny? subject if people were losing their jobs. ?It?s been too easy to get into this country in the past and it?s going to get harder,? he said. Employers should, he believes, put British people first, or they will risk fuelling racism. ?In times of economic difficulties, racial stereotyping becomes stronger but also if you?ve got skills shortages you should, as a government, attempt to fill those skills shortages with your indigenous population.? Woolas was careful to include all British people in his British first policy, highlighting the high levels of unemployment affecting the British Bangladeshi community. He claimed that it was all too easy for an employer to hire a migrant to fill a job rather than to retrain British people of all races. While Woolas was actually addressing some tough issues, including many which have wrongly been ignored for too long, he left himself open to attack with a series of incendiary quotes which he should have known would cause offence. He promised not to allow Britain?s population to rise above 70 million and attacked ?health tourism?. ?It?s a national health service ? it?s not an international health service,? he said. Woolas has not been alone in raising difficult and controversial issues. Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also weighed into the debate last month. Speaking ahead of an address to a CBI conference, Phillips said: ?After forty years in which it was impolite to speak frankly about immigration policy, we now must be able to address this fundamental aspect of economic policy without embarrassment or without fear of being labelled closet racists or open-border fantasists. ?In what is to come, the best defence against prejudice against immigrants will be to make those who resent them competitive, to give them a place in society. ?We may need to do so with the sort of special measures we?ve previously targeted at ethnic minorities. But the name of the game today is to tackle inequality, not racial special pleading.? This was not his first foray into this terrain. He had previously stressed the importance of positive action to help white working class communities through the economic crisis. ?What we are seeing is that there is a whole group of people, a large proportion of whom are white, who are going to suffer from this crisis who are going to be the people we should want to help, particularly because they come from the wrong side of town,? he said. ?We are going to have to do something special for them. We are going to have to put extra resources where young people can?t compete with migrants? skills. ?And in some parts of the country, it is clear that what defines disadvantage won?t be black or brown, it will be white. And we will have to take positive action to help some white groups, what we might call the white underclass.? Nothing is certain However, there are dissenting voices to the view that the far right will necessarily gain from an economic downturn. ?Although there tends to be a bit of moral panic about it, it?s never really happened in a way that, in any sense, threatens the domination of the political scene by the main parties,? Professor Colin Rallings, from Plymouth University, says. He went on to stress that previous economic downturns had been accompanied by only short-term boosts for the right and were often geographically patchy. Is Rawlings right? Will any boost for the far right be patchy and short-lived? Certainly recent history is on his side. The 1970s economic crisis failed to give any long-lasting boost to the National Front. Indeed, if anything, the political fortunes of the NF were already on the wane at the height of the crisis and certainly by the early 1980s, when unemployment topped three million and bank base rate was in double figures and reached over 15%, the NF hardly existed. During the recession of the early 1990s, and despite widespread media-fuelled concern over refugees, the BNP remained a largely inconsequential political force. A different world There is reason to believe that events might be different this time around. Britain of today is very different from that of the late 1970s. The Cold War overshadowed British and indeed world politics. There was a vibrant left in Britain and a strong and very active trade union movement. The Second World War was still strong in public consciousness and nationalism was a dirty word. Since then the Soviet Union has collapsed and Europe fragmented. Nationalism has become the driving ideology of the past 20 years and socialism and social democracy are experiencing an identity crisis of huge proportions. In the past year alone eight out of ten social democratic parties have been driven from power in Europe, partly to the benefit of the far right. Fascist and rightwing populist parties have been rising across western Europe and there is no reason to suggest that the same cannot happen in Britain. Additionally, the BNP of today is quite different from the NF of the 1970s. The NF contested elections, but only in a half-hearted manner. For the NF leaders John Tyndall and Martin Webster elections were simply an organising tool but real power was going to be gained through control of the streets and by positioning themselves as ready to answer society?s call to restore social order. By contrast, the BNP has understood some political realities. It has publicly dropped some of its hardline policies, such as compulsory repatriation, which it knew would not be accepted by the vast majority of the population, and it has turned to local politics. As a result the BNP is positioning itself as a real and lasting challenge to the main political parties, particularly Labour. More importantly, the political terrain has changed. Disillusionment with the mainstream parties is at an all-time high, voting at an all-time low and active participation in political parties is, in too many communities, seemingly non-existent. It is into this disillusionment that the BNP message is resonating. Race remains the cornerstone of BNP politics but its appeal is far wider and deeper. It is precisely because of this that the BNP could benefit enormously from an economic downturn. In Stoke-on-Trent the BNP believes it can take control of the council within two years. If there had been a mayoral contest next spring there were many, including some government ministers, who believed the BNP could win. At 6% of the local population the non-white community is tiny compared to many other towns and cities across the country. Immigration and race are not the causes of the city?s problems but simply the prism through which the BNP allows local people to understand their problems and anger. The same is true for many other areas where the BNP is doing well. The former mining communities of Rotherham, Heanor and Nuneaton, three other areas of BNP success, have relatively small BME populations but deep-rooted structural economic problems. Compare that to the NF of the 1970s, which drew the bulk of its support from towns and cities, such as Leicester and Bradford, which experienced the greatest influx of non-white immigrants. There are two other issues that differentiate the present from the 1970s. The Cold War has been replaced by a world defined by the ?war on terror? and just as a recession could boost the far right, so fundamentalist religious groups will prosper. As unemployment rises and disillusionment with mainstream parties deepens, friction between new and old communities will grow. Winding this up will be the BNP and other fascist groups on one side and fundamentalist religious groups, bent on demonising other communities and religions, on the other. There is a symbiotic relationship between these extremes, with both needing the other to justify their own existence. This could play out on the streets, as we saw so vividly in Oldham and Burnley in 2001, or through a rise in domestic terrorism. It is this fear that is gripping the Home Office. We are already beginning to see a rise in violent racism and this is only likely to accelerate as the economy nosedives. There has also been a rise in terrorism in recent times. While every Muslim plot attracts massive media attention, less known has been the increase in attempted far-right terrorism, both in Britain and across the continent. In 2007, ten people were arrested in alleged rightwing plots in Britain. While all were stopped before they were executed, it does raise the likelihood that rightwing terrorism, be it by individuals or small groups, will continue to grow. One can only imagine the consequences of a fascist bombing campaign against Muslim targets in Britain. Likewise, while the feel good factor following the decision to award London the Olympics probably helped to defuse a backlash against the London bombs of 2005, a similar bombing campaign amid an economic downturn might have a different outcome. In the 1970s the trade unions played a crucial role in defeating the NF and today they have once again indicated their willingness to take a lead. But today?s world, particularly in the workplace, is very different from that of 30 years ago. The unions are weaker, more workplaces are un-unionised and also fragmented. ?The workplace is different from the 1970s,? says Paul Meszaros, secretary of Bradford Trades Council. ?Back then workplaces were bigger and more unionised so it was more common for Asian and white people to work alongside each other. We were able to debate, argue and eventually find common ground. ?Today, workplaces are smaller and with communities living more separate lives and in different neighbourhoods within the city there are fewer opportunities for people to come together.? Recession might be a gift to the BNP but whether it will exploit the opportunity remains to be seen. Despite its growing sophistication the BNP still struggles to win first-past-the-post elections. It has even performed poorly in recent by-elections, including some in traditional strongholds. How opponents of the BNP react will also determine the potential electoral boost for the far right and this is where things need to change. The criticism of Woolas and Phillips has been strong and sometimes correct but it has also highlighted two fundamental issues. Firstly, a common unwillingness to debate difficult but very real issues and secondly an acknowledgement that progressives have partly contributed to the problem. The error of identity politics It is easy to criticise Woolas for his comments and of course some of his remarks echo the disastrous ?British jobs for British workers? approach adopted by Gordon Brown last year. However, he was trying to grapple with some difficult issues, which all too many people prefer to ignore. Likewise, Phillips?s call for preferential treatment for white working class communities has been met by a barrage of criticism, some of it justified, some not. Phillips is totally correct in saying that a growing number of white working class people feel ignored, abandoned and unrepresented. As I myself have argued previously, the BNP is providing an identity for sections of this group. However, accepting the existence of these sub-groups and calling for preferential treatment is part of the problem in the first place. We no longer talk of a working class without sub-dividing it along racial lines. Playing identity politics is a very dangerous game and it is now coming back to haunt us. Too much government policy and spending, locally and nationally, is directed through the prism of race, which is unwittingly helping to create this ?white? identity, which is in turn being exploited by the BNP. Too many progressive people have been complicit in this, knowingly or unknowingly. To prevent the BNP from exploiting our economic worries, class needs to replace race in popular discourse. We shouldn?t have white unemployed or black unemployed but just unemployed. We shouldn?t talk about white workers or black workers but just workers. That isn?t to say that we should ignore groups or not recognise particular hardships or discrimination, but we have to find a way to bring people along together, to get them to understand a common interest and shared future. If we don?t then how can we complain when communal groups, including the white working class, compete for scarce resources. Similarly, we need to develop a more secular approach. One of the successes of the anti-fascist and anti-racist struggle in the late 1970s was its secularism. This was particularly found within the Asian Youth Movement, which brought together young Asian people of different religious backgrounds. While accepting the right to faith, we again need to find ways to bring people from different religious backgrounds together and this is no easy task. It is not just a question of differences between Christian and Muslim communities. In today?s Britain there is widespread suspicion and distrust between many religions, another issue that has too long been ignored. We must bring more politics (with a small p) into anti-fascism. Just as we have been arguing for the past couple of years that simply shouting ?nazi? at the BNP is no longer sufficient, so we must recognise that just calling for ?Hope? over hate is also inadequate. When people are struggling economically and perhaps see little hope around them, we need to be able to address some of the underlying issues that might make them susceptible to the BNP and answer directly racist myths. Hope is a positive concept but will only resonate when people feel good about the community in which they live and positive about their own economic future. Fairness However, we also need to show fairness in our approach. We need to demonstrate that we are fighting for everyone, regardless of colour of skin or religious background. We must also be prepared to criticise and condemn when it is necessary. Wrong is wrong, from whichever angle or community it derives. Trade unions are in an excellent position to take on the BNP and its economic scapegoating, but it needs a different approach. Unions need to find a more direct way to engage with their members and their families than they do at present. A letter through the post or an article in a union journal is no substitute for a workplace meeting and human dialogue. The road ahead will not be easy. A recession will increase insecurity and so suspicion and hostility between communities. As the job market shrinks and local resources become increasingly scarce so racism and bitterness will grow. The BNP could make huge advances in the next couple of years. Whether it does will partly depend on how we ? government, unions and anti-fascists ? respond.
The fight for the NUS14 Nov 2008The NUS ?governance review? was presented to us as some great piece of social democratic reform by the union?s Labour-affiliated leadership, but in reality they seek to sideline the union?s elected officers and demolish the last remnants of political pluralism within the NUS. The rhetoric says that the union will somehow still be ?led by students?, but this is patronising at best. The basis and vision for the review was provided not by students, but by non-student union managers. And the main proposal involves the transfer of ultimate power and veto within the union to a ?trustee board? made up of ?external? individuals such as lawyers and accountants. What does that mean in practice? When I was elected equality and diversity officer at Leeds University student union, I became a trustee on a new board. I was asked to sign a contract stating that, as a trustee, I would not make any decisions to the union?s financial detriment. In one swift stroke, my right to campaign for the removal of the NUS?s multi-million pound contracts with unethical manufacturers was ripped from my grasp. The trustees also had the power to overrule any decisions made by students if they were deemed to ?jeopardise the union?s reputation? ? a phrase interchangeable with ?having a non-mainstream political opinion?. I was informed that sitting on such a board would require me to take off my ?student officer hat? ? I would not now be looking after the interests of the ?minority? students that you would expect an equality officer to represent, but those of the student body as a whole. Any suggestions that such a structure was a root cause of discrimination were dismissed as the ramblings of a renegade. One year later, an almost identical review, conceived by a steering group that includes the brains behind the Leeds proposal, has been rolled out for the national union. This time it is suggested that the board will have no officers to represent minorities at all, hat or no hat. The proposal effectively erodes the already limited democratic structures remaining between ?ordinary? students and those at the top. It works to centralise power, reaffirming the view that the union is nothing more than a playground for bureaucrats en-route to a career in Westminster. It is a plan to destroy a mass-membership organisation and create in its place an elitist, monolithic lobbying tool ? a kind of student think-tank. The union?s leaders seem to think that the huge losses students have suffered ? the right to free education and the giant leaps made in its marketisation ? would not have transpired had we adopted this way of working earlier. That is nonsensical: the reason students lost their right to free education was because the union was begging for scraps inside the minister?s office rather than throwing its energy and resources into mobilising students across the country. Blaming the shaky governance structures is an easy way out of NUS?s failure to secure the interests of its core members. The union will continue to fail so long as it keeps moving towards becoming nothing more than a consortium of student unions, headed by union managers, that puts profit before students. The union certainly needs to change ? but the current proposals have taken a dangerous wrong turn. Hind Hassan is one of 12 part-time officers on the National Union of Students executive. She is a member of Student Respect, but writes here in a personal capacity ____ The battle for the union: a timeline April 2007 A motion is passed at the NUS annual conference in Blackpool, calling for reform of the union?s governance structures Summer 2007 The NUS pays a management consultant 100,000 to write a ?white paper?; a ?consultation? then opens. The union is criticised for holding the consultation over the summer, when most students will not be at their universities and so cannot be involved. Left groups realise that the reforms will remove their positions within the union, and set up a campaign against them December 2007 An ?extraordinary? (emergency) conference to pass the reforms is called by the national leadership ? at such short notice that delegates from most universities are simply appointed by their unions, not elected by students. Controversially, the chair refuses to count the vote, declaring that it is obviously more than the required two-thirds majority April 2008 The reforms passed in November go to a ratification vote at the union?s annual conference, but the left mobilises in the form of the Save NUS Democracy campaign and narrowly wins the third of delegates? votes needed to block the new constitution. NUS president Gemma Tumelty breaks down in tears as the result is announced Summer 2008 The ?consultation? is restarted. New NUS president Wes Streeting says that despite the ?setbacks? there will be ?no turning back? on reform November 2008 There are plans for another emergency conference to try to pass the reforms again
Armistice day, remembrance and the ‘glorious war’14 Nov 2008George Bush and Tony Blair ? leading architects of a war that has killed more than a million people in Iraq ? appear side by side. Bush wears a stars-and-stripes lapel badge, a symbol of belligerent nationalism and the self-declared ?war on terror?. Blair wears a poppy. The poppy is the enduring symbol of the hypocrisy of our leaders who take us to war. It goes back, of course, to the First World War, whose end is marked every year on Remembrance Sunday. The war produced an unprecedented wave of ?remembrance?. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was set up in 1917, for instance, and it now manages the graves of 1.5 million British and Commonwealth dead from 90 years of war. The missing of the First World War were many. Some men were simply sucked into the mud and drowned. Or they were buried alive when shells caused their dugouts to collapse. Or they just disappeared altogether, blown into thousands of tiny pieces and scattered. The missing became the focus of great battlefield monuments after the war. The 1927 Menin Gate in Ypres lists the names of 55,000, the 1932 Thiepval Memorial on the Somme a further 72,000. Remembrance Day itself was dedicated by king George V in 1919 ? it recalls the moment when the guns fell silent on the Western Front on 11 November 1918. Later, in 1921, the Earl Haig Fund, a charity for ex-servicemen, was launched, and the sale of poppies marked the build-up to Remembrance Day. It is named after Sir Douglas Haig, the British commander responsible for the mass slaughter at the battles of the Somme and the Passchendaele. Official Why did the British ruling class create this official industry of remembrance? The First World War was different in scale from anything that had happened before. It plunged the world into an abyss of barbarism, industrialised killing and destruction, waste, suffering, and grief beyond imagination. The result was a tidal wave of revolt against world rulers. Poppies, cemeteries, and remembrance rituals were the official response to popular anti-war bitterness. In 1914, men had marched to war with a chocolate box image of what it would be like. Heads were filled with dizzy notions of empire, nation, and glory. Enemies were demonised as militarists and baby-killers. Many saw the war as a great adventure and an escape from lives of drudgery and poverty at home. Nothing prepared them for what was to come. It was not that their leaders lied about the realities of modern war. They did not know either and were equally unprepared. They imagined a quick campaign, a decisive battle, a rapid descent on the enemy capital. The Germans expected to capture Paris within six weeks of the start of the war. What made it so different was that the First World War was a war of global empires and industrial mass production ? a distinctive type of war characteristic of capitalist imperialism. For 20 years, the global economy had been growing fast. At the time, people thought the great boom would go on forever. But beneath the surface of events, the mole of history was at work. Under capitalism, growth meant intensified competition as the giant corporations of the global economy clashed in a struggle for markets, contracts, and profits. Behind them stood the great powers ? imperialist nation states whose armies and navies had been used to carve the world into rival empires in the interests of their own capitalists. By the early 20th century, with most of the world divided up, the great powers increasingly confronted one another head-to-head. Tension mounted, defensive alliances hardened into hostile blocs, and a competitive arms race took off. The British Empire feared the growing industrial and military power of imperial Germany. The war that erupted in 1914 was a war to redivide the world. But the First World War was not only an imperialist war on a global scale. It was also a war of modern industry. Capitalism had created the corporations and empires whose collision caused the war ? and also the mass industries that were to make modern war so violent and destructive. Modern economies were able to equip, supply and transport conscript armies of millions. In 1870, the Prussians had defeated France with an army of 300,000. In 1914, they invaded with an army of 1.5 million. New technology transformed the killing power of weapons. Machine guns and heavy artillery dominated battlefields, creating a ?storm of steel?. The cost in lives exceeded all expectations. Between ten and 20 million people were killed. Millions more were maimed forever, returning home with bits blown off or minds deranged by horror and fear. Millions of others wept for lost fathers, husbands, and sons. The survivors faced a bleak world. The post-war economy collapsed, and the reward for many returning ?heroes? was the poverty and hopelessness of unemployment. Popular revulsion against the carnage fused with class anger against exploitation and privation at home. A wave of revolution swept across Europe. This potential had flashed intermittently through the early years of conflict. Opposing soldiers had fraternised in no man?s land during Christmas 1914. Many soldiers had practised ?live and let live? ? tacit agreements not to fire on one another. At home, as blockades and shortages cut into living standards while war profiteers pocketed millions, strikes and street protests erupted. Mutinied In 1917 it broke through into mass struggle. The French army mutinied on the Western Front in the spring. The Italian army broke and headed for home in the autumn. Both revolts were limited. But in Russia, revolt turned into revolution and an end to war. It started with mass strikes and protests in Petrograd and other industrial centres, but it quickly spread into the army. Soldiers refused to attack. Gung-ho officers were shot. Russians fraternised with Germans and Austrians across the line. Soon, following the example of the workers, the soldiers were forming democratic councils and taking control of the army from below. The ferment of revolt culminated in the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 and an end to the war on the Eastern Front early the following year. As the ?contagion? of revolution spread westwards, Germany?s war leaders launched a final desperate offensive on the Western Front. But they failed to break through ? leaving the German army facing defeat while the German working class was in revolt at home. The armistice of 1918 was a product of incipient revolution ? Germany?s rulers surrendered for fear their army would mutiny and the state collapse. Even the winners were scared. Britain, France, and Italy all experienced mass strikes, giant demonstrations, and a huge growth of the left. Legacy Because of this political upsurge, the legacy of the war was bitterly contested. Official remembrance rituals are one of the results. Official remembrance looks two ways. It mourns the dead and regrets their loss. But at the same time it glorifies their ?necessary sacrifice?. The war was terrible, the argument goes, but the price was worth paying. That is why Blair can wear a poppy. We, too, mourn the dead. But our mourning is mixed with bitter anger against the rulers and the system that create such carnage. The poppy is tainted by the hypocrisy of warmongers and imperialists. It is better to wear an anti-war badge, representing a struggle to end war by challenging the rulers and the system that cause it. There is reason for hope. The First World War created modern industrialised war, with its murderous firepower, its aerial bombing, its starvation and ethnic cleansing. But it also spawned a universal hatred of war and mass movements to end it. The anti-war movement of recent years has revived that tradition. And now the crisis of capitalism has reopened the argument for a socialist world that could abolish war forever. Neil Faulkner is an archeologist and historian based at Bristol university.
