Nick ****ing Cohen
UKWatch.net - 19 Sep 2008
The following review was originally solicited by the Observer but was never used. On What’s Left What splendid timing. Out pops a book applauding the virtues of the invasion of Iraq, just when even the invasion’s last bedraggled supporters in the American establishment are giving up on it. Even the head of the British Army has declared it a disaster. The United Nations have revealed that among the occupation’s magnificent achievements is there is more torture in Iraq now than under Saddam. The debate about the scale of the slaughter concerns how many hundreds of thousands are dead. So here Nick Cohen not only cheers the decision to invade but declares his bemusement about why everyone else didn’t join him. Maybe he’s got another one coming out called “Why can’t everyone see England are bound to win the 2006 World Cup?” Much of the book comprises accounts of Iraqis who supported the invasion, with scorn for those opponents of the war who “wouldn’t listen” to Iraqis who’d experienced Saddam’s tyranny. But even the Iraq Survey Group sponsored by George Bush reported that 60% of Iraqis now support attacks on occupying troops, and amongst the most strident are those who suffered under Saddam. So does Cohen still think we should follow mainstream Iraqi opinion. If he does, presumably he’s training to go out there and start firing, is he? But there’s also an extraordinary element to this book. As well as being a re-hash of all the insipid arguments used by fans of the war, (the anti-war movement didn’t want Saddam to be deposed because they “Might have faced a Middle-East running short of dictators for them to salute” etc.), he claims his pro-war mania should be the true agenda for the left. So everyone vaguely connected to the left is reviled in this book for opposing the war: Amnesty International, Nelson Mandela, human rights lawyers, the lot. Everyone was wrong except Nick. Cohen WAS impressed however by Paul Wolfowitz, co-creator of the “Project for the American Century,” and Bush’s choice to head the World Bank for his uncompromising dedication to big business and militarism. Cohen met him in London, and admired his “warmth” and “coherence” and “sense of purpose.” So – the left should denounce everyone with a record of valuing humanity above profit and war, and revere the most prominent champions of profit who are prepared to fight wars to defend this. It would be like someone cheering all season for Arsenal in an Arsenal shirt, then saying he was doing this because he was the only true supporter of Tottenham. And what a bizarre world he lives in, which writes off all those millions who oppose the war as either twisted lefties, or dupes of twisted lefties. So there we are – Cohen is the only true person on the left, despite the fact that on the defining issue of our times he is angrily to the right of two ex-presidents of America, the Liberal Democrats, Joanna Lumley, Leo Sayer, Zoe Ball, Jimmy Hill, Pope John Paul II, Jacques Chirac, Dolly Parton, almost everyone in Africa and South America, the head of the British army and Cat bloody Stevens. It might be worth reading a book explaining the ‘virtues’ of this war by Colin Powell, or even Paul Wolfowitz, as an insight into the thinking of those behind it. But this represents no one but himself. If you’re really bored and fancy reading it, do something more useful, such as counting the ants in your garden or pushing an onion round the perimeter of Surrey.

