Syrian misadventure

Collectively we in the West have been doing a lot hand wringing over Syria.

What I mean by that is we are standing to one side as disaster unfolds wringing our hands in anguish, but not actually doing anything decisive.

If you want a good source of info about what is going on over there follow this blog:- http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/ or read http://www.al-monitor.com which is a good source of news for all the middle east.

Now it seems that President Obama is slowly shifting toward intervention. The trigger being alleged use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad against his opponents.

Assad is an old style Arab dictator. Meaning he is something of an endangered species. The Arab monarchies of the Gulf, Jordan and Morocco have survived pretty well, but the secular dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have fallen.

The Yemeni regime totters. As does Assad in Syria.

What form can such intervention take? And how can it end?

What most people who favour intervention seem to want is arming of the rebels. As so often in these situations, people calling for Western intervention keep saying 'no boots on the ground'. This is not a mantra that would necessarily survive an Assad victory.

So, there are problems with intervention. As in all wars, once you take sides it becomes apparent that some of your allies are nearly as unsavoury as your enemies. Sometimes they can be even worse.

Even allying with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany during WWII could be seen as a close call.

In Syria, the regime is close to Iran, brutal and undemocratic. The rebels are allied to al Qaeda, brutal and undemocratic. Tough choice. Weapons given to either side probably will, eventually end up pointed at some ally of the West.

Then there is the issue of who, exactly, to deliver arms to.

How can we keep account of who these guns end up being pointed at?

Finally, Syria is home to a significant Christian population, with some of the oldest monasteries and Christian artefacts in the world. Damascus itself is the world's oldest constantly inhabited city.

Will we accept responsibility for the safety of these people and artefacts? Or like Iraq, will Western intervention be a cultural and sectarian disaster?

It is easy to imagine removing Bashar al Assad. It is just as easy to imagine the people of Syria being even worse off afterward.

Terrorism in a free society

If there is a group of people, dedicated and committed to setting bombs off in public spaces, they will, eventually succeed.

This is bad news for authorities. Terrorism is, however reprehensible, a good strategy.

A couple of decades ago an IRA operative under interrogation told his captors

'You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to get lucky once'

This staement puts the power of assymetric warfare into sharp relief. Any time a bomber gets through, that is a significant victory for the terrorists. Any time a bomb gets stopped? No big deal.

So what can the authorities do?

The authorities, being as they are, near enough always clamp down, hard.

They restrict the rights of citizens.
They enhance the powers of the security forces.

As anyone who watches reports from Iran and Syria can testify, this can never work. Are we in Europe and North America really going to clamp down harder than regimes like that? Yet bombs still go off in those countries. However hard we clamp down, bombs can still go off.

As I noted at the beginning, if there is a group of people, dedicated and committed to setting bombs off in public spaces, they will, eventually succeed.

So why, then, do the authorities clamp down, when it can never work?

I don't pretend to know the full reasoning of every government clampdown, but I expect part of the reason is the need to be seen to 'do something' after an attack.

There is also the tendency to elevate the security establishment to the rank of saints. They are asked what they want to fight this new threat. Their response always involves more money and power. That is just human nature.

But the very nature of terrorism indicates that these are people who are opposed to democracy and freedom. They want to bend the world to their will by bullying. By slaughtering the innocent.

Not only are security clampdowns ineffective. They are tantamaount to surrender. When we curtail the rights of the citizenry in response to bomb attacks we present a victory to the terrorists. Giving up freedom after a bomb is a surrender of our culture. What is really needed is a coming together, a respecting of the rights of the citizen. The authorities trusting the citizenry to unite and fight the threat.

So next time when you see some police representative, someone from the armed secret services, the FBI or whatever telling us that they need these extra powers, these foreign prison camps, a bit of extraordinary rendition, 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (torture for anyone who speaks in simple truths), remember that the security establishment are just another bunch of people. They always want a bigger budget, and less responsibility.

But in a democracy, these people are our servants, not our masters. Just say NO!!!

Bombs and terrorism in Boston

So there have been some bombings again in the US. Boston. And some attempted bombings in Canada.

Firstly, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to all those affected.

The US, until recently, lived in a kind of splendid geographic isolation. Untouched at home by war for a century or more.

Then came al Qaeda.

This was not the first brush the US had with terrorism. Timothy McVeigh and the UnaBommer would by any sensible definition be called terrorists.

Yesterday I saw a woman from Boston speaking on the TV, she mentioned someone has pointed out to her that in Northern Ireland and in Iraq people have lived with this for years.