Fifth Columnist14 Nov 2008AS THE OBSERVER TROTS OUT POLICE LINE OVER ECO-TERRORISM ?Of course I don?t have a f*cking agenda. I?m a national newspaper journalist ? why would I have an agenda?? – Mark Townsend, Observer journalist. The Observer launched a broadside this week against the environmental movement. Headlined ?Police warn of growing threat from eco-terrorists?- handily sub-headed, ?Fear of deadly attack by lone maverick as officers alert major firms to danger of green extremism? – the article goes on to allege that ?Officers are concerned that a ?lone maverick? eco-extremist may attempt a terrorist attack aimed at killing large numbers of Britons.? Of course not one shred of evidence is referred to in the thinly disguised puff-piece for the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU).The words of an unnamed police source are all it takes to generate the spectre of carbon-neutral suicide bombings coming to a city-centre near you. Apparently, ?The unit is currently monitoring blogs and internet traffic connected to a network of UK climate camps and radical environmental movements under the umbrella of Earth First! ... A senior source at the unit said it had growing evidence of a threat from eco-activists. ?We have found statements that four-fifths of the human population has to die for other species in the world to survive. There are a number of very dedicated individuals out there and they could be dangerous to other people.?? The piece was written by one Mark Townsend (environmental journalist of the year and co-incidentally author of a mildy-amusing tome entitled ?Fifty ways to fuck the planet?) and the mysterious Nick Denning, who doesn’t even work at the Observer. When SchNEWS contacted Mark at his desk, at first he seemed defensive and grew increasingly aggressive as the interview went on. When asked if he?d just regurgitated a police press release he said, ?You don?t know anything about NETCU mate ? they don?t just stick out press releases?. Which is strange given that the unit comment very publicly on the work they do ? just check out their website www.netcu.org.uk for a few examples of the spin they put on stories involving protestors. They also don?t disguise their political purpose. As it says on their site, ?We support the business and academic sectors, providing a centralised source of information, advice, guidance and liaison on strategies to withstand domestic extremist attacks. ? Now baby-eating anarchist scare-stories are nothing new in the world of the left liberal media. Anyone remember the samurai sword-wielding nihilists it was reported were going to be at large on Mayday 2001 ? not to mention the swathes of fiction released around the time of the Gleneagles G8 (see SchNEWS 503). More recently of course we had the much publicised discovery of a ?weapons cache? near this year?s Climate Camp. As far as the political police are concerned the media are just another weapon in the fight against domestic unrest ? and for their journalist-dupes truth balance and fact-checking just don?t come into it. When we asked Mark where the claim that Earth First! advocates the disappearance of 80% of the population had come from he said, ?I don?t know – they [NETCU] said they had seen them in blogs? – How?s that for speaking truth to power? So why the sudden appearance of the article? It contains little that could be described as news, just a load of cobbled together wild-eyed speculation. One answer is that concern for NETCU jobs in the face of the credit crunch has triggered a search for a new enemy and a broader remit. How convenient that now the animal rights (AR) movement is in ?disarray?, a new target hovers into view. OFF WITH HIS SUBHEAD Another possible explanation is that the growing movement against climate change has got the state more worried than we realise, and the idea is to spread fear amongst activists that they are being heavily watched. At the moment campaigners are generally regarded in a positive light and public support is absolutely crucial for successful defiance of the state. Just look at how lightly anti-GM activists and peace protestors are treated by the authorities compared to their animal rights counterparts. Perhaps the time has come to drive a wedge between environmental activists and the general public, and of course the best way to do this is with the emotive issue of ?violence?. Are we observing the beginning of a smear campaign? So far it?s AR that has felt the full weight of state-orchestrated demonisation. Despite the fact that the movement has never been responsible for a single death they are routinely described as ?terrorists? or ?extremists?. A political climate has been created which enables the state to crack down hard. New criminal offences are drafted targeting the movement and people are imprisoned simply for organising demos (Sean Kirtley ? see SchNEWS 634). The SOCPA legislation (sec 145) banning demos aimed at disrupting ?contractual obligations? currently only protects ?animal research? organisations. A who?s who of UK media organisations have lined up to take a pop at the AR movement ? Dispatches, Panorama and all the main papers have parroted the police line that AR is full of dangerous violent fanatics with an irrational belief system. High profile waves of arrests make the front page, so do the convictions, but news of acquittals languish in the back pages. The actual cause that the AR movement is fighting for receives virtually no media examination. The industrial-scale use of animals for food and vivisection is one of the great hidden evils of our lifestyle ? rather than confront that, it?s obviously best to throw those that confront it into prison. The opening of the new Oxford animal lab, albeit two years late and millions over budget, is now being hailed as a victory by vivisectionists. Of course the very fact that they were able to achieve this much is because of a huge mobilisation on the part of the state. Back in SchNEWS 590 we described how Thames Valley Police accidentally taped themselves saying that they were ?going to wage a dirty war? against SPEAK, with one commander adding that, ?We?re going to prosecute the shit out of them.? Publicity surrounding the tape didn?t prevent the arrest and prosecution of Mel Broughton, a prominent spokesperson for the campaign (see SchNEWS 616). Last week he was acquitted of possessing an explosive substance – packets of sparklers – with intent. Two other charges led to hung jury. Despite this, the prosecution demanded a re-trial and Mel was remanded in prison with a trial date to be fixed ?some time next year?. NETCUs attempts to take ?ringleaders? of the AR off the streets by fair means or foul continues. We don?t know what agenda Townsend?s actually working to but it?s been clear for a while that the police want an increased ability to deal with all forms of dissent. Public demonisation is a key plank in the strategy. We?ll leave the last words to John Curtin, long term AR campaigner: ?We used to be regarded as Robin Hood figures for what we did ? rescuing animals from a life of torture in laboratories ? and now we?re terrorists ? the same people doing the same things.? Original article is at www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/eco-terrorism-earth-first-elf NETCU Watch www.netcu.wordpress.com
How US claims about Syria became media facts14 Nov 2008In any conflict, warring parties strive to convince the public that justice is on their side. The most effective way of doing this is through the media. It is imperative that journalists cast a critical eye on information they receive to avoid becoming unwitting tools in the propaganda war. In particular, they should not report claims as facts. There were several fundamental failings in the British press coverage of the recent US raid into Syria. For example, Richard White in the Sun and the Independent correspondent Patrick Cockburn both reported as fact that the raid killed Abu Ghadiya, an alleged al-Qaida figure who smuggled fighters into Iraq. Similarly, the Times diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp reported as fact that American commandos entered Syria and fought “a brief gun battle with Abu Ghadiyah and members of his cell”. Such news justifies the raid to readers because the target was important enough to violate the sovereignty of another country. However, Abu Ghadiya’s death, and the fight against him, were uncorroborated US claims. The news was not identified by the reporters as coming from American sources. Furthermore, the Independent and Sun did not publish concise, polite letters I had written pointing this out. However, the Daily Telegraph diplomatic editor David Blair responded promptly, politely and commendably to my email questioning why he reported Abu Ghadiya’s death as fact: “Thank you very much for your email. The point you make is entirely valid, and I have amended the web version of my story accordingly. You might have noticed that the print version is entirely different, and did not make the particular claim that you raised. What happened was that the web version was updated by someone unknown to me, who inserted that late at night, so we have corrected that mistake?Thank you for bringing this to my attention.” Reporting of the US raid included reminders of Israel’s bombing, last year, of what it claimed was a nuclear site (a claim Syria vehemently denies). Despite Israel’s claim being unproved, it was reported by some as fact. Again, this may encourage readers to see the bombing as a necessary means of halting nuclear proliferation in a volatile region. At fault were an anonymous piece in the Daily Mail, and a Guardian editorial. Guardian analyst Simon Tisdall accounted for this, describing the target as “a supposed nuclear facility”, though here, too, Syria’s denial was absent. The Guardian published my letter pointing this out. The Mail did not. Worse, the tabloid article stated: “Syria is believed to have continued with its nuclear programme by following Iran’s lead and scattering its nuclear development programme around several sites in order to make it difficult to thwart with a single strike.” The article does not identify who believes this, which would have been very useful because not only is it devoid of evidence, but in the eight years that I have been monitoring British media coverage [.pdf] of the Arab world, including Syria, I do not recall ever coming across such a claim. It certainly did not appear elsewhere in British press coverage of the US raid, nor after Israel’s bombing. Another claim reported as fact, by the Times diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp, was that the Syrian border is “the route in for 90 per cent of Iraq’s foreign jihadists”. After I requested her source for this statistic, she cited a report by the Combating Terrorism Center, which analysed documents seized by US forces from the so-called Sinjar cell of al-Qaida in Iraq. However, the document states: “The CTC cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of these records”, which are “inherently imperfect”. It added: “Readers should be aware that analyzing data captured on a battlefield is fraught with risk. Some of the personnel records were filled out incompletely or improperly, some may have been lost by al-Qa’ida’s personnel in Iraq, and some may have been accidentally lost or destroyed by US forces?Readers and researchers should be wary of conclusions drawn solely on the basis of these records.” Philp herself pasted below her email the following from the document: “Most of the fighters in the Sinjar Records do not explain the route they took to Iraq.” She told me she did not state her source “because the number is a very widely accepted one”. However, the other mainstream news outlets that reported the statistic at the time of its release (the Independent and New York Times) stated the source. Philp told me that “al-Qaeda’s documents indicate that 603 fighters came through Syria, a figure which accounts for 90 per cent of the estimated total foreign fighters in Iraq”. However this estimate came, as she told me, from the US military. Philp did not reply to my email stating all of the above.