Bankers should bail themselves out
UKWatch.net - 19 Sep 2008
Thirty years we’ve had, of unfathomably wealthy bankers and dealers being justified as part of the free market. So they boasted: “I’ve just got my summer bonus and spent part of it on a small African nation which I burnt down for a laugh,” or went to restaurants that charged a thousand pounds for meals such as “asparagus boiled in panda’s tears” or bought cars that ran on liquified diamonds, and it was all proof we lived in a free society in which we were paid what we were worth and couldn’t rely on state handouts. Then the minute their scam falls apart, they’re straight on to the Government squealing “Can we have a free state handout please, our bank’s gone bust.” They’re like spoilt students who go back to their Dad for more money because they’ve blown a year’s allowance in one week. But this soppy government will go “You already had fifty billion quid, what have you done with that? Well alright, here’s another fifty billion we were saving for kidney machines, but this time be careful.” It’s so obscene you get comments such as the one yesterday that went “The money men have made fools of us. In the years of their dominance they insisted the markets were the highest judges and must be left to rule. Now the markets are signalling their downfall, they’re running sobbing to governments and taxpayers, begging for our money.” And that piece of class-hatred came from Max Hastings in the Daily Mail. Because the explanation for the current crash from people like that is they were right to demand an unregulated free market, as society could only be run efficiently if the world’s finances were put in the hands of these bankers. But then it turned out these bankers were more interested in their private wealth than in the good of society as a whole ? and fair’s fair, no one could possibly have anticipated that. So, as Gordon Brown has become so friendly with Thatcher, maybe he can put her to use. He should tell her she’s about to make a speech at the Conservative conference, but fill the room with city executives, who’ll be told “You can’t go on paying yourselves more than you earn. We can’t allow those who can’t stand on their own two feet to sponge off the state.” Then they should all be sent down the job centre. At first they’ll complain “There’s nothing for me in there. I trained for two whole hours to get my qualifications as a parasite and there’s no parasite jobs going at the moment anywhere.” Then, just as people who claimed benefits when they were working have to pay the money back, all the bonuses they received for boosting their company’s shares will have to be returned, now the shares are worthless. And if they haven’t got it they should be herded into a new social category called “pension slaves”, in which they spend the rest of their lives doing errands for all the people whose pensions they’ve ruined. Instead the politicians and businessmen will all join together in saying: “It seems that everything we’ve been saying for 30 years has turned out to be shite. In these circumstances, it is imperative that those people who became immensely rich out of creating this shite should be compensated heavily. It is also of great importance than we pay no attention to anyone who warned us this was bound to end in shite, as the only people trustworthy to get us out of it are those that put us in it. Carry on everyone.”

Money in the water
UKWatch.net - 19 Sep 2008
Access to and control of water, have been contentious issues for centuries. Most recently this struggle has taken the form of a conflict over the increasing commercialisation, privatisation and liberalisation of fresh water goods and services. This shift in regulation, which has been introduced throughout much of the world, can be characterised not only by its nature ? an increase in private sector participation in the water sector and thus a reliance on the free market as the model upon which society structures the governance, production and distribution of socially necessary goods and services ? but also the geo-political climate within which this shift takes place, namely, the era of economic globalisation. Indeed, this shift has been facilitated by processes of economic globalisation ? processes that are defined by the dominant neo-liberal policies of deregulation, privatisation and liberalisation. Economic globalisation has done more than just facilitate the shift from public to private sector however. When it comes to governing resources which hitherto were considered public goods or part of the global commons, neoliberal policies have changed the nature and structure of governance. The shift in regulatory power has meant a reduction (and in some cases an outright eclipse) in the planning capacity of local, regional and national authorities. By using the EU and its water policies as an example, this article considers how supranational governing arrangements and institutions act as mutually-protective associations and were formed so as to enshrine legally the right to accumulate capital, through the right to private property and legally raid public goods and services and the global commons, such as water and its provision. There has been, and indeed there still is, much debate and contention about what is, or should be, the purpose, role and responsibilities of the European Union. What?s not in doubt is from its original inception the EU was always designed to underpin legally, grow, protect and sustain capitalism in Europe and beyond. This was made clear in the Treaty of Rome. Steve Mcgiffen, describes the role and purpose of the EU: ?In the main The Treaty of Rome set out to make western Europe safe for capitalism and in particular for the biggest corporations? Since then, the power of corporations has grown and that of other social forces has diminished. This is reflected in the four major treaties, which have carried integration ever further since the mid-1980?s