Some fairly crazed people have beheaded a British soldier in Woolwich.
They have done so in the name of Islam, and the umma (the world wide community of Muslims).
The vast majority of Muslims utterly reject that which has been done.
The man who was killed had a 'help for heroes' T shirt on. 'help for heroes' is a charity that raises money for British soldiers, often those injured in action.
To be clear, I do not consider British soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan heroes. They are not my heroes and they are not fighting on my behalf.
Neither do I think joining the British army, or wearing a 'help for heroes' T shirt is a crime. So far as I can tell, this guy was picked a random and executed because of his association with the British army.
While it is beyond dispute that reprehensible acts have been committed by some British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, this was not in general their purpose. It may be the purpose of some individuals in the British Army. It was the purpose of the guys who committed the crime in Woolwich.
Despite a news blackout by UK media, there has been a response by English neo Fascists, the English Defence League (EDL). They have been chanting nationalistic bullshit in Woolwich square. There has also been some limited violence.
All this is a bit alarming. A great shame.
As always I am struck by the similarities between the guys cutting the head off a soldier, and the neo fascists who respond. Most ordinary people have more in common with each other than either of these two groups.
What is alarming is the growing number of ordinary people who fail to realise this. There are increasing numbers of people who think that all British soldiers are 'heroes'. Or that Western oppression of Muslims makes all British soldiers legitimate targets. This is all nonsense.
I only hope our government does something about youth unemployment soon.
Thursday 23 May 2013
Monday 20 May 2013
Abenomics, and the end of Austerity
In the 80s it was fashionable to see Japan as futuristic. Rock bands went there to record their live albums. Britain had a pop group named Japan.
We all had to abandon out old fashioned work practices and become like the Japanese. I even remember being shown videos (yes, that old) in school of how wonderful the Japanese and their society were.
We would all lose our jobs to the Japanese if we didn't reform and become like them.
When I look back on that, I marvel at how much has changed on the surface, but how little in practice. Nowadays Japan is ridiculed as a basket case. It is old fashioned and static. Incapable of reform and bereft of ideas.
Funny thing is, Japan has scarcely changed, and neither has the world. We are still being told that the new 'economic powerhouses' of India, Brazil, China threaten our way of life. therefore we need lower pay and less privileges to counter the threat. There is always some foreigner threatening our way of life. And some other foreigner to ridicule.
An alternative view is that Japan is not from some parallel reality, either better or worse, that Japan is on the same curve as us, just a little ahead. So the Japan of the 80s presaged the Western prosperity of the 90s. That the 'lost decade' of the 90s, Asian financial crisis, 'zombie banks', falling population and all is where we are now.
Ad it will continue, at least until someone over here implements something akin to Abenomics.
To be sure, the success of Abenomics is not proven. That does not dilute the point I am making.
Abenomics, whether success or failure, has changed the trajectory. Limping along like it has for the past 20 years is not where Japan is headed now. It goes either to recovery or sovereign default.
I would argue, it is a better policy option that continuing to try and muddle through.
Unlike endless austerity, there is at least some chance of recovery. And if not, the boil is lanced.
We all had to abandon out old fashioned work practices and become like the Japanese. I even remember being shown videos (yes, that old) in school of how wonderful the Japanese and their society were.
We would all lose our jobs to the Japanese if we didn't reform and become like them.
When I look back on that, I marvel at how much has changed on the surface, but how little in practice. Nowadays Japan is ridiculed as a basket case. It is old fashioned and static. Incapable of reform and bereft of ideas.
Funny thing is, Japan has scarcely changed, and neither has the world. We are still being told that the new 'economic powerhouses' of India, Brazil, China threaten our way of life. therefore we need lower pay and less privileges to counter the threat. There is always some foreigner threatening our way of life. And some other foreigner to ridicule.
An alternative view is that Japan is not from some parallel reality, either better or worse, that Japan is on the same curve as us, just a little ahead. So the Japan of the 80s presaged the Western prosperity of the 90s. That the 'lost decade' of the 90s, Asian financial crisis, 'zombie banks', falling population and all is where we are now.
Ad it will continue, at least until someone over here implements something akin to Abenomics.
To be sure, the success of Abenomics is not proven. That does not dilute the point I am making.
Abenomics, whether success or failure, has changed the trajectory. Limping along like it has for the past 20 years is not where Japan is headed now. It goes either to recovery or sovereign default.
I would argue, it is a better policy option that continuing to try and muddle through.
Unlike endless austerity, there is at least some chance of recovery. And if not, the boil is lanced.