Irish terrorism was often funded by a US organisation called NORAID. Boston and the Kennedys were also strongly associated with Irish Republicanism. Karma.

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were also closely associated with the US and its allies during the fight to free Afghanistan from Soviet domination. Some say that still Afghanistan has not got the high proportion of girls in school that the communists managed to achieve. Karma.

Even today the US offers some level of tacit support to the rebels in Syria. Will more karma come?

The deaths of many Iranian nuclear scientists in bombings, strange accidents etc are variously blamed on Israel and the US. Another dose of Karma?

Conspiracy theories aside (some people claim the 'deep state' has organised this to take away gun rights, and there is some suggestion that the FBI used the elder brother as an informer at some point) in security circles they call this sort of karma 'blowback'. The people responsible for implementing policies that help cause terrorism know that it does happen. That is why they have a word for it.

Again, I do not support terrorism. I do not wish for innocent Americans to suffer and die any more than I would wish it for citizens of any other country. But US policy DOES support terrorists. It has done consistently, it has done so against its closest allies. It has done so right across the world.

It continues to do so today, and will do for the forseeable future.

After 911 and George W Bush's ridiculous and undignified speech at ground zero America learnt the wrong lessons. America did not learn that pain staking data trawling, screen reading, security checking, the boring, repetitive acttivities that could have stopped that attack, and the Boston one too, was the new priority.

Instead America learnt to curtail the rights of the accused. To ignore the rights of citizens of other countries to live in peace. America threw its weight around like a humiliated bully.

It spent money on muscled men in uniform with more firepower than sense. It needed bespectacled geeky librarian types crouched in front of screens. The men in uniform help cause the problem. They do not provide any sort of solution.

So strangely I find myself in some sympathy with the gun lobby. The right to bear arms is not one which is dear to me, but curtailing the rights of the citizenry in response to this sort of Karma/Blowback, caused in part by the actions of an overbearing state, seems just plain wrong.

Putting the city in lockdown. What for? Far better the FBI learnt to spell. (What I mean by that is, while one of the Boston bombers had been interviewed by the FBI, they had not noted his return to Dagestan, a radicalised Russian republic, because the name on the passenger list was spelt differently. But as Chechen names are not in general written in the Latin, or Western, alphabet, there can be equally valid alternative spellings)

If the US wants to put an end to terrorism, it needs to withdraw from Afghanistan. Stop messing with Itran and Syria. Get rid of a whole load of special forces. Get a good portion of its drone operators checking data.

I do not think they have learnt at all. These men committed the act of murder. For murder they should be tried before a jury. All rights of those accused of criminal offences should be respected. They are not soldiers or enemy combatants, they are common criminals.

They used pressure cookers and emptied shorgun cartridges. While cruelly effective, these are not weapons of mass destruction. They killed less people than have been killed in some of the school shootings that happen from time to time. Are semi automatic rifles to be designated weapons of mass destruction?

The surviving suspect has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. It seems like this is an attempt to get the man executed. It is crude and silly. He should be charged with murder. Possibly multiple counts, and treated like any other criminal. When the US manipulates the law for vengeful or political purposes it undermines the rule of law. That presents a greater victory to terrorism than any amount of bombs.

Korean Teenage Games

So, the new dear/supreme/Beloved leader of North Korea is threatening to nuke his southern neighbours.

I kind of wonder why.

I am aware that South Korea and the US were engaging in joint military exercises. Whish was unnecessary, perhaps a little provocative. But nuclear war? That seems a little excessive as a response.

I fully recognise that the reporting we in the west hear might be less than neutral. But I do have the internet. I can read from other countries and continents. And having read much I think there is something irrational and unpredictable about the North Korean regime.

This does not mean they are totally bonkers in feeling unsettled by the joint military exercises between the south and the US. And when leaders of already nuclear armed nations get together and tell the world that North Korean nuclearisation is 'unacceptable' that is just hypocrisy.

Had Iraq actually had WMD like North Korea does, it would never have been invaded. Whatever else they say, the invasion of Iraq reteaches the old lesson that actions speak louder than words. Western leaders may say they will be friends to leaders who (like Saddam and Gadafi) ditch their nuclear programmes. In practice, both Saddam and Gadafi are gone. The North Korean and Iranian regimes live on.

But, despite all of that, there really is something dangerous and unpredicatable about Kim Jong Un. Some say he can't quite control the army, and the anti western rhetoric is about trying to impress them.

The general consensus seems to be that he doesn't really mean to blow us all up.