and reached its apotheosis in the text of the so-called constitutional treaty, in reality no constitution at all but a neo-liberal political programme, an audacious attempt to transform a temporary political ascendancy into a set of permanent arrangements and institutions?The consistent theme is that what?s good for business is good for everyone, and what?s good for business is to be able to make profit with as few restraints as possible ? even where these restraints involve the well-being of the environment or the people and other beings which inhabit it? (Mcgiffen, 2005:180-181). A key area of focus here is how the political and policy direction has been charted in the EU, and our concern is how this relates to water policy in Scotland. The increasing commercialisation, privatisation and liberalisation of water in Scotland is taking place incrementally by introducing legislation – in the form of EU directives alongside national policy ? which, taken together, can create the impression of being an irresistible force that?s thrusting water policy, governance and ownership down a private sector path. Evidence of the EU?s preferred route in water policy is seen in their activities in and out of Europe. Outside Europe the EU has encouraged privatisation through bi-lateral agreements where conditionalities have been placed on Trade and Aid agreements: benefiting European companies, the market leaders in private water provision. This mindset is displayed in the European Commission Research programme. FP7 supports research in selected priority areas – the aim being to make, or keep, the EU as a world leader in those sectors. One of these sectors is water: through the Water Supply and Sanitation Technology Programme (WSSTP). This combines members from the European Commission, the Private Water Utilities, the private scientific community and national water associations. The water policy direction promoted by the EU in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) acceding and candidate countries is also evidence of the underpinning mindset prevalent in the EU. Privatisation, commercialisation and ?institutional reform? which benefit existing Western European Companies, such as Veolia and Suez, is the medicine most prescribed by EU institutions in CEE countries. The European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) are key proponents of such a path. The remit of the ERBD is clear: to invest mainly in Private Companies to help central and Eastern Europe and ex-soviet countries nurture a new private sector and market based economy. The EIB, a part owner of the EBRD, promotes values and so-called institutional reform in public utilities, which corporatise and commercialise and, arguably, lay the foundations for potential future privatisations. Loans to CEE Water Utilities are often given alongside grants from the European IPSA funds. Yet still there is a modern day scandal of 20-22 million CEE people who do not have adequate sanitation provision: unsurprising, as those going without proper sanitation are amongst the poorest Europeans and would not be able to ensure ?full cost recovery? and so-called ?bankability? for private investors and operators. In its Paper ?Global Europe: Competing in the World? The European Commission, DG Trade, and its Commissioner Peter Mandelson, asserted that European Companies require competitive markets at home to create globally competitive companies in the EU. This includes services: though water is currently exempted from the Services Directive it is constantly under threat of inclusion though it is considered a service to be exported beyond Europe?s borders. They claim how ?Services are the cornerstone of the EU economy. They (services) represent 77 per cent of GDP and employment, an area of European comparative advantage with the greatest potential for growth in EU exports. Gradually liberalising global trade in services is an important factor in future economic growth including in the developing world?. The words of the European Commission Paper mirror almost identically those of the European Services Forum (ESF) set out in a position paper in 2007. Indicating the influence of big business on the policies of the EU, they state: ?Services account for over 77 per cent of both European GDP and employment but to date represents only 28 per cent of European external trade. Simply put, the growth potential implied by this disparity requires that all new trade agreements concluded by the European Union include a comprehensive package of services liberalisation. The EU must ensure that this fact is made explicit to all potential negotiating partners before talks are opened.? (ESF Position Paper on Trade Agreements, (28 February 2007) An important driver of the gradual liberalisation of water provision is the use of EU directives. Many of the directives related to water appear benign and technocratic and indeed progressive. Intended to improve the environment and human health, the likes of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, Drinking Water Directive, the Nitrates Directive, and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are individually sound directives in improving human health and water sustainability. They have been introduced, however, just as some utilities are downsizing and sticking only to their core services, such as in Stockholm, and/or commercialising operations still in a public framework, such as Scotland or Northern Ireland. Thus, adherence to the complex needs of such directives necessitates an increased role for private companies: whether it be multi-faceted private operators or specialised technological companies who offer a particular service needed to meet the requirements of the directives. Alarmingly, EU Directives make up approximately 80 per cent of UK Water legislation. In Scotland there have been three significant consequences of EU policy and legislation. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive required the Regional Water Authorities at that time to seek finance through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) as their funding from borrowing and charges was not enough to cover the costs of the new Waste Water Treatment Plants. The possibility of additional borrowing or indeed extra spending from government was not countenanced. This powerfully demonstrated ?a reluctance to raise taxation to cover much needed investment means that private sector investment is required to modernise facilities and pay for EU-mandated modernisation? (Global Water Report). The environmental and social impact of rolling out with PFI was shown last year when the Seafield Treatment Works leaked a catastrophic amount of sewerage into the Forth over a whole weekend ? due to the breakdown of a pump and the then operator, Thames Water, not having a spare pump in place. This incident led to essential council workers being taken from front-line duties in order to patrol Edinburgh?s beaches and fisherman being grounded. Despite the risk being ? apparently ?transferred to the operator they were fined only 13,500, while Fishermen in Pittenweem are still fighting for compensation with no agency or organisation taking responsibility to pay them their lost earnings. When considering the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 the Parliament at that time allowed Competition in the non-domestic sector (to bill, charge and deal with customer issues) out of a concern that the Competition Act, modelled on articles 81 and 82 of the European Community Treaty, could foist on them an arrangement not conducive to the wants and needs of the Scottish industry. The STUC argued for an exemption in 2000, but the then Scottish Executive believed and decided otherwise. Stating in their consultation Managing Change in the Scottish Water Industry that, ?The Executive is keen to ensure that Scottish water and sewerage legislation and UK competition legislation, taken together provide, an effective framework for the development of competition in the Scottish water sector?. Worryingly, but not surprisingly, in June this year, Alan Sutherland – the Chief Executive of the Water Industry Commission – called for competition to be rolled out to domestic customers of water. Moreover, not content with calling for water to be further liberalised in Scotland, he advocated a full UK market for all domestic and non-domestic services. Sutherland denied this as a departure from Scotland?s publicly owned status. One can only wonder what Mr Sutherland believes constitutes public ownership? The Water Framework Directive plainly affects Scotland as well. And, while it is inconclusive in terms of its prescription of how the governance and ownership of water should take shape, it does enshrine particular substantive principles that exceed simply technocratic solutions thereby giving institutional legitimacy to ideological initiatives such as full-cost recovery. This was transposed into Scottish law through the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. What?s more, the WFD has had a profound affect on the way in which Scotland sustains its water services. It is clear that the WFD is being used to support the notion that general taxation should not pay for the essential public need of water. There are other directives, not necessarily explicitly water related, that facilitate the commercialisation and privatisation of water in Scotland. The Utility Procurement Directive tries ?to ensure a real opening up of the market and a fair balance in the application of procurement rules in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors?. The directive goes on to state, ?It should be ensured, therefore, that the equal treatment of contracting entities operating in the public sector and those operating in the private sector is not prejudiced?. In one sense this legally affirms the current direction of water in Scotland as Scottish Water continues to decrease its in-house workforce and capabilities and increasingly outsources its work. On the other it should be noted that this directive legally enshrines such a direction. The policy direction inside Europe indicates a layered and complex path is taken; whilst actions outside Europe illustrate, ultimately, the ideological predisposition of the EU. The current direction is no accident: it follows a clear political trajectory that promotes a ?Public Bad/Private Good? ethos. This is of fundamental importance: particular political choices drawn from a particular strain of free-market ideology is the order of the day. As Robert Kuttner notes, ?The decision to allow markets, flaws and all, free rein is just one political choice among many. There is no escape from politics?. (Kuntner,1999:329). Alternatively, political decisions can be made in a progressive manner whereby public authorities seek to re-appropriate public goods and services. In Paris the municipality has chosen to re-municipalise water supply, as they have also done in Grenoble. What?s important here is that these were deliberate political choices made by governing authorities. In Scotland EU directives have been used to affirm and introduce policies conducive to the dominant political ideology that sees the penetration of public goods and services as progressive . If we are to strive for a genuine political alternative and outlook that employed a strategy of legally enshrining universal access to water – and other such public goods and services for that matter. A constitutional amendment, impregnable to the private sector, which is based on guaranteeing equitable access to water for everyone irrespective of an individual?s financial wherewithal is needed? then, and only then can we be sure of such universal access now and in the future. Tommy Kane and Kyle Mitchell are PhD candidates at Strathclyde University and are members of and contributors to the Reclaiming Public Water Network.