Lest We Forget13 Nov 2008Like most people of my generation, I grew up with a mystery. I felt I understood the Second World War. The attempt to dominate and destroy, to eliminate the people of other races – though raised to unprecedented levels by the Nazis – is a familiar historical theme. The need to stop Hitler was absolute, and the dreadful sacrifices of the Second World War were unavoidable. But the First World War, which ended 90 years ago today, seemed incomprehensible. The class interests of the men sent to kill each other were the same. While Germany was clearly the aggressor, the outlook of the opposing powers – seeking to expand their colonies and to dominate European trade ? was not wildly different. Ugly as the German state was, no one could characterise the war at its outbreak ? with Tsarist Russia on the side of the Entente Powers ? as a simple struggle between democracy and dictatorship. Neither did this resemble the current war in Iraq, in which legislators send the children of another class to die. The chances of being killed were at least five times higher for men who had been students at Oxford or Cambridge in 1914 than they were for manual workers.1 The First World War was an act of social cannibalism, in which statesmen and generals on both sides murdered their own offspring. How could it have happened? On July 1st 1999, consumed by the urge to understand the war before the century was over, I visited Thiepval on the Somme. This was the anniversary of the first great attack on the German salients, which caused devastating losses for British and Irish troops. Men carrying flutes and dressed in orange sashes ? commemorating the Ulster Division ? paced about. Beneath the arches of the Lutyens memorial a circle of evangelical Christians hugged and screamed and ululated, while a little boy dressed in combat gear played around their legs with a plastic machine-gun. I goggled at the names on the monument ? the 73,000 commemorate only the British and South Africans who fell on the Somme and whose bodies were not recovered ? but I couldn?t grasp the scale of what I saw. Dizzied by these conflicting sights, unable to connect, I wandered behind the old German lines and into a field of sugar beet. Walking between the rows, trying to clear my head, I noticed a spherical pebble. I picked it up. It was strangely heavy. Then I looked around and saw that the field was covered with the same odd little balls. Almost every stone was in fact metal. Within a minute I picked up more grapeshot than I could hold. I found shell casings, twisted bullets, fragments of barbed wire, chips of armour plating. I stopped, overwhelmed by shock and recognition. It was a field of lead and steel; and every piece had been manufactured to kill someone. There are plenty of words to describe the horrors of World War Two. But there were none, as far as I could discover, that captured the character of the First World War. So I constructed one from the Greek word ephebos, a young man of fighting age. Ephebicide is the wanton mass slaughter of the young by the old. But how did it happen, and why? In his fascinating book The Last Great War, published a fortnight ago, Adrian Gregory shows that the notion that Britain was carried to war on a wave of patriotic enthusiasm is false.2 The crowds that gathered around Buckingham Palace and in Downing Street when war was declared seem to have been more curious than excited. Most people appear to have greeted the war with resignation or dismay. Nor does voluntary enlistment provide clear evidence of enthusiasm. It is true that some wanted to fight, and others saw war as a more exciting prospect that working in a dead-end office job.3 But Gregory shows that voluntarism wasn?t all that it seemed. For many men fighting was the only employment on offer. The largest numbers volunteered not at the very beginning of war, but after the disaster at Mons on August 24th, when it became clear that there was a genuine threat to national defence.4 The speed with which the war began and Britain joined made effective resistance impossible to organise. By the time the anti-war meetings had been called, it was too late. And by then there was a genuine need to stop Germany. It was as rational to seek to curtail German expansionism in August 1914 as it was in September 1939. But the narratives, like Gregory?s, which suggest that World War One was inevitable begin late in the sequence of events.5 Another anniversary, almost forgotten in this country, falls tomorrow. On November 12th 1924, Edmund Dene Morel died. Morel had been a shipping clerk, based in Liverpool and Antwerp, who had noticed, in the late 1890s, that while ships belonging to King Leopold were returning from the Congo to Belgium full of ivory, rubber and other goods, they were departing with nothing but soldiers and ammunition. He realised that Leopold?s colony must be a slave state, and launched an astonishing and ultimately successful effort to break the king?s grip.6 For a while he became a national hero. A few years later he became a national villain. During his Congo campaign, Morel had become extremely suspicious of the secret diplomacy pursued by the British foreign office. In 1911, he showed how a secret understanding between Britain and France over the control of Morocco, followed by a campaign in the British press based on misleading foreign office briefings, had stitched up Germany and very nearly caused a European war. 7 In February 1912 he warned that ?no greater disaster could befall both peoples [Britain and Germany], and all that is most worthy of preservation in modern civilization, than a war between them.?8 Convinced that Britain had struck a second secret agreement with France, that would drag us into any war which involved Russia, he campaigned for such treaties to be made public; for recognition that Germany had been hoodwinked over Morocco and for the British government to seek to broker a reconciliation between France and Germany. In response British ministers lied. The prime minister and the foreign secretary repeatedly denied that there was any secret agreement with France.9 Only on the day before war was declared did the foreign secretary admit that a treaty had been in place since 1906. It ensured that Britain would have to fight from the moment Russia mobilised. Morel continued to oppose the war and became, until his dramatic rehabilitation after 1918, one of the most reviled men in Britain. Could the Great War have been averted if, in 1911, the British government had done as Morel suggested? No one knows, as no such attempt was made. Far from seeking to broker a European peace, Britain, pursuing its self-interested diplomatic intrigues, helped to make war more likely. Germany was the aggressor; but the image of affronted virtue cultivated by Britain was a false one. Faced, earlier in the century, with the possibilities of peace, the old men of Europe had decided that they would rather kill their children than change their policies. 1. Adrian Gregory, 2008. The Last Great War: British society and the First World War, p.290. Cambridge University Press. 2. ibid, pp9-17; 24-30. 3. ibid, p31. 4. ibid, p32. 5. Another example is Gary Sheffield, November 2008. The Origins of World War One. BBC Online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml 6. See Adam Hochschild, 1999. King Leopold?s Ghost. Pan Macmillan, London. 7. F. Seymour Cocks, 1920. E. D. Morel: the man and his work. George Allen & Unwin, London. The text of this book is available at:
http://ia331337.us.archive.org/3/items/edmorelmanhiswor00cockuoft/edmorelmanhiswor00cockuoft_djvu.txt 8. ED Morel, 1912. Morocco in Diplomacy. Quoted by F. Seymour Cocks, ibid. 9. Asquith denied it on March 10th 1913 and March 24th 1913. Grey denied it on April 28th 1914 and June 11th 1914.
The NHS and cancer drugs: what price on life?13 Nov 2008If you?ve got money maybe you can buy some extra life. If you haven?t you?re only worth what the NHS can afford. That will be the effect of the government?s decision last week to allow cancer patients to pay for extra drugs without forfeiting NHS treatment. Previously, those who decided to pay for care which the health service said it could not afford were deemed to have opted-out of the NHS into the private sector. They would then have to pay for all their treatment. The about-turn by ministers threatens to institute a two-tier national health service and will introduce a new wave of health rationing. It runs completely against the government?s own oft-repeated mantra that the NHS is free at the point of delivery, even if it is provided by private companies. Of course the previous system was also unsatisfactory ? the only fair solution is for all clinically proved drugs to be available to all on the NHS. Many patients have already spent a fortune trying to extend their survival chances by buying ?non-NHS? drugs. The new rules mean that cancer sufferers no longer have a universal NHS ? with prescription charges no longer the standard 7.10 but effectively running into thousands of pounds. This system will mean many will end their lives in debt, while many more who cannot afford treatment will die early. The government argues that the NHS would be bankrupted if it was allowed to prescribe all it might want to. But for many cancer patients, access to certain drugs is a matter of life and death. Such people will be angry at the sight of the greedy bankers lining their pockets with public money. Just who has decided upon this set of priorities? A discussion of which drugs should be available on the NHS also raises questions about the role of pharmaceutical companies. Few of us want to see the NHS simply hand the drug firms more money. Last year the health service drug bill rose to 11 billion ? more than 10 percent of the total NHS budget. In the same year, Pfizer ? the multinational drug firm that manufactures the Sutent kidney cancer drug that the NHS says it cannot afford ? recorded profits of 9.8 billion. Drug companies don?t exist to find cures but to make money. Companies choose which drugs to invest in on the basis of expected long-term returns. So they tend to chase the anti-arthritis and anti-depression markets ? which are huge and often require a lifetime of medication ? but have little interest in the illnesses where there is little chance of such regular profits. The firms say that their huge profits reflect the risks they take when spending on research. Yet they spend a similar amount ? about a third of their total costs ? on marketing, including launches, gifts, sponsorship, and conferences abroad to try to persuade doctors to prescribe their medicines. Stop this practice and the prices would plummet. The task of evaluating the usefulness of any new drug is made difficult because the companies themselves conduct the vast majority of research into how they perform. And, as most research and academic facilities rely on drug company sponsorship, it is virtually impossible to get an independent assessment. The government-run National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) was created to provide genuine independent research. But Nice doesn?t just use clinical evidence about how well a drug works when considering whether it should be available on the NHS, it also assesses ?economic evidence?. So, for example, when Nice looked at drugs for dementia, it did not just assess how the medication impacted on patients and their carers, but whether or not it delayed the need for ?expensive? residential care. The fact that so many effective cancer drugs are denied to NHS patients partly explains why survival rates in Britain are so much lower than comparable countries such as France. Nice says that many effective treatments that are excluded from the NHS offer ?demonstrable and substantial survival benefits over current NHS practise but are deemed not to offer a good use of NHS resources?. Nice values every extra year of life at 30,000. So if you are faced with a diagnosis of cancer, you cannot expect the NHS to simply prescribe the best treatment ? you can expect it to consult its balance sheet. Until healthcare and drug companies are taken out of the equation, it will be impossible to know what drugs are best in any given situation. I believe that all clinically proven drugs should be available on the NHS, but that we should not allow the pharmaceutical companies to carry on fleecing us. If the government can see its way to nationalising banks in the public interest, why not nationalise the firms with the power of life and death too? Karen Reissmann is a nurse and a member of the Unison union?s health executive. She writes in a personal capacity.
Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed?s Quest for Justice10 Nov 2008The case of Binyam Mohamed just gets weirder and weirder. For the last six months, the British resident and Guantnamo prisoner, who was seized in Pakistan in April 2002, has been engaged in a transatlantic struggle to secure evidence relating to his ?extraordinary rendition? and torture, by or on behalf of the CIA, which involved his disappearance from July 2002 until his arrival at the US prison at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan in May 2004. Since September 2004, Mohamed has been held at Guantnamo, and in conversation with his lawyers has explained that he was sent to Morocco, where he was tortured for 18 months, and then spent another four months in the CIA?s ?Dark Prison? near Kabul. In June, a judicial review was triggered after the Treasury Solicitors turned down a request from Mohamed?s lawyers to release documents in the British government?s possession regarding his illegal detention in Pakistan and his subsequent disappearance. The lawyers pointed out that Mohamed was about to be put forward for a trial by Military Commission at Guantnamo (the system of ?terror trials? conceived by the US administration in November 2001, and derided by Lord Steyn as a ?kangaroo court?), and stated that the information was essential to his defence for two reasons: firstly, because the US government had refused to provide any information whatsoever about his whereabouts from July 2002 to May 2004; and secondly, because Mohamed claimed that the charges against him — primarily in connection with an alleged plot to detonate a radioactive ?dirty bomb? in a US city — had been extracted, during this period, through the use of torture. The judicial review took place in July, and Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones were clearly appalled by the behavior of the British intelligence services. When they delivered a judgment at the end of August, they criticized the intelligence services for sending agents to interrogate Mohamed in May 2002, while he was being held illegally in Pakistan, and also for providing and receiving intelligence about him from July 2002 until February 2003, when they knew that he was being held incommunicado, and should not have been involved without receiving cast-iron assurances about his welfare. In the judgment, they stated explicitly that, ?by seeking to interview BM [Mohamed] in the circumstances found and supplying information and questions for his interviews, the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the United States authorities went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.? The judges also seized on an admission, made on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, that Mohamed had ?established an arguable case? that, until his transfer to Guantnamo, ?he was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States,? and was also ?subject to torture during such detention by or on behalf of the United States,? and ruled that, because the information obtained from Mohamed was ?sought to be used as a confession in a trial where the charges ? are very serious and may carry the death penalty,? and that it is ?a long-standing principle of the common law that confessions obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be used as evidence in any trial,? the British government was required to hand over the evidence — 42 documents in total — to his lawyers. This was a remarkable result, but celebrations on the part of Mohamed?s lawyers and human rights groups were soon muted when the government responded to the only lifeline extended by the judges — that national security concerns might override the necessity for disclosure — by filing a Public Interest Immunity certificate which stated, in so many words, that the need to preserve the ?special relationship? between the American and British intelligence services trumped the right of a man rendered to torture by one country — and with the complicity, to some extent at least, of the other — to have access to evidence that might help in his defence. While this led to a temporary stalemate in the UK, Mohamed?s case then came up before a District Court judge in the United States, as part of a number of long-delayed habeas corpus claims, based on the 800-year old English law preventing arbitrary imprisonment. These had first been filed after the US Supreme Court granted the prisoners statutory habeas rights in June 2004, but had been blocked after Congress passed new laws in 2005 and 2006, and it was not until June this year, when the Supreme Court ruled again on the prisoners? rights and granted them constitutional habeas corpus rights, that the cases were allowed to proceed. As part of Mohamed?s habeas review, the American government was finally required to make the 42 documents provided by the British government available to his lawyers, but when the day of disclosure arrived, the Justice Department released only seven of the 42 documents — apparently so heavily redacted as to be useless — and then dropped the ?dirty bomb? plot claim without explanation. This was announced on October 15, and six days later Mohamed?s proposed trial by Military Commission was also dropped, although for different reasons. His prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, had resigned in September, complaining noisily that he had gone from being a ?true believer to someone who felt truly deceived? by the trials, when he discovered that evidence vital to the defence had been deliberately withheld. The Pentagon was clearly terrified that he would make further disturbing revelations in Mohamed?s case, and the cases of four other men whose trials were also abandoned, although, bizarrely, Mohamed?s military lawyer, Col. Yvonne Bradley, was told that the charges would be reinstated within 30 days. The reverberations from these developments soon spread back across the Atlantic. After another High Court hearing, the British judges delivered a judgment on October 23 in which, while still begrudgingly respecting the government?s security claims in Mohamed?s case, they were more openly critical of the US government?s behavior than they had been in August, when observers were required to read carefully between the lines. Noting that the court ?could see no rational basis for the refusal by the US government to provide the documents? to Mohamed?s lawyers, and adding that, after being given ?ample time? to provide them, no explanation had been provided by the US government for its refusal to comply with an agreement reached between the High Court and the US administration, Lord Justice Thomas again refused to order disclosure, observing that ?challenges made to the conduct of the United States Government and the legality of its actions should, save in the most exceptional circumstances, be determined by the judiciary of the United States,? and trusting that Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge in Mohamed?s habeas case, was better placed to make a decision at the next habeas meeting on October 30. However, he made it clear that, if a satisfactory conclusion was not forthcoming, the High Court would reconvene to order disclosure, and, after noting that the court regarded as significant the submission by Dinah Rose QC, one of Mohamed?s lawyers, that the US government ?is deliberately seeking to avoid disclosure of the 42 documents,? he concluded, ominously, by stating, ?We must record that we have found the events set out in this judgment deeply disturbing. This matter must be brought to a just conclusion as soon as possible, given the delays and unexplained changes of course which have taken place on the part of the United States Government.? What was also noticeable, to those who were studying the case closely, was that the judges were barely able to conceal their regard for the significance of the 42 secret documents, which they had been able to scrutinize over the summer during an extraordinarily detailed cross-examination of one of the agents who had visited Mohamed while he was under US supervision in a Pakistani jail in May 2002. The judges noted that it was the information contained in the 42 documents that persuaded them that disclosure to Mohamed?s lawyers was ?essential? if Mohamed was to have his case ?fairly considered? by the Susan Crawford, the ?Convening Authority? overseeing the Guantnamo trials. They pointed out that they had only been able to make public some of their reasons for making this ruling — with the rest contained in a 33-page closed judgment — but that these at least made clear the ?critical point? that the documents provided ?the only support independent of BM in some material particulars for his general account of events that led to his confessions.? Later in the judgment, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jones revealed more about the information contained in the documents, noting that their closed judgment set out the passages that they considered ?relevant to the allegation made by BM that his confessions had been the result of conduct that amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.? They added that they ?came to the view that the documents were relevant to all the charges made? — not just the ?dirty bomb? plot, but other ?allegations of participating in the war in Afghanistan and associating with al-Qaeda? — and criticized the US government for only revealing seven of the documents in heavily redacted form. Explaining that they had ?considered with the assistance of counsel in closed session whether the decision to provide only seven can be explained on the basis that only seven documents provide exculpatory evidence that supports BM?s account,? they stated that they were ?satisfied that that cannot be so,? and, moreover, that ?all the documents need to be read in sequence to see the proper context, and they added, ?As the United Kingdom Government has made clear since the time the documents were found and sent to the United States Government in June 2008, all are relevant and potentially exculpatory.? What happened next came as a shock to everyone, but served to emphasize the significance of the allegations that CIA agents had been involved in the torture of Mohamed, and that the British intelligence services were at least partly complicit. On October 30, it was announced that the British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had officially asked the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, to investigate possible ?criminal wrongdoing? by MI5 and the CIA in Mohamed?s case. The announcement came on the same day that, in another hearing about Mohamed?s habeas review, the Justice Department finally turned over the remaining 35 documents to his lawyers, in a tense session for the US administration in which Judge Sullivan pointedly ?asked why, after more than six years, the government had stepped away from its claims about a dirty bomb plot,? and stated, ?That raises a question as to whether or not the allegations were ever true.? Although Andrew Warden, a Justice Department lawyer, responded to a question from Judge Sullivan as to ?whether the government stood behind its assertion of a dirty bomb plot,? by stating, ?The short answer is yes,? the long answer is that it has been public knowledge since June 2002 that the plot never even existed. Speaking in June 2002, shortly after Mohamed?s alleged co-conspirator Jose Padilla was seized at a US airport, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy to US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, admitted that ?there was not an actual plan? to set off a ?dirty bomb? in America, that Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials, and that intelligence officials had stated that his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet. It took another three and a half years for the allegations to be dropped against Padilla, who was held as an ?enemy combatant? on the US mainland, in isolation so severe that it amounted to torture, before being put tried and convicted on lesser — and largely spurious — charges of providing material support for terrorism, but Andrew Warden?s words show that, six and a half years after Wolfowitz?s admission, the Justice Department and the Pentagon are still furiously engaged in a blinkered denial of reality. In spite of this, however, the crucial evidence establishing that Mohamed was tortured into making false confessions remains hidden to the public, awaiting either a decision by Judge Sullivan to dismiss his case, leading to his release from Guantnamo (as requested by the British government 15 months ago), or a decision by the Defense Department to reinstate his trial by Military Commission. Unless, that is, the British judges insist that public disclosure is in the interests of justice. On November 5, in what the Daily Telegraph described as a move that is ?believed to be legally unprecedented,? Lord Justice Thomas wrote to the Press Association inviting ?written submissions from the media? about whether or not the court should make available a ?summary of the circumstances of BM?s detention in Pakistan and the treatment accorded to him,? — consisting of ?seven very short paragraphs amounting to about 25 lines? — which had been cut from the High Court?s August ruling at the government?s request. Lord Justice Thomas noted that ?the issue is one of considerable importance in the context of open justice,? referred to the Home Secretary?s decision to ask the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, to investigate possible ?criminal wrongdoing? by MI5 and the CIA in Mohamed?s case, and also drew on advice provided by two Special Advocates, Thomas de la Mare and Martin Goudie, who had represented Mohamed during the court?s closed sessions, when confidential material was being discussed. In September, the judges noted that, in the opinion of the Special Advocates, the government?s Public Interest Immunity Certificate ?failed to address, in the light of allegations made by BM, the abhorrence and condemnation accorded to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,? and in his request for submissions from the media, Lord Justice Thomas again referred to the Special Advocates? advice, noting that: The Special Advocates contended that no claim to public interest immunity could lie [i.e. be allowed] in respect of information which pointed to the commission of serious criminal offences, particularly those contrary to the rule of jus cogens in international law [fundamental principles, including a ban on the use of torture, from which no derogation is ever permitted]. The Defendant [the British government] accepted for the purposes of that argument, and subject to substantial caveats, that there was an arguable case of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Further, given the fluid boundary between cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture, the Defendant did not wish to contend that on the limited information available a concluded view could be reached that there was not torture. Accordingly, the Court considered this issue on the basis that the material arguably disclosed cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. Lord Justice Thomas stated that those wishing to make submissions should notify the Court of their intention to do so by no later than Friday November 14, and must provide submissions by Monday December 1. He explained that the parties and the Special Advocates would then be given two weeks to reply to the submissions, and that the Court would then consider its judgment. Submissions should be made to: Mrs. Jean Curtin, Clerk to Lord Justice Thomas, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2 or by email to: jean.curtin@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk. Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantnamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America?s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press/the University of Michigan Press).