The whole thing does strike me as something akin to a teenagers tantrum. He has grown up secluded and spoilt. Detached fromt he reality of ordinary people.

Whatever anyone says, in a high stakes game of chicken, it is possible that a twitchy finger may press the button.

The end of Mrs Thatcher

Much has been said after the death of Margaret Thatcher.

And there has been some dancing in the streets.

I would like to qualify whatever I have to say about Mrs Thatcher by noting that this is really a human story. An elderly woman has died, I bear her family and friends no malice and woud wish they come to terms with their grief in privacy and in their own way.

There are many perspectives on the political career of Mrs Thatcher, but almost all boil down to one of two groups. Love and Hate.

Those that love her say two things, that the demise of those that suffered under her leadership was not of her making, but they were the victims of inexorable historical forces. It was inevitable. And that her policies changed the nation. I see a contradiction here. Were the changes a result of Mrs Thatcher's policies or of unstoppable historical forces?

Whatever you believe, managing the changes with sensitivity and tact was not a strength of Mrs Thatcher.

Her supports also claim she made Britain 'Great' again.

Those that hate her say she destroyed vast swathes of British industry and divided the nation. One might also conclude that instead of managing the decline of British power in the world, Mrs Thatcher actively encouraged the fantasy of continuing British power and influence.

Just considering the reaction to her death, we must accept that Mrs Thatcher was a divisive figure.

And this would be my first point. Truly great leaders unite their people behind them. Mrs Thatcher divided. She divided her party, her country and at times the continent of Europe. She was a charismatic leader with tremendous political achievments, I would not describe her as a great leader.

My second important point would be that Mrs Thatcher was leader of the Conservative party, but was not a conservative. Any political opinion can be described as either radical or conservative. Mrs Thatcher was gernerally radical. She was very rarely conservative.

In order to assess her career we have to agree on what her achievments were. I would summarise her career as prime minister thus:- Mrs Thatcher won a closely fought election in 1979 and unusually became a more radical prime minister than leader of the opposition. Her economic policy did not show early signs of success, within two years of taking office many British city centres were torn apart by rioting, but she was able to achieve a second election victory in 1983. This was largely due to the effect of the Falklands war and also aided by division amongst her political opponents. At the time some thought the Archbishop of Canterbury provided more coherent opposition than any political figure. Mrs Thatcher was also aided by close support of the Murdoch press.

The scale of this victory was what allowed Mrs Thatcher to reshape the political environment. Within her own party those who did not accept her world view were labelled 'wet'. In the rest of the country they were 'the enemy within'. Much of the economy which was state owned ot privatised. Many laws to restrict union activity were passed. Council tennants were permitted to buy their residences and reduced prices. Many individuals benefitted, but the collective capital of society, that which we held in common, was much reduced. One paraphrase of Mrs Thatchers own words (often offered as a quote) is 'there is no such thing as society'. While not an accurate quote this line does reveal something of her philosophical stance.

It was in the second term that Mrs Thatcher's power was at its zenith. Economic conditions were improving for a large proportion of the population. The one off bounty of privatisation of state industries coupled with the sale council houses (social housing built and owned by local government - 'councils') boosted the incomes of those with a little to spare. However privatisation coupled with restrictions on labour unions also reduced the bargaining power of workers, and allowed unemployment to rise. It was an ideological choice to target inflation rather than unemployment as the great macroeconomic problem. With North Sea oil revenue buoyant, the Thatcher government was able to preside over decline in traditional industries without problems in balance of payments or economic growth. Some would argue oil revenue masked wider economic failure. Others that it paid for the policy of unemployment. What is beyond doubt is it facilitated what the government expected to be an economic transition to a more market based economy. The government took on the labour unions, in particular a bitter one year strike by coal miners. While the leadsership on the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) can be easily criticised, and because of the way the strike was called (miners being balloted pit by pit as opposed to nationally) many pits, particularly in Nottinghamshire, stayed open, the defeat of the miners really was the defeat of the union movement. The union movement was the bedrock of the labour movement and the labour party.

There was extensive liberalisation of financial services, which were to replace the old manufacturing industries, this culminsated in the 'big bang' in the city which allowed electronic trading of financial products.

Mrs Thatcher also signed the single European act, creating the single market (an ideological committment), but also making British law subservient to European law for the first time.

A close relationship with President Reagan (who she had first met in 1975) enhanced British influence. And also created the perception of a choice, between Atlanticist and European futures for the nation. This is an issue which is not yet resolved.