Friday 17 May 2013
Syria, more dangerous than Iraq
Long after the fall of the Soviet Union, there persists a Russian sphere of influence in the world. Love it or loathe it, Russia still matters.
I suppose the reasons are partly historical. It matters today because it mattered yesterday. The relationships between the elites in Russia and those in North Korea, Cuba or elsewhere don't disappear over night.
Russia also remains a major arms supplier. And in some ex Soviet countries, Russian is still a significant language.
But the reasons are not so important. The fact remains that Russian is still important in some places. In particular, Russia matters in Syria.
Back in the cold war, most nations were either in the Soviet or the US column. Syria was firmly in the Soviet column. Today, Russia's only Mediterranean base is in Syria.
Iraq was never in the Soviet Column. Iraq was a firm ally of the west when Saddam chose to start gassing his own civilians into submission. Iraq remained in the US column when Saddam gassed his Iranian neighbours in the gulf war.
So while the Russians opposed the invasion of Iraq, it did not pose an sort of threat to their sphere of influence, so long as Iran (Western column until the Islamic revolution, thereafter kind of non aligned with Soviet leanings) was left untouched. Iranian power and influence were much enhanced by the Western invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Russia never did that much to help the Iraqi regime. Why should it?
But Syria is different. Syria is still an ally of Russia. Syria is an ally of Iran. Syria provides access to the Mediterranean for both these allies.
Syria is an ally that neither of these countries feels able to lose.
So that is why Russia is busy sending anti ship missiles to Syria.
Unfortunately, the strategic location, and the value to rivals makes Syria a prize worth fighting for.
Pretty soon we could be seeing a Russian fleet in Cyprus. Iranian revolutionary guards in Damascus. Hezbollah guerrillas in Aleppo. This will destabilise Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, even Saudi Arabia.
The Arab monarchies of the gulf think they are ever so clever. They may have lost ground to Iran with the Shia take over of Iraq, but they reckon the same demographic logic will force Syria from the Shia to the Sunni camp.
They think they can ride the tiger of the Arab revolutionary wave (which we used to call he Arab spring) through Damascus, and stop it before it reaches Bahrain, Oman or Qatar.
Qatar, the home of Al Jazeera has been exposed along with Saudi Arabia as a major financer of the Syrian opposition. Do these countries think they will remain aloof and immune from the civil war in Syria? However it began, Syria is now in a civil war.
Russia cannot afford for Assad to lose this civil war. This line up of great powers makes this conflict much more dangerous than Iraq. Should Obama sake American prestige on removing Assad, things will only get worse.
Many 'hawks' in Washington are keen for Obama to do just that. Perhaps they think it will somehow help Israel, despite the instability that would ensue on he Northern border. Perhaps they think cutting the supply lines from Iran to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is worth the risk.
When a new supply line opens from Iran to Bahrain and the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, which are both majority Shia, will it still be worth it? If the Assad regime does fall, whoever takes over will be no more pro western than the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They will be virulently anti Israel.
I suppose the reasons are partly historical. It matters today because it mattered yesterday. The relationships between the elites in Russia and those in North Korea, Cuba or elsewhere don't disappear over night.
Russia also remains a major arms supplier. And in some ex Soviet countries, Russian is still a significant language.
But the reasons are not so important. The fact remains that Russian is still important in some places. In particular, Russia matters in Syria.
Back in the cold war, most nations were either in the Soviet or the US column. Syria was firmly in the Soviet column. Today, Russia's only Mediterranean base is in Syria.
Iraq was never in the Soviet Column. Iraq was a firm ally of the west when Saddam chose to start gassing his own civilians into submission. Iraq remained in the US column when Saddam gassed his Iranian neighbours in the gulf war.
So while the Russians opposed the invasion of Iraq, it did not pose an sort of threat to their sphere of influence, so long as Iran (Western column until the Islamic revolution, thereafter kind of non aligned with Soviet leanings) was left untouched. Iranian power and influence were much enhanced by the Western invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Russia never did that much to help the Iraqi regime. Why should it?
But Syria is different. Syria is still an ally of Russia. Syria is an ally of Iran. Syria provides access to the Mediterranean for both these allies.
Syria is an ally that neither of these countries feels able to lose.
So that is why Russia is busy sending anti ship missiles to Syria.
Unfortunately, the strategic location, and the value to rivals makes Syria a prize worth fighting for.
Pretty soon we could be seeing a Russian fleet in Cyprus. Iranian revolutionary guards in Damascus. Hezbollah guerrillas in Aleppo. This will destabilise Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, even Saudi Arabia.