Europe plunges into recession8 Nov 2008The European Central Bank yesterday cut interest rates for the second time in less than a month. The ECB, meeting in Frankfurt, cut the benchmark lending rate by half a percent, to 3.25 percent from 3.75 percent, and is predicted to cut the rate to 2.5 percent by April. Prior to the move by the ECB, the Bank of England made a shock decision to cut interest rates in the UK by 1.5 percent to 3.0 percent, its lowest rate since 1955. The interest rate cuts are yet another attempt to stimulate the economies of Europe, amidst reports that the continent was entering a recession and had already suffered its worst slump for 15 years. All previous measures to encourage banks to step up lending to pump-prime the economy have failed. The euro-zone economies have committed a combined US$1.7 trillion to protect the region’s banks and this does not include measures taken such as Britain’s 500 billion package and other stimulus measures such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s proposal to inject ?50 billion into the economy. Even so, interest rate cuts have often not been passed on and banks have been depositing record amounts of money overnight with the ECB rather than lending to each other, even after they have been given hundreds of billions in taxpayers’ money. In its half-year report issued Tuesday, the European Commission admitted that the 15-member euro-zone economy?worth US$12.2 trillion?was probably already in recession for the first time since the currency’s inception in 1999. The euro-zone’s economy?both the manufacturing and service industries?contracted by 0.2 percent in the three months to July and would probably continue to contract for the next two quarters. The commission statement said, “In 2009, the EU economy is expected to grind to a standstill.” Joaquin Almunia, European economic and monetary affairs commissioner, warned, “The horizon that this forecast offers is dark.” In an extraordinary admission of incompetence and bewilderment, euro-zone chairman Jean-Claude Juncker told the European Parliament in Brussels, “Recession awaits us, and we didn’t think that recession lay in waiting. We were badly mistaken with the different sequences of this crisis…. The headwinds we were facing turned into a veritable storm.” According to the EC, the Irish, Spanish and UK economies will all contract next year, while Germany (Europe’s largest economy), France and Italy will stagnate. Growth in 2009 is projected at just 0.1 percent. For 2010, the commission predicted the euro-area economy would expand by 0.9 percent. Investment is set to fall amid slowing demand and tightening credit standards. Unemployment will rise to 8.4 percent next year across the euro-zone from 7.5 percent in September and will rise still further in 2010. Budget deficits are also expected to widen. Executive and consumer confidence has slumped to a 15-year low. Economists at BNP Paribas and Citigroup said the EU was still overly optimistic and predicted that the euro-area economy will shrink next year. Jacques Cailloux, chief euro-area economist at Royal Bank of Scotland Plc in London agreed, stating, “Today’s new GDP forecast of 0.1 percent for 2009 by the European Commission still looks too optimistic to us…. A recession in 2009 seems now unavoidable.” Neville Hill, economist with Credit Suisse in London, was more specific, predicting the economy would shrink by 0.3 percent next year. “The idea that the euro-zone will not see negative year-on-year growth seems contradictory to all the data,” he said. “We’re in the midst of one of the most synchronised global recessions we’ve ever seen.” French Prime Minister Francois Fillon also admitted that France, the euro-zone’s second largest economy, faces “a context of quasi-recession.” The European Union leaders are meeting today to formulate a recovery plan and to hopefully coordinate their position before a summit of world leaders hosted by President George W. Bush on November 15. Speaking for the EU, Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaqun Almunia urged, “We need a coordinated action at the EU level to support the economy similar to what we have done for the financial sector.” But there remains widespread concern that the EU has not been able to formulate such a combined response to the financial crisis and will not be able to do so now that the recession is hitting the manufacturing sector. All measures taken so far have been purely national in scope and have the impact of plunging the economy into beggar-thy-neighbour competition for markets and investment. Germany, which alone has not suffered a rise in employment, in particular wants to utilise its economic advantage against its rivals and has opposed any cross-border response. Euro-zone manufacturing activity sank to record lows in October, with output, new orders and the number of purchases falling at the steepest rate in 11 years. This is the fifth consecutive month of a contraction in manufacturing. The Markit Euro-zone Purchasing Managers’ Index for the manufacturing sector fell to 41.1, a record low. All countries within the euro-zone saw new orders and manufacturing output fall, with Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Ireland experiencing record falls. The Markit index for the service sector also revealed that activity in October fell to its lowest level since the index was first compiled a decade ago. “The surveys continue to show record pessimism,” said Guillaume Meneut of Merrill Lynch. Retail sales also fell in September by 0.2 percent from August, and by 1.6 percent compared to September 2007. Of the 15 euro-zone economies, Germany suffered the biggest drop in retail trade from August, falling 2.3 percent. The biggest annual fall came in Spain, where spending has fallen 7.1 percent. New-car registrations, a major indicator of economic health, have fallen in Germany, France, Spain and the UK. The number of newly registered cars in Germany fell by 8 percent in October. Orders for new cars in Germany dropped 12 percent. Car exports declined 10 percent last month, while foreign orders fell by 24 percent. French car sales fell by 7 percent. New-car sales in the UK were down by 23 percent from October last year, the largest monthly fall in 17 years. Spanish car sales have fallen by fully 40 percent. European companies also cut jobs at the fastest rate since January 2002. Stocks of finished goods awaiting sale reached a record high. Even as the report was issued, shares across Europe were in a steep decline that has continued against a background of even bigger falls in Asia and the United States. The economic crisis is leading to a massive rise in job losses. Ireland’s unemployment reached its highest level in a decade in October, at 6.7 percent. Unemployment in Spain has reached a 12-year high of 11.9 percent, an increase in the number of those claiming jobless benefit of 37.5 percent. Unemployment in Britain is set to reach 7.1 percent, according to the EC, which predicts that the UK will be the worst-hit economy in Europe. Unemployment will increase by 25 percent in 2009 to 2.25 million. The commission predicted a contraction in the UK of 1 percent and revised its prediction on unemployment upwards by almost 1.5 percent. Only Estonia and Latvia are expected to suffer deeper recessions next year. The commission’s report spoke of a “budget deficit and debt spiral,” with the budget deficit rising to 5.6 percent of GDP next year, about 80 billion, and 6.5 percent, or 94 billion, in 2010. New figures from the Halifax showed house prices fell by another 2.2 percent in October, pushing the drop in house prices to 13.7 percent annually. Activity in the service sector shrank in October for the sixth month in a row. Services are the backbone of the UK economy, accounting for more than half the GDP. Manufacturing also shrank by 1.3 percent in the last quarter and has fallen for seven consecutive months.
Paradigm reclaimed: new economic principles for finance6 Nov 2008The predictable crisis in the global system is the most important sign yet that a new economics is emerging. The tragedy is that the crisis-ridden financial system has long since failed to do the basic job required ? to underpin the productive economy, and the fundamental operating systems upon which we all depend. These have been variously neglected, taken for granted or cannibalised by finance. They include the core economy of family, neighbourhood, community, and society, and the natural economy of the biosphere, our oceans, forests, and fields. Worse, even when the financial system has been working at full throttle, it corrodes the real economy by its sheer profitability and faulty measuring and dominates the policy priorities of politicians. If nothing else, the crisis provides an opportunity to rebuild a financial infrastructure which does the job, which means investing ? not just bailing out failed banks ? but in loan facilities for an interdependent network of productive local economies that genuinely underpin life and works within the tolerance levels of the natural environment. This is now possible because the state owns a large slice of the financial system. The priority of politicians is to restore the normal functioning of the banking and financial system. A rapid return to ?business as usual? is the plan, which will hopefully be accompanied by an ?upside? for taxpayers as governments are able to sell their equity stakes at a profit when normal market conditions return. This is all very comforting of course, but is it actually such a good idea? After all, it was ?business as usual? that got us into this mess in the first place. We now have a unique opportunity to pause and consider what the financial sector is actually for and to put in place institutional and regulatory structures that enable it to perform these functions well. new economics regards finance as a means to an end: to support inclusive, equitable and sustainable economic activity that creates real value ? economic, social and environmental. It is difficult to argue that much of what the financial sector has been focusing on relates positively to these factors, or that a return to ?normality? would change this. If our current system does not support these outcomes, the question arises as to what would. The following six principles are the starting point for rebuilding the financial system so that it supports, rather than corrodes, the real economy. 1. Scale The financial sector is just too big. It is too big internationally and it is too big in many nations, particularly in the UK. It dominates the real economy and skews policy. Major institutions are also too big. We have created financial conglomerates that are both ?too big to fail? and riddled with conflicts of interest. Regulators need the tools that were removed in the name of deregulation. To regain real regulatory control, all activities need to be brought onto the balance sheet and regulated appropriately. This means the Government must: CREATE regulators with real power, making sure banks have more stringent capital ratios that vary to reflect changing risk, and force disclosure of lending and deposit-taking both by income level and geographic location, along the lines of the Community Reinvestment Act in the USA. This will guarantee some degree of financial inclusion and stop any more Northern Rocks from abandoning their core market and the local economy in pursuit of ever greater paper profits. REDUCE the dominance of the financial economy over the real economy by reducing leverage ratios and putting in place regulatory triggers that can ease situations of financial over-extension. BREAK up the big accountancy firms and credit rating agencies responsible for auditing banks and financial assets and end their reliance on selling consulting services to their accountancy clients. These institutions should be providing a public good, which is distorted by the drive for private gain. The further removed investors are from real assets, the less knowledge they have about them, and the more their behaviour is driven by the psychology of the herd. The historical practice where banks knew and understood their sector, location and customers over the long-term is largely a thing of the past. We need to reconnect investors and investments, and this is best achieved when finance is as local as possible. The principle of subsidiarity should apply. This requires regulators to have the freedom to control entry into different markets, including the targeted use of international capital controls where appropriate. That means the Government must: PROVIDE the appropriate level of lending to the most local level viable. This means rebuilding a local lending infrastructure, including community finance development institutions (CDFIs) and credit unions, and a new mutual sector to replace the one hollowed-out by demutualisation for short-term profit over the past generation. TURN Northern Rock into a national loan board for low-cost housing and public works, along the lines of the US Government?s National Mortgage Association, Ginnie Mae. GROW the post office network into a national banking system that delivers stable, accessible and dependable services to the public and to businesses, along the lines of the post office banks in Italy and New Zealand. It stands to be one of the best guarantees underpinning economic resilience, promoting financial inclusion and allowing people to invest and save with confidence and security. REPEAL the Basel II rules which encourage self-regulation and give cheaper capital to the most leveraged and reckless banks, and replace it with flexible regulation that is tighter in boom times (see below). USE flexible capital controls as an active tool of economic policy to exert democratic control over destabilising flows of finance without having to resort to emergency legislation, and reject international agreements that discourage other countries from doing likewise. 3. Stability Booms and busts are inherent to financial markets and devastating to real economies. A related factor is maturity, with short-termism an endemic problem. Regulation could offset these forces by tightening controls in booms and loosening them in downturns, and by discouraging short-term speculation. For example, capital requirements could increase in upturns and fall in downturns, while a small financial transaction tax would discourage high-frequency, short-term trading, but leave longer-term investments unaffected. That means the Government must: SET a sliding scale for regulation: from the smallest and most local institutions enjoying light-touch regulation, to the biggest having the strictest rules and severest controls. The current situation is the opposite of this. It has allowed big corporates and financial institutions the greatest freedom while suffocating small enterprise. TAX financial returns on investment on a variable basis when they mature to privilege long-term investment over speculation. This would assist the sort of infrastructure and energy-usage change whose long-term benefits the short-term speculators are not interested in. This could also be done with a financial transaction stamp duty. SET a Currency Transaction Tax to avoid destabilising runs on entire economies and to discourage the short-term, speculative movement of paper assets and to encourage long-term, sustainable investment. This will raise revenue and calm the speculative financial markets. USE counter-cyclical capital controls which demand more safeguards from banks over savings and deposits in booms but enable them to support the economy during recession. CO-OPERATE to investigate the establishment of a new global reference currency to underpin the global economy ? along the lines of the bancor proposed by Keynes at the Bretton Woods summit ? and back it by a basket of commodities. Re-establishing the link between money and a finite resource is a key step in reining in the financial sector and putting it at the service of the real economy. 4. Diversity
As institutions stopped specialising and became financial conglomerates, they converged on the most profitable activities. During the boom this was largely trading or speculative activities which paid handsome rewards but also fuelled the boom itself. The flipside was that less profitable activities ? such as maintaining a branch network and providing financial services for low-income people ? become ever more marginalised. We need financial institutions to focus on specific functions and to do these well, not to chase the latest bandwagon. Formally segmenting the system by function ensures this diversity, but also allows us to regulate appropriately in each sector. That means the Government must: USE their control over the high street banks to reverse the era of banking mergers, separating banks into core functions and specific markets, providing genuine competition for local business in the high street. INVEST in social housing, including purchasing properties from defaulting mortgage-holders and renting them back to them at affordable social rents. Act to reduce the price of housing in the future, providing the means whereby local authorities and housing associations can buy land, and setting up Community Land Trusts to keep the cost low. BUILD a network of complementary currencies to provide credit and independence to regions, towns, cities and neighbourhoods, and to provide low-cost or free credit to support sustainable local economies. CO-ORDINATE international action to avoid a ?race to the regulatory bottom?. 5. Value Real value is not always the same as financial value, and may even be destroyed in the drive to create it. We need a more holistic view. Financial returns should not come at the cost of economic, social and environmental value, but should accurately reflect long-term improvements in these underlying factors. To achieve this we need to find ways to build in robust measures of social and environmental value. That means the Government must: LICENCE and bring onto the balance sheet every special financial vehicle and every exotic financial instrument. All derivative products and other exotic instruments should be transparent and inspected as accountancy requires of all other assets. Only those approved should be permitted to be traded. Anyone trying to circumvent the rules by going offshore or on to the internet should face the simple and effective sanction of ?negative enforcement? ? their contracts would be made unenforceable in law. INCORPORATE triple bottom line valuations on a significant proportion of future loans, and more sophisticated measures of viability, including Social Return on Investment measures. INTRODUCE new methods of local investment, including ?People’s Pensions ?, linked to investment in local infrastructure, to provide secure savings vehicles for retirement, and local bonds as a secure investment vehicle for savers that also helps to finance essential investment and new infrastructure for a more environmentally sustainable Britain. 