Brown inches closer to ingsoc
UKWatch.net - 19 Sep 2008
The use, misuse and downright abuse of the word ‘Orwellian’ seem to be a prerequisite for much of modern discourse, political and otherwise. One wonders how the man himself would react, having fervently expressed his disgust at the linguistic imprecision prevalent in political commentary. He bemoaned the promiscuous application of the word ‘fascism’ to things as diverse as youth hostels, astrology, homosexuality and Gandhi, so one can only imagine his reaction the to the use of the word ‘Orwellian’ to describe Indian brain scans, employment equity, a recent Jimmy Page album, and a TV programme in which George Galloway wore a leotard and lapped milk from a saucer. Orwell lamented that “it is often easier to make up words…than to think up the English words that will cover one’s meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness…the great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” Orwell was invoked recently in AC Grayling’s Guardian piece, which commented on the Brown government’s proposal to implement a system whereby every email, text message, phone call, VOIP call and web usage in the UK will be recorded, centrally stored, and made accessible to government entities, including those outside of law enforcement. The measure will require a billion incidents of data exchange to be recorded each day. Grayling described this astonishing proposal as an ‘Orwellian nightmare’, and went on to assert that “not even George Orwell in his most febrile moments could have envisaged a world in which every citizen could be so thoroughly monitored every moment of the day, spied upon, eavesdropped, watched, tracked, followed by CCTV cameras, recorded and scrutinised.” The objection here is, unfortunately, that (for once) the commentator has undersold the extent to which Brown’s proposal accords with Orwell’s imagined dystopia. It is pertinent to place this proposal alongside other New Labour surveillance initiatives. Firstly, the police are planning to expand their automatic number plate recognition systems to enable them to read 50 million licence plates a day, reconstructing and recording the details of drivers’ journeys, which can then be held for five years. Secondly, the DNA of wrongly-arrested innocent citizens is now held on file indefinitely in a national database (as happened to Darren Nixon in February of this year ? his black mp3 player was mistaken for a handgun, and for the rest of his life the national DNA database will testify that he was arrested on suspicion of a firearms offence). Thirdly, the Telegraph revealed this month that local councils are offering rewards of up to 500 to individuals, including children as young as eight years old, who snoop on their neighbours and report minor infractions, which can include crimes as petty as failure to recycle. The description of the role ranges from council to council, from ‘street scene champions’ and ‘street hawks’ to ‘covert human intelligence sources.’ Southwark Council employs 400 such volunteers. Add to this mix the forthcoming nationwide introduction of compulsory ID cards containing biometric data, the proposed extension of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 42 days, and, of course, that the fact that London’s citizens are caught on CCTV on average every six seconds (with facial recognition technology very firmly in the governmental pipeline). Suddenly the need to consider Grayling’s claim more seriously becomes apparent. Has the UK finally reached a point where comparisons with 1984 are genuinely appropriate? Brown’s vision of the UK comprises a nation-state where every type of electronic communication (and car journey) of every person, all the time, everywhere, is recorded, with this information being made available to a list of entities that is distinctly shadowy in its precision. In 1984, the Thought Police achieved this level of surveillance by way of the ubiquitous two-way Telescreen, through which party messages were beamed and citizens observed. Siemens’ telecommunications monitoring technology ? already sold to 60 countries ? hadn’t been conceived in 1948 when Orwell wrote his book, but when combined with an estimated 4 million CCTV cameras, it is arguably more effective than the fictional Telescreen at capturing the day-to-day interactions of the populace. Telescreens could in some quarters be switched off, and paid only cursory attention to the ‘proles.’ Brown’s proposal is all-encompassing. Furthermore, the ‘covert human intelligence sources’ employed by local councils bear more than a passing resemblance to the youth leagues of spies in Orwell’s book, taught from an early age the value of betraying fellow citizens for the all-seeing state. Finally, consider the plight of an individual detained under the anti-terrorist powers, like Rizwaan Sabir: a postgraduate in International Relations at the University of Nottingham studying terrorism, detained without charge for six days, for possessing an Al-Qaeda document available in paperback at both Amazon.com and the US Justice Department website. The Thought Police in Orwell’s novel would pluck potential dissidents ? those yet to actually offend, as in Sabir’s case – from their daily lives, based on covert surveillance, depositing them in the Ministry of Love for re-education through torture. Thankfully, we are not at the stage of re-education through torture ? yet ? but the mere possibility of a reasonable comparison with the Thought Police is cause for grave concern. So was AC Grayling right to claim that “not even George Orwell in his most febrile moments could have envisaged a world in which every citizen could be so thoroughly monitored every moment of the day, spied upon, eavesdropped, watched, tracked, followed by CCTV cameras, recorded and scrutinised”? Well, no. However his error was not the usual hyperbolic cooption of Orwell’s legacy, but a mere error of fact. Orwell did conceive of such a world. However, he did so in the context of a cautionary tale about the imagined excesses of a fictional totalitarian state – not a description of proposals to be included in the next Queen’s speech. In 1984, “there was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time.” Did Orwell’s title miss the boat by 24 years?