The Arab monarchies of the gulf think they are ever so clever. They may have lost ground to Iran with the Shia take over of Iraq, but they reckon the same demographic logic will force Syria from the Shia to the Sunni camp.
They think they can ride the tiger of the Arab revolutionary wave (which we used to call he Arab spring) through Damascus, and stop it before it reaches Bahrain, Oman or Qatar.
Qatar, the home of Al Jazeera has been exposed along with Saudi Arabia as a major financer of the Syrian opposition. Do these countries think they will remain aloof and immune from the civil war in Syria? However it began, Syria is now in a civil war.
Russia cannot afford for Assad to lose this civil war. This line up of great powers makes this conflict much more dangerous than Iraq. Should Obama sake American prestige on removing Assad, things will only get worse.
Many 'hawks' in Washington are keen for Obama to do just that. Perhaps they think it will somehow help Israel, despite the instability that would ensue on he Northern border. Perhaps they think cutting the supply lines from Iran to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is worth the risk.
When a new supply line opens from Iran to Bahrain and the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, which are both majority Shia, will it still be worth it? If the Assad regime does fall, whoever takes over will be no more pro western than the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They will be virulently anti Israel.
Tuesday 14 May 2013
Cameron and the EU
Cameron has got himself into a terrible spot. As a young politician he was a aide to Norman Lamont, John Major's disastrous chancellor of the Exchequer who presided over the debacle of exit from the ERM. At this time he was
As a fresh leader he styled himself as the 'heir to Blair', pragmatic and socially progressive.
At election time he presented himself as a fiscal conservative and prime ministerial.
And under threat from his back benchers and a nascent right wing electoral force in UKIP, he now tacks to the right on Europe.
In short Cameron may be seen as a great political chameleon, as was Blair.
On the other hand, given his background, it is also possible to see Cameron as a throwback to an earlier age of patrician Tories.
His continued backing for the international development (aid) budget coupled with his consistent record as a social liberal (at least within the context of his party) display something other than simple pragmatism.
Mr Cameron appears to come from that class that thinks he has a God given right to rule. He thinks he was born to rule.
In that sense the career of Mr Cameron is reminiscent more of Mr Bush than Mr Blair. Both started out as representing the centrist wing of their parties (remember Bush the compassionate conservative?). Both have championed international aid, in the face of political opposition. Both have implemented some radical policies in education for the poorest.
Most importantly, both come from families which presume to know what is best for the rest of us. Both rule with a cavalier attitude of indifference. Embarking on radical shake ups of long established systems without bothering to think through he most immediate consequences. Both delegate vast slices of power to basically unelectable sidekicks (Osbourne/Cheney), who are driven by ideological fervour hard to identify in the leader. Both appear sort of semi detached from the political fray, so some conclude that real power rests with the sidekick.
There are, though, real differences. Mr Cameron has not yet managed to win an election. He therefore must engage with his coalition partners. You could argue that Mr Bush also failed to win election first time around, but he did at least win the count.
And he is not leader of a superpower, but rather prime minister of a member of that troubled partnership called the EU.
Both of these facts limit Cameron's room for manoeuvre. His response is that of the old style patrician. He tries to play the different constituencies off against one another. He tells his back benchers that he can't move to the right because of the Liberal Democrats, and the Liberal Democrats that he can't be more liberal because of his own party. Her forgets they sit next to one another in parliament. It escapes him that the whole of parliament asks what his policy would be if he had the choice, and no one knows the answer.
This is what has brought the United Kingdom to our current predicament. Mr Cameron wants the political benefit of bashing Europe. Of blaming the Liberal Democrats for his pro Europeanism. Of blaming the EU for high levels of immigration.
He wants to do all of this without actually changing anything. This sort of status quo suits him well. He wants to make a fuss at EU summits, get some special piece of paper with some special words on to show how 'strong' he is.
This is how the patricians rule.
Mr Cameron has forgotten that Twitter has been invented. The country is, at some level, aware that he says one thing about Europe, but intends to do approximately nothing about it. Hence the rise of UKIP.
We no longer live in an age where a politician speaks and we all listen to their words through established media. We live in a more democratic society, where everyone can be a part of the conversation.
For Mr Cameron, an ex PR man, for whom controlling the narrative really is everything, this is an especially difficult change to manage.
He is already to some extent an electoral failure. It is difficult to see how his career in office can end any other way.