6. Democracy and participation The crisis has highlighted the need for institutions that can take a global view but we also need these to act in the interests of all, not just the most powerful groups. This requires new mechanisms for real political participation at the supra-national level. Locally, we need different ownership models, such as mutuals and co-operatives, that work in the interests of their members, owners and local communities, rather than simply seeking out the highest returns. This adds diversity to the financial system and also enables local priority setting, accountability and participation. We need a more pluralistic system of ownership, designed intelligently to align the interests of financial institutions with the broad public interest, locally, nationally and internationally. None of this will just happen. Left to their own devices, financial markets tend towards greater size and homogeneity of ownership and practice, rather than to appropriate scale, regional or sector specialisation or to a plurality of ownership forms. That means the Government must: END the use of tax havens, many of which are actually British Crown Dependencies, and tackle corporate tax avoidance. INSIST that the IMF and World Bank are governed as mutuals, with one member one vote not as profit seekers with one share one vote, because ? just as governments and central banks around the world are showing ? the profit motive is not able to extricate us from this mess and central banks and multilateral financial institutions must prioritise stability over returns. INTRODUCE a moratorium on crash-related home evictions, and radical innovations to prevent a repeat of destructive house-price inflation. The credit crisis is inseparable from distortions in the housing market. While the Banks, which are at fault, have been bailed out to a previously unimaginable degree by the tax payer, thousands of hard-working home-owners face the daily insecurity of potential eviction as the recession makes it harder to meet repayments. This is deeply unjust, destabilising and imposes a huge burden on society. Evictions could be stopped and in their place could be put long-term plans for restructuring householders? mortgage debts. We need to combine these measures with an ambitious ?Green New Deal? which allows us to tackle the combined financial and climate crises in a co-ordinated way; to fight the recession whilst tackling energy insecurity and climate change. A key test is how, in economically stressed times, affordable finance can be made available in a targeted way to kick-start new, low-carbon, energy, transport, food and housing sectors and to provide much-needed jobs. One of a number of useful precedents is the example of South Korea. Over many years it channelled lines of low-cost credit to strategic parts of its economy. The success of this policy can now be measured by how many of the sections of South Korea?s industry which benefited are now ?world leaders?. We need similar vision today. While the UK Government is not sitting down with a blank piece of paper to design an optimal financial system, it is closer to this position than at any other time in living memory. We have a unique moment of opportunity. If we want to draw a line under the mistakes of the past and build a financial system that supports equitable and sustainable economic activity, we need to take this opportunity, for it surely will not come again. The Government should reconfigure ownership and diversify the financial sector to appropriate scale to make sure that it becomes a driver of real and sustainable value creation that ensures we will not be condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.
How not to do a PhD on George Orwell6 Nov 2008Any English-speaker to whom Vaclav Havel has mattered owes a debt they?re probably unaware of to Paul Wilson. His work as the Czech writer?s translator began thirty years ago but I discover, over a cup of coffee off Russell Square, that he first came to London from his native Canada ten years before that, to do a PhD on George Orwell. He?s dapper, friendly, the blonde hair mostly silver now. But as we talk the subject of those earlier studies recurs time after time. As a post-graduate in London in the mid-sixties Wilson happened on a season of the new Czech cinema and felt attracted to its atmosphere. The PhD was left uncompleted: Orwell?s clairvoyance about Stalinism was already then proverbial – and already then controversial for many on the left – but clairvoyant is just what it was: except for very briefly in Barcelona, he had no direct experience of it. It was in search of such experience that a younger, foot-loose Wilson travelled on to Czechoslovakia in 1967, where he taught English, learnt Czech and sang in a rock-band until being forcibly expelled in 1977. Those were the days. It was in Prague, not London, that he found writers and artists who seemed to be taking up where Orwell had left off. For the Czechs at that time, he explains, Orwell, ?especially in 1984, was too pessimistic about the future of humankind? he under-estimated the natural ability of people to dig under Newspeak and create their own living language.? The fluent Czech speaker who landed back in Canada was soon translating Vaclav Havel?s justly famous essay on this theme, The Power of the Powerless. It?s an exploration of the ways in which people do in fact, both spiritually and practically, resist dictatorship ? and it?s an eloquent rejoinder to Orwell?s fatalism. Wilson?s own search for a ?living language? was by now well underway. The fiction by Bohumil Hrabal and Josef ?kvorecky to which he also turned his hand, ?represented the political reality that people were living without being explicit about it.? It was their very lightness of touch which made them so threatening to a regime hampered by its own humourlessness. Then was then, of course. For those who control our contemporary mediascape, humourlessness is not so much a symptom of existential malaise ? it?s just the ultimate PR howler. ?It?s harder to get around PR speak,? as Wilson puts it, ?because it?s a cleverer form of manipulation.? But his work with the kind of language which opposes it, however undemonstratively, has continued. What had taken him to London and then on to Prague continued back in his native Canada: he edited literary magazines and got by as a freelancer for CBC and others. Such is the direction many in search of a living language end up taking ? and that search is as troubled now as it ever has been. In the anglosphere Orwell?s reputation, that barometer of political unease, has undergone a dramatic revival over the past decade. It?s English- not Czech-speakers these days who are anxiously holding up his dystopia alongside their own reality, for comparison. It is in Whitehall, after all, not Hrad?any, that a man can now be arrested when he holds up a placard reading ?In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.? For thus quoting Orwell in too close proximity to Number 10 Downing Street, Steven Jago was charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, passed by the present government. ?With the hindsight offered by history,? as Drew Westen recently put it, ?it?s fair to say that Orwell got the title of his book wrong by two decades. His seminal novel should have been called 2004.? It?s not so much ?that Big brother rules,? another American, Martin Kaplan, has suggested, ?but rather that entertainment reigns.? You might think there would be little patience with such talk in today?s Central and Eastern Europe, most of which was quick to sign up to Bush?s ?Coalition of the Willing?. Wilson can confirm: ?OK, the bloom is off the rose as far as market capitalism goes in the Czech Republic, but I don?t think they quite understand the extent to which this PR speak and the Big Lie approach to politics have really taken over? The wars in 1984 have no other purpose than to keep people in a state of perpetual fear ? the politics of fear may not be central to Orwell?s thinking but they?re certainly central to the way Bush has governed.? The new play which Wilson is in London for, however, Havel?s first for twenty years, points to a new awareness of how badly let down ?New Europe? has been by its complacency about today?s PR speak. Mafia capitalists have taken over the post-Communist state where the action is set. The country?s vain, bombastic former President continues to treat his family and the occasional reporter to speeches about ?putting the individual at the centre of politics.? One by one the other characters repeat this phrase back at him, out and out gangsters included, until the message is clear: the promise to ?put the individual at the centre of politics? means in effect whatever suits the individual who is making the promise. For Wilson, ?it?s a play about people who use the institutions and language of democracy to establish if not absolute then a very authoritarian kind of power.? It?s a play, then, about concerns many in the English-speaking world now share, but none of the London reviews picked up on this. Wilson: ?In the London production the former president is played as a bit of a buffoon, but he doesn?t have to be. In the Czech production his capitulation to the new order played more on an element of the sinister.? More specifically it heralds the return of a surveillance society. That nothing was made of this in the very country, Britain, where state surveillance is now the most intrusive in Europe, is itself noteworthy. Havel?s hero-status suits us just fine: it permits us to admire without listening. Or perhaps, as some reviewers suggested, the very medium of theatre for messages like this is now something of a throw-back. The translator?s art in particular, with all that meticulous verbal stitching and unstitching, might seem perhaps at best unglamorous, at worst downright quaint. Ill-suited to the present, anyway: just who in their right minds is banking on prose style or snappy dialogue in a world like this? Actually all kinds of people are. Our ?language of democracy?, or modern PR speak, is often written much more carefully the Newspeak Orwell satirised. As Wilson himself says, as a form of manipulation it is far cleverer than its predecessors. But translating from ?obscure? languages, reporting on far-away countries of which we know very little, editing small magazines ? the kind of culture Wilson has devoted himself to suggests something we tend to overlook perhaps. That one way round PR speak might be via the right kind of attachment to something we already know. We do ourselves a disservice when we overplay the impact of PR on human nature. Novelists and playwrights have after all understood, for centuries and millennia respectively, what advertisers and political advisers have only in the last few decades fully grasped: it?s stories that people listen to. Money which wants to talk has learnt to bear that in mind. Writers as distinct from advertisers, however, have continued to insist on an idea the PR professionals long ago discarded: that severed from its roots in the truth, no story can flourish for long. The PR industry was built up on a very different premise: uncouple your story from any corresponding reality, it says, then repeat it often enough, flavour it with pleasurable associations, and people will go on listening. Even if they scoff outwardly, just enough inside each member of your audience will go on listening to make the continual repetitions worthwhile. To that extent the mixture of trivia, crisis porn and political advertising which now passes for ?news? presents us with an authentically new problem, but is the vigilance it requires of us so unprecedented? The skills cultivated by good writers are essentially those by which we keep the stories we tell responsive to what is actually happening around us. Wilson quotes the motto from Orwell at the top of a well known blogsite which he follows and which has set out to track each lie told during the US Presidential campaign. That?s a tall order but the motto runs ?To see what is in front of your nose needs a constant struggle.? It was as a novelist himself that Orwell once said that he had wanted above all ?to make political writing into an art?. Far from some retreat into subjectivism he meant it should be held to the most exacting standards there are. The ghost of that unfinished PhD hovers over our discussion. It is by operating within a verbal and narrative syntax which may not seem at all outwardly ?original? that genuine writing achieves its originality now. ?When I was at school we were given these exercises where there was a sentence with a mistake in it which you had to find and correct,? Wilson fondly recalls, ?or there was a bad sentence and you had to turn it into a good one, or a weak sentence, say, and you had to turn it into a strong one.? The inconspicuous labour of reading, understanding and then transposing a literary text from one language into another is surely as radical a challenge to the present mediascape as any. Because to translate well is never to translate merely from one language into another, but from one sensibility and history into another. To translate well is to believe in the kind of language which grows from an author?s clear-sighted, patiently integrated vision up, even if there is more and more language which grows from some well funded plausible deception down. Done properly, the creating and translation of such work cannot but mitigate against the sound-bite and the slogan, against everything slick and misleading. Dvorak in Love, the superb novel by Josef ?kvorecky, to take one example, had to be re-organised in its entirety because its narrative structure in Czech assumed an outline familiarity with the composer?s life, and with the emigrant experience of Czechs in North America. This could not be assumed for an English-speaking audience. Wilson and ?kvorecky collaborated and a new work emerged. To translate is often to act effectively as an editor too, which can require the skills of a diplomat as much as those of a linguist. ?There?s this huge suspicion of editors in what was Czechoslovakia, because of the history of censorship ? so you can talk even now to young writers who will say ?Do not touch my work ? I want it exactly the way it is.? Even Havel can be like that.? This version of culture, then, starts from a personal engagement with a particular vision and a particular place. It can only work as a collaborative venture. ?A life that is not dedicated to that which gives it meaning is not worth living,? the philosopher Jan Pato?ka once wrote ? the quote is as rendered into English by Wilson, as quoted in a prison letter of Havel?s. In our ratings-driven world such sentiments might seem a risky strategy but they have always been a risky strategy: Pato?ka himself died ?whilst in Police custody? in 1977. Western societies have since perfected more entertaining ways to call off the search for a living language. That the search for it continues is not only the achievement of the Orwells and the Havels ? though they tend to get most of the credit. It is decisively down to the Paul Wilsons too. And if the present cycle of perpetual war abroad justifying ever more controls at home, is going to be broken, ?old-fashioned? literary culture like this could come in useful. Its long experience of how to phrase the awkward questions is still worth listening to.
From Goma to Gaza, Mr Miliband2 Nov 2008David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner were quick to fly to Kinshasa and Kigali this weekend to be seen to be responding to the sudden visibility of the long-running horrible humanitarian crisis of the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Whether they achieve much more than another temporary truce among the assorted warlords whose troops have been living by rape and pillage in the area for more than a decade, is of course another question. But Mr Miliband and Mr Kouchner have another invisible humanitarian crisis on their hands in which some highly publicised flying around could have a dramatic effect on the ground. They should announce visits to Jerusalem to speak to Israel’s leaders, and then arrive by helicopter (the airport is destroyed) in Gaza City, breaking the Israel military’s 17-month siege of Gaza. They would be able to do it with ease, unlike the handful of people who made the trip recently in two boat trips from Cyprus, bringing medicines, hearing aids for the deaf, and hope that the world could hear the horror of what is happening to them. The two European leaders could see for themselves in Gaza how Israel’s collective punishment of 1.5 million people has crippled Gaza’s economy, cut fuel and electricity, leaving its desperate people hungry, deprived of medicines, with hundreds barred from travelling for operations or healthcare, or for education. Only last week, camps in Gaza City and Khan Yunis saw waist-high water flood homes and roads after heavy rains because the pumping system was not working. All this suffering is there to be seen. And they could hear about the many avoidable deaths, and learn the names of men from 77 to 21 who died at Erez checkpoint when their permits were delayed, and about children, like one-year-old Bayyam Abu Hilu, who died at home when she was denied a permit “for security reasons”. They would hear how underlying these realities the mental health needs of every family ? particularly for children ? are overwhelming. Last weekend I was among about 100 foreigners due to arrive in Gaza for a medical conference on the impact of siege on mental health. The World Health Organisation was a co-sponsor of the conference, Walls versus Bridges and, with other international organisations, had applied to the Israeli military authorities for permission for each individual to enter. Everyone ? mainly doctors, psychiatrists, academics from the US, Canada and Europe ? was barred, and had to fall back on a blurry video conference from Ramallah. Among the grim testimonies of psychiatrists from Gaza, such as Dr Eyad Saraj from the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, which organised the conference, with WHO, was a video from the former US first lady, Rosalyn Carter. Mrs Carter deplored the fact that “the closure of Gaza is making it impossible for people to lead normal lives,” and said she looked forward to the conference’s recommendations. Do Miliband and Kouchner really not know what Mrs Carter knows about the devastating impact on people of Israel’s continuing control over the Gaza Strip’s borders, airspace and coastal water? Or about the effect of Israeli military occupation, checkpoints, and the wall, in crushing economic, social and intellectual life for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank? They should go to Gaza now and see for themselves, as Tony Blair has so shamefully failed to do in his role as Special Envoy for the Quartet. Mr Miliband and Mr Kouchner might then want quietly to tell the Israeli government it will become more and more difficult for them at home to resist the calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions which Palestinian civil society has been asking US and European church and other human rights groups to work for.