The landslide of 1983 made the election of 1987 very difficult for Labour to win. The labour party also had to cope with the erosion of its political base in the wider labour movement which impacted funding. The Conservative party had far more money to spend. Labour reduced the Conservative majority but failed to win. As her time in office wore on Mrs Thatcher seemed to become somewhat detached from reality. Her championing of the poll tax was political suicide. Log and slow, but still suicide. When announcing the birth of her grandchild she said 'We are a grandmother'. Likening herself to royalty. Her government became involved in ever more fractious disputes over Europe, her leadership was challenged, and failing to secure wholehearted support of cabinet colleagues was forced to resign.

Another mark of a truly great leader is knowing when to quit. Here too Mrs Thatcher falls a long way short.

While a political collossus who genuinely managed to shift the centre ground of British politics rightwards, I am unsure there is much positive legacy from Mrs Thatcher as a national leader.

Her achievment in becoming a female MP, party leader and Prime Minister is significant.

Her reshaping of the debate on economic and social policy also.

But as for lasting legacy in the nation, the liberalisation of financial services has already ended in tears.

The initial boon of privatisation has passed, a majority of the public would now prefer the utilities back in public hands.

The union movement still stands shattered.

Local government was emasculated, for all her hatred of the state, Mrs Thatcher was a great centraliser of power.

The notion of a 'special relationship' between the US and UK lives on in the imagination of many British, but was never so important to the US. Obama's piot to Asia amply demonstrates the limited relevance of Europe, never mind the UK. The question of Britain's relationship with Europe remains a poisonous one for politicians of all hues.

Argentina is again becoming restive over the Falklands. The transition from Empire to middle ranking European power has been hindered rather than helped by the impact of Mrs Thatcher's term in office.

Many individuals are living in privately owned ex council properties, but there is a housing crisis in Britain, with woefully inadequate provision of low cost housing.

Not even the question of the UK nuclear deterrent is truly settled.

So far as positive legacy, little is left, if anything at all. Even Mrs Thatcher's reputation as a tax cutter fails to withstand scrutiny. The proportion of GDP taken in tax being higher at the end of her timein office than at the beginning. With North Seal oil in decline, public finances were not on any sort of long term sound footing.

It seems to me that Mrs Thatcher, rather than facing up to the truly hard decisions involving British decline on the world stage, actually ducked them. A divisive figure at home, she used whatever leeway she had to neutralise political enemies both inside and outside her party. Her economic policy stands discredited. Growth was higher in the three decated leading to 1979 than in the subsequent years. Her social polices were disastrous. Her efforts at foreign policy bequeath a legacy of problems which  cannot be addressed until Britain decisively opts for in or out of Europe, another question which her government sidestepped.

Mrs Thatcher has a singular achievment in becoming Britain's first woman Prime Minister. There is little else positive to remember her for.

Fascists in football

Recently Paolo Di Canio was appoined manager of Sunderland football club.

Di Canio has, in the past, described himself as a fascist. He has said Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist dictator of the 1930s and second world war was 'misunderstood'. He has been seen giving straight arm salutes to fans.

All of which I find a bit offensive and silly.

Whether or not Mr Di Canio should be barred from football management as a result of his expressing unpalatable opinions is a separate matter.

In general, I am a believer in freedom of expression. Such statements are meaningless unless applied to people with whom you disagree. Even fascists believe those agreeing with them should be free to express that agreement.

So should Di Canio be barred from football management? On what grounds? I am not that impressed by his record as a manager, but that is not the point. Were we to find out that the greatest football manager in the world is susceptible to a bit of fascism, would that make him unemployable? I imagine not.

It is just one example of hypocrisy is sport. Up until quite recently, certainly in the 1980s, racist chanting at football grounds was commonplace. This was an issue that football failed to really deal with. Only when this sort of behaviour was more generally acceptable in society did this sort of thing stop.

At that point it became a massive priority to stop it in other countries too. Suddenly countries which were still behind the Berlin wall when our fans persisted in chanting racist nonsense are expected to achieve the same level of tolerance that took us decades. It can seem like a way to intimidate the opposition. It reminds me of how for hundreds of years the US abused its black population, then within twenty years of civil rights legislation was applying sanctions to South Africa. Hypocrisy.

It is just this sort of attitude that leads to isolation of minority opinion. This sort of boycotting may be done with the best of intentions, but it will not reduce prejudice, but only serve to drive it underground. Is that to be an objective?

Should a person's political opinions have any relevance to the job they do? Who is it that decides when a person's politics crosses the line into unacceptability? The media? Really?

Whatever else he has done, Mr Di Canio should be judged on his results as manager alone.