As a fresh leader he styled himself as the 'heir to Blair', pragmatic and socially progressive.
At election time he presented himself as a fiscal conservative and prime ministerial.
And under threat from his back benchers and a nascent right wing electoral force in UKIP, he now tacks to the right on Europe.
In short Cameron may be seen as a great political chameleon, as was Blair.
On the other hand, given his background, it is also possible to see Cameron as a throwback to an earlier age of patrician Tories.
His continued backing for the international development (aid) budget coupled with his consistent record as a social liberal (at least within the context of his party) display something other than simple pragmatism.
Mr Cameron appears to come from that class that thinks he has a God given right to rule. He thinks he was born to rule.
In that sense the career of Mr Cameron is reminiscent more of Mr Bush than Mr Blair. Both started out as representing the centrist wing of their parties (remember Bush the compassionate conservative?). Both have championed international aid, in the face of political opposition. Both have implemented some radical policies in education for the poorest.
Most importantly, both come from families which presume to know what is best for the rest of us. Both rule with a cavalier attitude of indifference. Embarking on radical shake ups of long established systems without bothering to think through he most immediate consequences. Both delegate vast slices of power to basically unelectable sidekicks (Osbourne/Cheney), who are driven by ideological fervour hard to identify in the leader. Both appear sort of semi detached from the political fray, so some conclude that real power rests with the sidekick.
There are, though, real differences. Mr Cameron has not yet managed to win an election. He therefore must engage with his coalition partners. You could argue that Mr Bush also failed to win election first time around, but he did at least win the count.
And he is not leader of a superpower, but rather prime minister of a member of that troubled partnership called the EU.
Both of these facts limit Cameron's room for manoeuvre. His response is that of the old style patrician. He tries to play the different constituencies off against one another. He tells his back benchers that he can't move to the right because of the Liberal Democrats, and the Liberal Democrats that he can't be more liberal because of his own party. Her forgets they sit next to one another in parliament. It escapes him that the whole of parliament asks what his policy would be if he had the choice, and no one knows the answer.
This is what has brought the United Kingdom to our current predicament. Mr Cameron wants the political benefit of bashing Europe. Of blaming the Liberal Democrats for his pro Europeanism. Of blaming the EU for high levels of immigration.
He wants to do all of this without actually changing anything. This sort of status quo suits him well. He wants to make a fuss at EU summits, get some special piece of paper with some special words on to show how 'strong' he is.
This is how the patricians rule.
Mr Cameron has forgotten that Twitter has been invented. The country is, at some level, aware that he says one thing about Europe, but intends to do approximately nothing about it. Hence the rise of UKIP.
We no longer live in an age where a politician speaks and we all listen to their words through established media. We live in a more democratic society, where everyone can be a part of the conversation.
For Mr Cameron, an ex PR man, for whom controlling the narrative really is everything, this is an especially difficult change to manage.
He is already to some extent an electoral failure. It is difficult to see how his career in office can end any other way.
Tuesday 7 May 2013
Red Lines in international policy
Mr Obama, heavily encouraged by Mr Netanyahu and various lobbyists, has declared a 'red line'.
That is, he has said if the Syrian regime does this. He will do that.
This is a very silly policy. 'Red lines' demonstrate nothing but the weakness of a leadership that declare them.
Mr Obama has been forced to declare his red line because, as a liberal Democrat, he is sensitive to the allegation that his support for Israel is less than whole hearted. For that reason he has been pressured by lobbyists, by people within his own administration, by Mr Netanyahu to declare a Syrian 'red line'. Which if crossed would elicit a military response from the USA.
This gives the impression that policy is made not so much by Mr Obama, but whichever configuration of allies can exert enough pressure. It makes him look weak.
It is worse than that. Mr Obama has now delivered a hostage to fortune. The Syrian regime knows that it can get away with anything up to the 'red line'. And if the regime believes that US intervention is inevitable, they have a great deal of choice as to when it will come.
Once having uttered the ultimatum of red line diplomacy, decisions are out of Mr Obama's hands. Unless of course he lets Syrian cross the red line and do nothing. In which case he would look weak anyhow.
In the UK, rather than red lines, we used to talk about 'lines in the sand'. This take on the 'line drawing policy' has an implicit acknowledgement, that is whenever you draw a line in the sand across the beach, sooner or later the sea, something much bigger and stronger than the whole of humanity, will wipe that line out.
Perhaps it is in memory of the famous story about King Canute, who encouraged by his courtiers, was carried on to the beach and commanded the incoming tide to stop its advance. The sea, of course, ignored him and wet his feet.