Dog-whistle journalism: The Times, Ramadan and the London Olympics2 Nov 2008Grumpy Muslims in 2012 Olympics terror shock! When Muslims are feeling tired and hungry during Ramadan they present a terrorist danger, alleges the Times. The story is so pathetic that it barely warrants serious discussion. But it?s there in the Times. On page 4. And the article is typical of so much media reporting of Islam. The paper published this ?news? item on October 27 under the headline ?Police warned of Ramadan tension during 2012 Games?. The story claimed that Scotland Yard was concerned that the 2012 Olympics in London would ?clash? with Ramadan, making it harder to ?reduce tensions between Muslims and police? during the Games. Instead of offering any proof, however, that a religious festival could present a problem for police, the Times article switched in its second paragraph to speculation about terrorism. The 40th anniversary of the shoot-out at the Munich Olympics ? in which 9 Israeli hostages died after they were taken hostage by Palestinians ? meant there was an ?Islamic terrorist threat? to the 2012 Games, the paper said. Only then did the story returned to Ramadan and the London Olympics. It quoted the head of the highly respected Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faiths that the police would need some basic training to deal with religious issues that might arise during the Games: ?During Ramadan you?re going to have a lot of tired, hungry, less evenly tempered people because they haven?t eaten for 18 hours.? The implication is clear: tired, hungry Muslims are more likely to lose their temper and? commit a terrorist attack on the Games. MWAW contacted Dr Ed Kessler, head of the Woolf Institute. He wrote back that he was ?very unhappy? with the Times article, which ?failed to depict the conversation? that he had had with the paper?s reporter. He said it was ?sensationalism of the worst kind? and was ?inaccurate in its reporting about the Olympics, Ramadan and the proposed Munich commemoration?. Dr Kessler has written to the Times to complain, but the paper has yet to publish his letter. The Times? method is clear: take a bit of flimsy information from the police, slap on some unrelated speculation about terrorism, throw in a quote ? torn out of context ? from a respected source to make the piece appear reasonable, and let the reader draw their own racist conclusions. The article is constructed to make it appear that fasting during Ramadan makes Muslims more likely to commit a terrorist atrocity. This is dog-whistle reporting: the article is couched in reasonable language but sends out a clear message that Islam is dangerous. It is because of reporting of this kind that MWAW is holding its conference this year on Islamophobia.
Evidence grows that UK is entering a sharp recession2 Nov 2008“In recent weeks, the global banking system has arguably undergone its biggest episode of instability since the start of the first world war,” the Bank of England’s bi-annual Financial Stability Report released this week states. Total losses as a result of the global financial crisis will reach some 1.8 trillion ($2.8 trillion), the Bank forecast. This is three times the UK’s annual public spending bill, 36 times the amount spent on aid to the developing countries and enough to provide for all the basic requirements?health, food, education and basic infrastructure?for 3 billion of the world’s poor. According to the bank, losses in the US have reached 1 trillion ($1.58 trillion). Losses among UK financial institutions total 122.6 billion so far, while losses in the euro zone area have risen to ?784.6 billion (625 billion). Commenting on the report, which he said was not for “those of a nervous disposition”, the BBC’s Robert Peston noted the Bank’s estimate “that 5,000 billion has implicitly or explicitly been made available by central banks and governments since April 2008 to support wholesale funding by banks,” which is “equivalent to about a sixth of the total annual economic output of the whole world”. Even so, the Bank warned that measures such as the UK’s 500 billion bailout were only a temporary palliative. Britain’s six largest financial institutions could lose up to 130 billion over the next five years, with the Bank stating that “even after accounting for recently announced capital-raisings which the UK government will help underwrite, the largest UK banks would need to shed around one-sixth of total assets to reduce leverage back to, say, 2003 levels.” “Risks remain in the financial system,” it stated, noting fears over the stability of emerging economies, the balance sheets of insurance companies, and the fragility of the commercial property markets. The financial crisis was “rooted in weaknesses within the financial system that developed during an extended global credit boom: rapid balance sheet expansion; the creation of assets whose liquidity and credit quality were uncertain in less benign conditions; and fragilities in funding structures,” the report continues. The Bank’s own figures bear this out. In 2001, the level of lending by UK banks to customers was equal to deposits but by 2008, they had lent out 700 billion more than they held. The value of lending to UK households rose from approximately 60 percent of GDP in 1998, to some 90 percent in 2007. Mortgage loans at 3.5 times income grew from 10 percent of homebuyers in 2004 to 35 percent four years later. The result is that the ratio of household debt to annual disposable income is 170 percent in the UK, compared to around 140 percent in the US, and an average of approximately 100 percent in Western Europe. Total mortgage, loan and credit debt stood at 1.44 billion in June 2008, outstripping the UK’s GDP. Yet the Bank goes on to claim that “few predicted” these “weaknesses” would cause “such dislocation in the global financial system.” If the Bank, and the government, were unprepared for events it was in part because they were completely taken in by their own propaganda eulogising the triumph of the “free market”. Only last year Brown proclaimed that a “new Golden Age” had begun, thanks to the “high value-added, talent-driven” City of London. But more fundamentally, a tiny layer of the super-rich were doing extremely well out of the huge profits generated by collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and the like, despite their being based on a mountain of debt backed by virtually no real value. It is the interests of this layer that have determined social and economic policy over the last two decades. And despite this having created what Charles Bean, the Bank’s deputy governor, has said is “possibly the largest financial crisis of its kind in human history” the concerns of this financial oligarchy continue to determine official policy. The last week saw 90 billion wiped off the FTSE 100 index, and the pound suffering a 10 percent fall against the dollar, to $1.53. Nick Parsons, from National Australia Bank, forecast that the pound could be as low as $1.40 by early 2009. “We will go down further because the problems the UK faces are worse than other countries. We are uniquely exposed because of the sheer amount of debt we’ve got,” he said. Official figures also showed a sharp contraction in GDP?down by 0.5 percent in the July to September period?the first fall in 16 years. The decline is particularly significant as it concerns the period prior to the onset of the financial meltdown of the last weeks. “It’s a big shock that the decline is so large. It is truly dire,” said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec. Peter Mandelson, the business secretary, was just as blunt during a trade visit to Russia. The UK faced an “unparalleled financial crisis,” he said. “I don’t think people have realised what the impact is going to be on our real economy, on businesses and jobs back home.” The scale of the crisis has caused an apparent volte-face in ruling circles. After more than a decade in which it has denounced any “interference” in the free market, and championed “light-touch” regulation, the Labour government is now involved in one of the largest state interventions anywhere in Europe. In addition to the 500 billion bailout, which does not include some 100 billion extended to Northern Rock, the government is to bring forward capital spending programmes in an effort to “kick-start” the economy. This week the government signalled that it would tear up its so-called 40 percent “golden rule” on public sector borrowing, introduced by Gordon Brown as chancellor in 1997 as proof of New Labour’s break with its reformist past. Without a trace of embarrassment, Alistair Darling, chancellor of the exchequer, told an audience at the Cass Business School on Wednesday, “Just as markets change, so should policy. Today, governments all over the world are using approaches that had until recently been consigned to policymaking history, but it is natural that the conduct of policy should evolve.” “Flexible” rules could enable government to borrow up to 3,225 for every person in the country; with some predicting government borrowing could reach 110 billion by 2011. The plan caused ardent New Labour supporter, the Guardian‘s Polly Toynbee, to excitedly exclaim that an “epic ideological battle has begun.” It was “Keynesian versus neo-conomist in the battle for Britain’s future”, she claimed, referring to Conservative criticism of the plan and opposition to the government’s abandonment of “laissez-faire” from a group of 16 economists in a letter to the Sunday Telegraph. “This is Labour’s great chance to show what good government can do to save people in time of need,” she said, while warning that “Labour would be rash to think pro-Keynesianism was a done deal.” In reality, the proposal bares no resemblance even to the limited reforms of the New Deal introduced by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. Little concrete detail is currently available as to what will constitute the speeded-up public sector projects, which at any rate are heavily dependent on private finance. And both Brown and Darling have made clear that they will ensure any borrowing is swiftly reduced as soon as economic conditions allow. Moreover, the move has the backing of significant sections of big business, which recognise it as an extension of the government’s efforts to place the burden of the financial crisis onto working people. The Financial Times editorialised that while it was “galling” to see the rules on public sector borrowing relaxed, “Mr. Brown and Mr. Darling are doing the right thing,” noting “the private sector’s appetite to lend money to governments has never been bigger… As Adam Smith once remarked, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.” The government’s “stimulus” plan in fact involves no help for the millions facing joblessness and home repossession. The Bank warned that 1.2 million UK homeowners are at risk of negative equity if house prices continue to fall sharply. Already house repossessions have climbed by 71 percent over the year, amidst warnings that some 25 percent of homeowners are under threat as house prices are expected to fall by 30 percent. With hundreds of thousands facing the loss of their jobs, Brown categorically ruled out any aid stating, “I can’t promise people that we will keep them in their last job if it becomes economically redundant. But we can promise people that we will help them into their next job.”
Fights, not deals can save workers’ jobs2 Nov 2008There?s a right way and a wrong way for unions to confront job losses?and this was highlighted last week by the crisis in the manufacturing industry. The right way is based on strikes and protests to defend every job. The wrong way gives away pay and conditions in exchange for promises of security from the employers. The fight at Ford?s Southampton plant is an example of the former. Some 400 workers there walked out unofficially on Monday of last week in protest at threats to transfer production of the Ford Transit van to Turkey. They returned to work on the same day but by Friday action had flared again, with 40 walking out on the evening shift. Tony helped to organise the unofficial protest. He told Socialist Worker that the initiative came from longstanding workers he describes as a ?small, determined, crusty group? but who were cheered on by younger workers. ?People here feel cheated, lied to, and kept in the dark about the future of the plant,? he says. ?Some also feel that the union is moving too slowly?that?s why we had to act.? In response to the walk-out, the company has warned all those who took part that they could face disciplinary action, while ?ringleaders? have been threatened with the sack. ?It?s now up to our Unite union, at a local and national level, to take the fight forward,? says Tony. Backing ?They have the union machine to call on. If we had that backing, we could bring more than a thousand workers out.? Ford Southampton is one of many plants where jobs are threatened. The company has also refused to make any long-term commitment to its Halewood plant in Liverpool. These attacks are taking place across the industry. Last week Peugeot-Citreon announced massive production cuts. Chrysler has said it wants to slash a quarter of all its white collar jobs. Dave works at Nissan?s Sunderland plant where the company is halting production of its Micra and Note cars for two weeks because of lack of demand. ?I work on the Qashqai car line, which is not directly affected, but even here the mood is bleak,? he told Socialist Worker. ?Temporary workers and those on short term contracts are being sacked in December, and those of us who are permanent are worried about the future. ?People with five or more years experience are being offered redundancy. And we?ve already been forced to agree to pay cuts of 200 a month for new starters.? Nissan made profits of 4.9 billion last year, up on the previous year. Many other firms that have for years made startling profits from their workers? efforts are now seeking to slash their pay bill in order to keep costs down and their shareholders happy. They say that unless workers accept this logic factories will close. Unfortunately, some in the leadership of the trade union movement appear to have fallen for the trick. Last week workers at JCB were blackmailed into a deal which will see a reduction in their hours from 39 to 34 a week in order to cut back production?with a pay cut of around 50 a week. Laid off The company, which has already laid off 379 workers in Britain this year, said that unless workers accepted their offer, a further 350 jobs would go before the end of the year. Tragically, the GMB union allowed a ballot on the loaded question and greeted the result of the four to one vote in favour of the proposals as a show of ?social solidarity of union members in action?. Yet JCB is not a company in trouble?it is one of the top three construction equipment firms in the world. In 2006 its profits jumped by 35 percent to 149 million, and 2007 was better still. With profits of 187 million, JCB announced that ?sales, profits and market share reached record levels?, and that it had been ?the most successful year in our 62-year history?. By helping JCB cut its costs, the GMB will encourage a downward spiral in which jobs and wages will be traded for ever smaller guarantees of protection for workers that remain. This makes the example of struggle at Ford?s Southampton plant even more important. Tony says that there is now talk of Unite organising a national fight that combines this year?s pay round with the demand to keep the Transit at Southampton. This could see Ford workers from around the country rallying around the threatened plants. Under difficult circumstances, Southampton Ford workers have shown that they can put up a determined fight. Many trade unionists, including the local trades council, are hoping that Unite will call a national demonstration against any possible closure as part of building a wider fight. It is only this kind of action?not the selling of pay and conditions through backroom deals?that can prevent a jobs massacre. That?s a lesson that some of our trade union leaders badly need reminding of.
Policing “target communities”2 Nov 2008The decision of the Court of Appeal that the state can place people under control orders (house arrest) without ever telling them what they are accused of has huge implications for civil rights. A control order works by tagging the individual around the ankle and restricting him or her to a house or flat for a set number of hours each day. When the individual leaves the premises, they have a set area in which they are able to move. The individual has to ring the tagging company a number of times each day from a dedicated phone and may also be required to report to a police station. The case of Ceri Bullivant underlines the dangers. A Muslim from Essex, Bullivant was put on trial before last Christmas for breaking the terms of a control order. His solicitor, Gareth Peirce, argued successfully for his acquittal and says he was cleared after it emerged that the basis for the control order was a tip-off from ?a friend of Ceri?s mother who, after drinking heavily, had phoned Scotland Yard, which failed to ever contact the caller to ask for further information?. The way in which anti-terror laws can be used for purposes other that those for which they were purportedly enacted are becoming legend. For instance, anti-terror powers were deployed against pensioner Walter Wolfgang for his protest at the 2005 Labour Party conference. He was forcibly ejected from the conference centre after observing that Jack Straw was talking ?nonsense?. The ensuing publicity helped Wolfgang to get elected to Labour?s National Executive Committee. Others to have fallen foul of the contentious legislation include arms protesters arrested outside London?s ExCeL exhibition centre. Most recently, it was used as the reason for freezing of the funds of Icelandic banks as they collapsed into bankruptcy. All this is aside of the 1,343 times that 46 councils have used anti-terror laws under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for offences such as rogue trading, benefit fraud and anti-social behaviour. To find the root of this diminution of human rights, it is necessary to go back to the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974. The biggest mass murder in British history at the time claimed 21 lives and led to the passing into law of the first Prevention of Terrorism Act. Then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins introduced the PTA on November 25 1974 declaring that ?the powers? are draconian. In combination, they are unprecedented in peacetime.? The Bill bringing in seven-day pre-charge detention passed in record time, clearing both Houses of Parliament by November 29. The PTA was rewritten in 1976, 1984 and again in 1989. However, it continued to be used as emergency ?temporary? powers that had to be renewed each year. The first person arrested under the Act was Paul Hill, who was one of the innocent men subsequently convicted of the Guildford pub bombings. He served 15 years in prison before being freed by the Court of Appeal. A succession of miscarriages of justice followed over the next two decades, with the whole Irish Roman Catholic community becoming regarded as generally suspect. It is mistake to think that the PTA was brought in solely to combat Irish terrorism. The real agenda has been the gradual erosion of human rights in the name of security. This could be clearly seen at the start of the new millennium when the Government brought forward the Terrorism Act 2000 ? at a time of peace in Northern Ireland and before the events of September 11. The Terrorism Act doubled the period of time allowed for pre-charge detention from seven days to 14. It also broadened out the definition of terrorism beyond Irish groups. Terrorism was also to include ?the threat? of ?serious damage to property? in ways ?designed to influence government? for a ?political cause? anywhere in the world. Notably, there was no pretence of the legislation being temporary and so in need of renewal each year. The next step was the British Government?s response to the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11. This included the reintroduction of internment with the Anti-Terror Crime and Security Act. This allowed for foreign nationals who cannot be deported or removed for fear of torture abroad to be detained indefinitely without trial on the basis of secret intelligence that neither they nor their lawyers could view. After September 11, 12 men were taken almost immediately into custody in Belmarsh prison. They were then detained for three years until the House of Lords ruling the ATCSA unlawful under the Human Rights Act. This led to the next Prevention of Terrorism Act in March 2005 which introduced the concept of control orders. Those who had been held in Belmarsh were put under control orders. They still were not told of what they were accused. Bruce Kent, who has visited several men put under control orders since 2005, describes the system as ?callously cruel?. The veteran peace campaigner recalls a man under the conditions of his control order in north London not being allowed to visit Finsbury Park, which was 100 yards away from where he was living. However, he was permitted to go Clissold Park, which was three quarters of a mile away. Says Kent: ?At the same time, in the two hours that he was allowed out at lunchtime, he had to report to a police station in the opposite direction,? He describes another case in which ?a man under a control order was checking into the police station every day as required. On one occasion, he was just grabbed by the police and sent to Long Lartin prison.? In other cases, suspects were allowed to go to the mosque, but parts of the bus route they wanted to take were ruled outside the area of movement. This meant it was impossible to get there in time for prayers. At the time that control orders were first imposed, there was also an attempt under the PTA 2005 to increase the pre-charge detention period from 14 days to 90. However, in one of those rare victories for civil liberties, this was rejected in favour of 28 days. This still constituted a doubling of the previous limit and a quadrupling of Roy Jenkins? previous ?draconian? measure. More recently, Gordon Brown Government?s attempted to demonstrate its anti-terror credentials with an introducing 42 days? detention with charge. This was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Lords, but it is unlikely that the House of Commons will let the issue lie indefinitely. Bruce Kent?s view is: ?The problem is that, with control orders, we have had indefinite detention for years. There is a tendency among some campaigners to focus on headline-grabbing issues like 42-day pre-charge detention, while ignoring the iniquity of control orders. It?s a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room.? The project that began back in November 1974 has come a long way and it is still a work in progress. First, it was the Irish who were the suspect community; now it is the Muslims. In the future, it could be another group and ultimately anyone who dissents. As Gareth Peirce warns: ?The continuing experiment is dangerous and insidious in more than one way. It has become very clear that, when one challenge is overcome, the goalposts are moved and a new system comes in.? The Court of Appeal?s recent decision to uphold the right to impose control orders without the subject knowing what they are charged with is another dangerous step.
Reining in the influence industry31 Oct 2008It comes as no surprise that the European Commission is relaxed about Peter Mandelson’s meetings with the aluminium magnate, Oleg Deripaska, at a time when the trade commissioner was party to discussions that would affect the business of the Russian. Brussels has long had a reputation as being unaccountable to public opinion. Despite the commission’s attempts to open up EU decision-making to greater public scrutiny ? through its European Transparency Initiative ? secrecy remains the modus operandi. The system governing the behaviour of officials allows for widespread conflicts of interest. Parliamentary rules for MEPs have been described by one British MEP as a “scandal waiting to happen”. Numerous cases have been documented of apparent conflicts of interests involving MEPs. Giles Chichester hit the headlines this summer after breaking the rules on MEP’s expenses and was forced to resign as chairman of the Conservative party in Brussels. However, little has been made of his problematic ties to the nuclear industry. He is president of a pro-nuclear industry lobby group known in Brussels as “The submarine of the energy industry”. Until recently, he also held the key position of chair of the EU parliamentary committee with responsibility for nuclear issues, including nuclear safety, decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal. Another example is Scottish Conservative MEP, John Purvis, who has a financial stake in a firm that invests in the biotechnology sector. At the same time he has been seen as a leading advocate for biotech in the European parliament. Another Brit, Caroline Jackson MEP, sits on the parliament’s environment committee and drafted a report on the EU’s waste framework directive while at the same time being a paid advisor to private waste company, Shanks. Jackson is one of five EU officials nominated for a “Worst Lobby Award”, an initiative organised by a coalition of civil society groups pushing for greater transparency in Brussels. Among the corporate interests up for an award is the International Air Transport Association for its deceptive lobbying campaign to avoid CO2 reduction obligations in the aviation sector. Also nominated is The European Alliance for Access to Safe Medicines for hiding the involvement of the big pharmaceutical companies in their campaigns. The awards spotlight just a few of the thousands of mainly commercial organisations that seek to influence EU policy. In Brussels, as in Britain, lobbyists operate in an almost entirely unregulated environment. In June the European Commission attempted to increase transparency in the industry by introducing a register of lobbyists. Registration, however, is voluntary and as few as 10% of the thousands of commercial lobbying firms that peddle influence and access in Brussels have so far chosen to sign on to it. Thanks to the recent insight into the affairs of the rich and powerful, we should be under no illusion in Britain that undue influence is also being exerted on our policy-makers. Our lobbying industry, which today includes law and accountancy firms, management consultancies, think tanks, charities and others, has grown to be worth an estimated 1.9bn. It is embedded in our political system, and, as in Brussels, it operates away from the public gaze. Under the radar of most journalists, a parliamentary inquiry has been taking place into the normally opaque world of lobbying. Throughout the last 12 months, the influential public administration select committee, chaired by Tony Wright MP, has taken evidence on whether certain interests are being afforded privileged access to, and undue influence over, our decision makers. It has also sought to find out what effect this is having on public trust in politics. The recommendations the select committee will make in the next few weeks are key. If it finds, much as the British public suspects, that there is an enormous disparity in access and influence in our political system, it should recommend action: that the government introduce a mandatory register of lobbyists. This is the first step in opening up the opaque world of lobbying to public scrutiny. The effect will be to increase the accountability of government to the people they serve. Something that the majority of the British public has long ceased to expect but should now demand. The Mandelson-Deripaska affair gives us a rare insight into the relationship between politics and the wealthy elite. A register of lobbyists would guarantee that information on those who seek to influence our politicians is systematically put into the public domain.
A taxation solution to recession31 Oct 2008The economic crisis has seen the government act with a boldness of which many doubted it was capable. Similar boldness is now needed to confront damaging systemic inequalities, which have contributed to the crisis and which New Labour has all too often sidestepped or papered over. The underlying structural weaknesses of high risk, bonus-crazy capitalism have been exposed. At last, ministers are extending the language of irresponsibility, so often used to try to change the behaviour of those at the bottom, to nail those at the top for their culpability. As we face recession, rising unemployment and economic uncertainty, Labour must now use what may well be its last chance to reassure and inspire with a concrete vision of the good society and a clear explanation of why building it must be a priority. Equality, combined with ecological sustainability in an agenda for environmental justice, has to be the central leitmotif of this new social, economic and democratic settlement. The immediate target must be to reduce the gap between rich and poor by the next general election. Despite the improvement since 2000 identified by the OECD, the gap is still wider than in 1997 and than in three-quarters of OECD countries. This means urgently stepping up action against poverty at the bottom while, at the top, a more fundamental assault is required on the huge disparities of rewards than is involved in merely depriving (some) bankers of their bonuses. At a time when many more may have to turn to the safety net of the benefits system, it is more urgent than ever to strengthen it so as to ensure an income that enables people to live decently and with dignity in keeping with human rights principles. There could not be a worse time to wield new sticks to push jobless people into a shrinking labour market, as envisaged in the welfare reform green paper. A large-scale green reconstruction programme, as recommended in A Green New Deal, could spearhead a new environmental justice initiative. With public spending and borrowing under pressure, part of the cost of protecting the poorest victims of the crisis, should be met by the wealthy fulfilling their responsibilities to society through more progressive taxes. Exceptional times call for exceptional measures we are told. So, it is legitimate for the government to renege on its manifesto pledge not to raise the higher rate of income tax. The case for a higher rate of 50% for high earners still stands. If applied to those earning over 100,000 per year, it could raise nearly 8bn, more than twice the minimum needed to meet the next child poverty target, even allowing for any behavioural changes in response to the tax increase. Such changes could be minimised through much tougher action on widespread tax abuses. The money is more likely to boost the economy in the pockets of low income mothers than the bank accounts of high earning men. Inheritance tax must also be reformed to reduce wealth inequalities. In July, a man on incapacity benefit wrote to the Guardian that he and his wife “sit destroyed by poverty ? I can speak but have no voice, and those claiming to represent me have failed me. As the gas and electric prices rise for all, they may also become out of reach for many. Now I fear the winter and hope for nothing”. Hope not fear is what the government must now provide for him and millions of others. “After New Labour”, the second debate in the “Who owns the progressive future?” series, organised by Comment is free and Soundings journal, will take place in London at Kings Place on November 3 at 7pm. Guardian readers can obtain tickets at a special rate of 5.75 by phoning Kings Place box office on 0844 264 0321 and quoting “Guardian reader offer”. For full details click here. Join the Soundings journal facebook site and continue the discussion.
Too close for comfort31 Oct 2008Below is an executive summary of a new report published by Spinwatch on the relationship between members of the European Parliament and commercial interests and business lobby groups. The report can be downloaded here Executive Summary Too Close for Comfort? is an investigation into the potential conflicts of interest arising from the activities of some Members of the European Parliament (MEP), their commercial interests and links to business lobby groups. It profiles twelve MEPs whose activities illustrate these potential conflicts. They have been selected because their activities are representative of the issues, not because their behaviour is deemed extraordinary. This report forms part of the ongoing debate at both the European Parliament and Commission on lobbying and transparency. It aims to promote serious reflection on the rules and practices in Brussels, in the hope that increased accountability and transparency might lead to greater public trust in European decision-making. Early 2008 has seen a number of damning revelations about certain British MEPs breaking Parliamentary rules over expenses. However, the activities of MEPs outlined in Too Close for Comfort? are potentially a cause for greater concern due to the significant possible conflicts of interest between their commercial activities and their role as legislators. These include: ? MEPs with financial interests in their parliamentary areas of expertise
? MEPs who receive funding from industries they promote through their parliamentary work
? MEPs in prominent legislative positions ? for example, chairing certain parliamentary committees ? who are also closely involved with industry lobby groups
? MEPs who are accepting wages, gifts and hospitality from businesses that have a vested interest in their work as legislators. Examples of potential conflicts of interest contained in Too Close for Comfort? include: ? John Purvis MEP whose financial interests include being a partner in a firm that invests in the biotechnology sector. At the same time Purvis has been seen as the leading Conservative MEP promoting biotech in the European Parliament.
? Klaus-Heiner Lehne MEP is a Partner at a law firm that advises clients on patents. He is also a member of the European Parliament?s Legal Affairs Committee and has been involved in patent legislation.
? Giles Chichester MEP was Chair of the parliamentary committee with responsibility for key nuclear issues at the same time as he was President of a pro-nuclear industry lobby group.
? Caroline Jackson MEP sits on the Environment Committee. She drafted a report on the EU?s waste framework directive while at the same time being a paid advisor to a waste company.
? Eija-Riitta Korhola is a vocal pro-nuclear MEP whose euro-election campaign accepted money from a company with nuclear interests. MEPs defend these commercial and corporate lobby links in a number of ways: some believe that the very act of disclosure takes away any conflict. ?This is a pretty old story,? says John Purvis MEP. ?Every time it just fades away because these are all declared.?1 Another repeated defence is that it is surely better to have MEPs with expertise in particular industry sectors because of the MEPs, corporate links and potential conflicts of interest technical nature of much of the Parliament?s work. For example, Sharon Bowles, a patent lawyer, argues it makes sense for her to work on patents;2 and Malcolm Harbour, who spent years in the car industry, says his detailed knowledge informs his contribution to legislation concerning the motor industry.3 While expertise is undoubtedly beneficial to decision-making, it becomes a concern when MEPs are financially benefiting ? or receiving gifts ? from companies they are meant to be regulating, or where MEPs are still involved with their first profession in such a way that it could conflict with
their parliamentary duties. Many MEPs also defend their close links to industry lobby groups, citing the benefits from stakeholder consultation to better policy making. But as lobbyist Lutz Dommel says: ?With all these lobbying companies? involvement, the problem is that it is not really forbidden. It?s just an ethical
question of how far you go.? 4 Too Close for Comfort? is meant to serve as part of the debate on ?how far? it is acceptable for MEPs to go before public trust is damaged. Its aim is to prompt questions such as, what do European citizens consider acceptable practice, and which actions should Europe?s leaders take to improve the reputation of MEPs and build trust in decision-making in Brussels. References
1 John Purvis, Interview with Andy Rowell, May 2008
2 Sharon Bowles, Interview with Andy Rowell, May 2008
3 Malcolm Harbour, Interview with Andy Rowell, May 2008
4 Lutz Dommel, Interview with Andy Rowell, June 2008
Big bankings’ military activities30 Oct 2008The Government?s decision to take a controlling stake in some of the largest British financial institutions comes as a new War on Want report reveals how high street banks are complicit in the global arms trade. Our damning report exposes how Britain?s top five high street banks ? Barclays, Halifax Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Lloyds TSB and the Royal Bank of Scotland ? invest in, provide banking services for and make loans to arms companies. The Government must use its new say in lending behaviour to guarantee standards are put in place to ensure banks end their links with the arms sector. Faith in the banking sector is already at an all-time low. The revelation that these banks are investing in weapons companies will add to this public mistrust. They are financing an industry that sells arms to countries committing human rights abuses, such as Israel, Colombia and Saudi Arabia. Money from our savings and current accounts is being used to fund companies that produce pernicious weapons such as depleted uranium and cluster bombs. The arms industry profits from producing the machines that kill, maim and destroy. Britain has exported more than 30 billion in arms in the past five years. It last year had the dubious honour of topping the list of global exporters. With a record 19 billion in orders, Britain is the third largest exporter of arms to developing countries. The United Nations Development Programme has named military expenditure by developing countries as a major barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. War on Want launches its new report as UN Disarmament Week starts. Using databases which have not been seen before outside financial circles, the report exposes the fact that all five big banks have shareholdings in Britain?s largest arms companies. Four hold shares in all of this country?s leading arms companies. The Royal Bank of Scotland has a stake worth 36.4 million. Halifax Bank of Scotland and HSBC have vast holdings, worth 409.5 million and 483.4 million, respectively. With 717.5 million in shares, Lloyds TSB ranks as the British banking industry?s second largest shareholder. Barclays? investments in the arms sector total 1.39 billion, the highest total among Britain?s banks. Barclays holds, by far, the largest amount of shares in the global arms sector, with 7.3 billion invested in total. Both HSBC and Barclays invest in companies that produce cluster munitions and depleted uranium. With the exception of HBOS, all the banks have given loans to at least one cluster munitions producer in the past decade. Most high street banks are violating their own corporate social responsibility statements. For instance, there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the Royal Bank of Scotland?s stated commitment to human rights and sustainable development and its support for the arms industry. One bank, HSBC, has gone much further than just producing a corporate social responsibility (CSR) report. Since 2000, it has since stated publicly its commitment to ?avoid certain types of business, such as financing weapons manufacture and sales? and to have had that policy ?fully in place? for two years. However, since 2000, there has been no significant downward trend in HSBC lending to the arms sector. In 2005, there was a major rise in HSBC?s lending. As a voluntary approach to good practice, CSR cannot make companies accountable for their actions. Government control of banks has given us a perfect opportunity to make them responsible for their behaviour. And we urge account holders to write to their bank, demanding that they stop financing the arms trade and call for transparency on all their investments.