Naturally the courtiers were punished, and flattery discredited, for a season.
Everyone telling Mr Obama and America to draw his 'red line' or line in the sand, are like Canute's idiot courtiers. It is not their credibility they are staking on this artificial line.
Mr Obama should have had the strength and good sense to ignore them. Now, after the line has been drawn, there are no good options left.
That is, he has said if the Syrian regime does this. He will do that.
This is a very silly policy. 'Red lines' demonstrate nothing but the weakness of a leadership that declare them.
Mr Obama has been forced to declare his red line because, as a liberal Democrat, he is sensitive to the allegation that his support for Israel is less than whole hearted. For that reason he has been pressured by lobbyists, by people within his own administration, by Mr Netanyahu to declare a Syrian 'red line'. Which if crossed would elicit a military response from the USA.
This gives the impression that policy is made not so much by Mr Obama, but whichever configuration of allies can exert enough pressure. It makes him look weak.
It is worse than that. Mr Obama has now delivered a hostage to fortune. The Syrian regime knows that it can get away with anything up to the 'red line'. And if the regime believes that US intervention is inevitable, they have a great deal of choice as to when it will come.
Once having uttered the ultimatum of red line diplomacy, decisions are out of Mr Obama's hands. Unless of course he lets Syrian cross the red line and do nothing. In which case he would look weak anyhow.
In the UK, rather than red lines, we used to talk about 'lines in the sand'. This take on the 'line drawing policy' has an implicit acknowledgement, that is whenever you draw a line in the sand across the beach, sooner or later the sea, something much bigger and stronger than the whole of humanity, will wipe that line out.
Perhaps it is in memory of the famous story about King Canute, who encouraged by his courtiers, was carried on to the beach and commanded the incoming tide to stop its advance. The sea, of course, ignored him and wet his feet.
Naturally the courtiers were punished, and flattery discredited, for a season.
Everyone telling Mr Obama and America to draw his 'red line' or line in the sand, are like Canute's idiot courtiers. It is not their credibility they are staking on this artificial line.
Mr Obama should have had the strength and good sense to ignore them. Now, after the line has been drawn, there are no good options left.
Wednesday 1 May 2013
Mayday for the workers!
Happy Mayday one and all. Today is meant to be an international celebration of workers.
Many people in Europe will observe it. But rather like the European church, the European labour movement is getting older and less relevant by the year.
The average age of those on Mayday marches across Europe continues to rise, even if the financial crisis has boosted the numbers in the last few years.
One reason is the previous successes of the Labour movement. Organised Labour has made it more difficult to get rid of workers. And it has increased the rewards and benefits they get for the same amount of work. That has made employing people more expensive, and the taking on of young employees much more risky.
So there is now massive youth unemployment in Europe. and the average age of people on workers marches goes on rising.
Another reason is the loss of confidence of workers in their own importance. Globalisation has entered the popular imagination. European workers genuinely do see themselves to be in competition with Chinese and Indian workers.
There is a great deal of mythology about the strength of this competition. For example, take a look at this presentation:- http://www.slideshare.net/
So the Labour movement, founded to represent the oppressed, finds itself defending vested interests of privileged workers. They have become more like the guilds of the middle ages.
That is what has gone wrong with the Labour movement. The only way to fix it is to unionise people on zero hours contracts. Cleaners. Pizza deliverers. People like that.
I won't be holding my breath.
Many people in Europe will observe it. But rather like the European church, the European labour movement is getting older and less relevant by the year.
The average age of those on Mayday marches across Europe continues to rise, even if the financial crisis has boosted the numbers in the last few years.
One reason is the previous successes of the Labour movement. Organised Labour has made it more difficult to get rid of workers. And it has increased the rewards and benefits they get for the same amount of work. That has made employing people more expensive, and the taking on of young employees much more risky.
So there is now massive youth unemployment in Europe. and the average age of people on workers marches goes on rising.
Another reason is the loss of confidence of workers in their own importance. Globalisation has entered the popular imagination. European workers genuinely do see themselves to be in competition with Chinese and Indian workers.
There is a great deal of mythology about the strength of this competition. For example, take a look at this presentation:- http://www.slideshare.net/
So the Labour movement, founded to represent the oppressed, finds itself defending vested interests of privileged workers. They have become more like the guilds of the middle ages.
That is what has gone wrong with the Labour movement. The only way to fix it is to unionise people on zero hours contracts. Cleaners. Pizza deliverers. People like that.
I won't be holding my breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)