Brussels: keeping information under its hat30 Oct 2008Brussels concerns itself with every aspect of our lives, but gives little away when it comes to information. This creates distrust. Even the European Ombudsman is now complaining that the hands of the openneness clock are being turned back. It takes a lot of clicks on the mouse to find out that a new European Regulation on openness in administration is on the way. The European Commission sees the Regulation as a way to bring Europe closer to the citizen. Why don’t they turn this around and make rules which would help us get closer to Europe? The EU continues to give the impression that it is frightened of the public. In 2001, with the introduction of the openness regulation now in operation, the fear was expressed that openness would ‘paralyse’ the policy-making process. The opposite is of course true: openness could strengthen confidence in Europe. The broad public is scarcely aided by the current rules. For the most part it has been professionals – people such as lawyers, researchers and lobbyists – who have been able to profit from them. Now a new proposed regulation is before us. Preaching transparency and public participation, this proposal must itself surely live up to these criteria. Unfortunately, the silence surrounding the proposal from the European Commission says everything. The problem begins with the vague terms which occupy a central place in its text. The words ‘openness’ and ‘transparency’ demonstrate an administrative mentality, and are simply not achievable through judicial means. Openness of information, on the other hand, is: these words establish a legal situation, a set of rights and duties. The word ‘access’, used in the Amsterdam Treaty, is more ‘citizen-friendly’ and telling, but the Commission’s proposal has little to say about this. The emphasis should be less on Europe’s duty to provide information, and more on the public’s right to have access to it. Only when the Commission’s concomitant duty to provide becomes self-evident can confidence in ‘Brussels’ grow. What could be improved? The European Commission sticks closely to the American or Swedish document system. This requires that you must first know in which document the information you are seeking lies, and gives you a right only to access to what you ask for. Brussels will be left to determine for itself what it hands over. Unrecognised or unregistered documents are simply not documents at all. The reasoning goes like this: it must have been sent, registered or received, or it didn’t exist. This way of thinking recalls Bill Clinton’s definition of sex: nothing was transferred, so nothing happened. The existing Dutch law on administrative openness is better. It is based not on a documentation system, but on a true information system. This means that members of the public or journalists need only name the administrative subject for the authorities to have a duty to respond by providing relevant information. As well as changing the proposal to reflect such concerns, other amendments must be made. The European Ombudsman must be given more space to assess the performance of the EU institutions, if necessary unannounced and uninvited. It would have a hugely preventative effect, if bureaucrats were obliged continually to run the risk of being caught failing to apply the rules on openness, or applying them inadequately. Keeping anything secret must become a genuine exception. Keeping whole categories of documents under your hat, as the Commission is now proposing, does not sit comfortably with the openness preached. The status ‘secret’ must derive from the content and should not be left vulnerable to the self-interest of the official so classifying it. That documents relating to matters which are sub judice should generally be kept secret is understandable, but this should not be by definition the case, and certainly not if they are subject to what the Commission calls ‘quasi-judicial’ procedures. I hope that the European Commissioner responsible, Margot Wallstrm understands that this would create enormous problems.. Before proceeding further, however, the Communication should organise a broad debate around the way in which the proposed syetem of openness is expected to function and how the proposal might be improved. Policy-making should not be done from ivory towers, certainly not when the regulation involved advocates participation and transparency. Brussels should listen more, answer questions more readily, and preach less. . The Dutch government, and any others which operate a genuine system of openness, must do all in their power to persuade those member states which have little tradition of openness that there is only one way to to exercise power democratically, and that is to monitor those who exercise it. If Europe wants to win public confidence, then it must become receptive to questions posed by ordinary citizens, and not meerly experts. Dutch regulations on openness are not perfect, but they are certainly rules from which Europe could learn. Kartika Liotard is a Member of the European Parliament for the Socialist Party of the Netherlands.
Flying in the face of reason30 Oct 2008The wheels seem to be coming off the Heathrow expansion, if you’ll forgive the expression. The plans from the Department for Transport (DfT) for a third runway and more flights in the meantime don’t even convince the environment secretary, let alone the Environment Agency. The idea ? if you can call it that ? that we must facilitate an inexorable growth in air travel has taken a quite a hit lately. Officially, the government is carrying out an extended consultation over proposals for a new runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow from 2020, with extra flights from around 2012 through mixed mode (allowing both runways to be used at the same time for take-off and landing). Until recently, approval for expansion has seemed a foregone conclusion, mainly because the consultation was so obviously fixed in that direction. But this week there have been reports that the cabinet is split over the runway and the Environment Agency has continued to express its opposition. As I reported yesterday on newstatesman.com, Chris Smith, a former Labour minister and chairman of the agency, has criticised the government’s attempt to delay new European air quality rules while increasing pollution from Heathrow. With an economic downturn and the government apparently deciding not to give aviation a free ride on carbon emissions, the prevailing wind may be blowing away from a bigger Heathrow. The government’s case has always been that expansion will only go ahead if “strict environmental conditions” are met but the extent to which it has fiddled the figures, engaged in wishful thinking and moved goalposts makes its consultation the dodgiest official publication since the Iraq dossier. Fortunately, unlike the dossier, we can see through the deception before the decision is taken. For example, we have seen how the DfT colluded with airport owner BAA to amend its modelling to give the right answers on air quality. Much of the DfT’s claim that pollution following a third runway will be within legal limits depends on disputed assumptions that planes and the cars on roads nearby will by then be so much cleaner that it won’t matter that there will be more of them. Similarly, the Dft claimed in its consultation document: “We believe that full mixed mode (540,000 ATMs) by 2015 would be compatible with compliance with the EU air quality limits for PM10, and NO2 in the vicinity of the airport without the need for further mitigation measures.” If not an outright lie, this is tight-fisted in the extreme with the truth. The DfT was claiming here that in 2015 ? the date by which mixed mode operation can be used to squeeze the maximum number of flights into two runways ? pollution in the immediate area will be within the limits set out in the European Air Quality directive. Just as well, as the directive will definitely be in force by then, even if the government achieves a five-year delay. What the DfT was reluctant to admit was that its own predictions show that the directive will be breached at Heathrow (and elsewhere) even before any expansion and that increasing flights from around 2012 would make things worse. If you get to “full mixed mode by 2015” by building to it up from 2012, then that isn’t “compatible with compliance with the limits”. The government’s case is that it won’t breach the limits because it will delay their implementation, but that isn’t the same as complying with them. And neither the Environment Agency nor EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas is convinced by the DfT’s claims that breaches of the directive after 2015 will magically disappear. This kind of sleight of hand should make us worry that the government will fiddle the carbon figures too. In spite of dodgy claims from the aviation industry that the per kilometre carbon footprint of flying will soon be as low as a congestion charge-exempt car, even the government isn’t claiming that more flights to and from Heathrow won’t mean more carbon emissions. Climate change campaigners have welcomed the government’s agreement in principle to include international aviation and shipping in the legally-binding UK carbon budget. Some see it as inevitably restricting aviation expansion while others worry that limits will be sidestepped by purchasing notional carbon reductions from other countries. Will the economic downturn be the final nail in the coffin of Heathrow expansion? It’s tempting to think so, but the government is looking further ahead. It imagines that demand for air travel will rise over 10 or 20 years and worries that Britain won’t be competitive without a piece of it. But with demand falling in the short term, the sense of urgency around expanding aviation should abate. Perhaps the government won’t let the aviation industry and business bounce it into an early decision. The government-sponsored Sustainable Development Commission has been arguing that decisions on expanding aviation shouldn’t be rushed, while there is so much dispute over the facts, never mind the policy. It said in September that the debate looks “immature”. Perhaps it had in mind a crass piece of triangulation from former Business Secretary John Hutton that: “we will help make flying greener rather than restricting people’s opportunities to fly altogether”. If that’s the strength of the case for expanding Heathrow, no wonder people are increasingly seeing through it.
On enemy ground29 Oct 2008Review: The Clash: Live at Shea Stadium With the sheer over-saturation of Clash related material out there, Sony’s release of Live at Shea Stadium is most definitely a last-ditch effort to squeeze every last drop out of modern-day Clash nostalgia. Coming not too far behind Julien Temple’s The Future is Unwritten, Chris Salewicz’s Redemption Song, and a veritable mountain of reissues and remasters, it’s hard to think that Live at Shea isn’t just a textbook example of a major record label behaving, well, like a major record label. Normally such a move would provoke all the derision this writer can muster. Live at Shea is an exception, however, for two reasons. One: this is the Clash! This is the band that politicized punk rock from its very inception, and brought rebellion back to rock ‘n’ roll in a way that still inspires to this very day. Two: the album is a glimpse into a period in the band’s history that was simultaneously exhalting and tragic—between things begun and ended, between the power of great music and ideas and the power of right-wing fear and reaction. The Clash’s decision to open up for the Who on the mega-stars’ “farewell” tour of American stadiums in the fall of ’82 was itself an ideological quandary. The Clash were the biggest they had ever been, and were arguably one of the biggest groups in the world. Combat Rock was proving to be their most successful release to date, and was fast on its way to platinum status. It seemed that the band’s incendiary message was reaching more people than ever before. For a group poised to take over the world, a stadium tour seemed the logical next step. For a group that had always taken an unflinching radical stance, though, stadium tours represented all that was wrong with rock ‘n’ roll. Everything from the flashy stage-shows to the overpriced tickets smacked of how capitalism was ruining music. Furthermore, as biographer Pat Gilbert puts it, “The group had always preferred the intimacy of medium-size venues. It was this philosophy of being able to see and communicate with their audience that lay behind their week-long residencies at modest venues…” In other words, stadiums were where all the democracy and solidarity of music was crushed by piles of cash and elitism. The Clash justified the move by figuring (and rightly so) that the tour was a way to reach even more people. Sound logic, no doubt. The America that the Clash were returning to had entered a new and scary era. The rightward drift of official politics in the US mirrored the same in Britain. A year and a half into Reagan?s presidency, he had already crushed the air traffic controllers? strike, and signaled that he had more of the same in store for women, blacks, and anyone who dared defy the new Washington consensus. Combat Rock was filled with impassioned calls-to-arms, urging young people to dig their heels in and resist the upcoming onslaught. In an interview years later, Joe Strummer would recall his thoughts on the advent of Reagan/Thatcher: ?[When] Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of England and Ronald Reagan became President of the U.S….it was hard to tell who would be worse, but we knew that a tremendous struggle was ahead…their tendencies leaned to the far-right if not fascism.? ***** When the Clash took the stage at Shea on October 13th, rain was coming down in sheets. The prospect of playing in front of 50,000 screaming fans was indeed daunting. Bass player Paul Simonon recalls that ?it felt a bit like miming because there were so many people there.? Yet listening to the album today, one would never guess that the group was so nervous. Footage of the gig shot by documentarian Don Letts shows the four members throwing themselves around the massive stage with the same
swagger and confidence that they brought to the countless club dates they had performed in previous years. Strummer even jokes with the audience at one point: ?Will you stop talking at the back, please? It?s too loud. It?s putting us off the song, here! We?re trying to concentrate so stop yakking!? The moments of raw power and vitality are numerous on Live at Shea. The opening notes of ?London Calling? are punched out so forcefully they could shatter concrete. ?Should I Stay or Should I Go?? possesses a rolling raucousness that can?t even be heard in the studio recording. And ?Career Opportunities??the only song from their first album played that night?carries all the immediacy it had when it was first performed by four unemployed punks in North London five years previously. By the time the group finish off their set with a blistering version of ?I Fought the Law,? they are holding the audience in the palm of their hand. And yet, it?s also apparent that this is a band not too far from disintegration. Just prior to the tour the group had sacked drummer Topper Headon due to his growing heroin addiction, thus putting an end to the ?classic? Clash lineup. Terry Chimes, drummer for the Clash on their first album, had been brought in as a last minute replacement. The sudden change in personnel is evident on some tracks. While Headon had a background in myriad musical styles, Chimes was much more of a straight rock drummer. While he pulls-off the rap and dub beats in during the group?s medley of ?Magnificent Seven? and ?Amagideon Time,? his playing is hollow and often sluggish. Other more prominent schisms within the group are evident too. Those familiar with the group?s version of Eddy Grant?s ?Police On My Back? will notice a section of the song when Mick Jones? lead guitar part is strangely missing. The story here is that Strummer had walked up to Jones and physically grabbed the neck of his guitar to prevent him from
playing. The rift between Jones and the rest of the group had been growing for quite some time. He had disagreed with bringing original manager Bernie Rhodes back on board. He claims to have merely ?gone along? with Topper?s sacking. And his original mix of Combat Rock had been shelved in favor of bringing Glynn Johns in to produce the final version. Chimes was privy to how this bitterness was affecting the daily workings of the Clash: ?By then Joe and Mick obviously had a difference of opinions on a range of things? They had devised a system where they didn?t have to confront each other all the time?there was an avoidance going on, which covered up the fact there were deeper issues there.? ***** Less than a year after the concert at Shea, Jones was kicked out of the Clash. That a founding member whose songwriting and virtuosity on the guitar had been an indispensable part of the group could be kicked out was evidence that their existence had become increasingly rudderless. Combat Rock?s defiant protest hadn?t been enough to stave off the consolidation of Reagan/Thatcherism. As the heated struggles of the 70s were pushed into bitter defeat, anyone with the Clash’s firebrand left-wing politics was forced into either abject obscurity or milquetoast compromise. Compromise was never something the Clash were good at, and they continued to soldier on sans-Jones. But with the movements that had long inspired the Clash?from the anti-racist forces to the Sandinistas?fighting for their very survival, the ground on which they stood became shakier by the day. It didn?t take long for one of rock?s most relevant groups to become a caricature, a music industry parody of what a ?left-wing? band is supposed to look like. “The worst moment was realizing that there was no way forward,? said Strummer some years later, ?like the gap between rhetoric and the actuality. For example, talking about all the issues that the Clash raised and what your daily life would have been like if we’d have stayed together… You know, you’d never really have a life that would be real and
yet you’d be expected to say something real about life to real people and make some real sense.” Not long after the release of their universally panned followup to Combat Rock, the group would call it a day. The concert at Shea would simultaneously be their apex and the beginning of the end for the Clash. One can?t help but listen to Live at Shea Stadium without remembering Strummer?s quip that “rock ‘n’ roll is played on enemy ground.” If a group like the Clash can walk into the belly of the beast and bring the same verve and immediacy that they delivered to anyone who ever listened to them is a testament to the power of truly great music. Knowing that they would be among the many brilliant political acts that imploded in the Reagan 80s makes these fleeting and final moments of greatness all the more prescient. Alexander Billet is a music journalist, writer and socialist living in Chicago. His weblog, Rebel Frequencies, can be viewed at http://rebelfrequencies.blogspot.com, and he can be reached at rebelfrequencies@gmail.com.
UKWatch.net