lord of the blog

« Responses to Clare post | Main | Apology »

Saturday, March 13, 2004

Fabian pamphlet

Wow! Here is a big first. The Fabian society is just about to publish a pamphlet written by myself (with some helpful comments from Ann Clwyd MP) on failing states and dictators. I thought it ought to go on my blog site and it has.

This is the first time a whole Fabian paper has gone on a blog site – so get out the champagne! It’s celebration time! There is just one small problem. It wasn’t supposed to be published until the 18th March – one year on from the start of the Iraq war. I never could wait to open my presents! Anyway, it’s still a first and I’m celebrating!
And thank you Jennifer in Canada for getting me into the technology.

Remember, you read it here first! Don’t hang about click on the papers (Fabian 2) and you won’t be able to stop! Then get into comments.

Well done, Clive! Keep up the blogging.

Excellent piece Clive, congrats on getting it published as the first Fabian paper in a weblog. I'll blog a link to it on March 18, which will give me more time to read it more carefully and digest.

There's a lot of good sense there, in my view. A very interesting read. Good stuff. Keep it up.

The corrective to any doctrine of intervention is to be found in the writings of US historian Gabriel Kolko,
particularly his recent "A new century of war"
Re, the interview on the Today program (March 17), US
support for Iraq in the 1980's (right up to the Gulf War) had nothing to do with Communism of the Cold War.

What a load of Balderdash! The western nations have a history of intervening in other soveriegn nations when it suits them economically with little or no regard for human life or rights. The sanctions imposed on Iraq with major British support caused untold suffering and misery - and that was before the UK and US decided to bomb the place with impunity. The support of Indonesia's Suharto by the US and UK with the full knowledge of his ethnic cleansing of over 200,000 East Timorese is another example of double standards. What if China decided to remove Tony Blair because they found him 'unreasonable'? Your arguments tell us more about you than the situations you describe: either you are frightfully naive, or you are sitting in someone's pocket! The same old story. Are there any politicians left with any integrity at all!?

Ivan, the answer is not to look back at bad decisions we have made and then decide it disqualifies us from further action. We should be making better decisions in the first place and trying to reverse poor decisions.

Clive,

Excellent work. I hope it makes a difference, although I think many are unreachable, especially while they have the hate figure of Bush distracting them from the real issues.

Anthony, if this war is/was really about democracy, then Britain and the US should immediately hand over the situation in Iraq to the UN. Furthermore, the UN must immediately put out all rebuilding contracts to tender - preferably with Iraqi companies and not 'mates' in corporations chummy with Bush and Blair. Criminals like Chalabi should be removed from power and replaced with 'decent' alternatives. Until this happens, people like myself will just regard the remarks of people like Clive as merely more spin and more empty rhetoric supplied to anaesthetize the population in an effort to placate them and thus remain in power. The above are some poor decisions that we could reverse, as you put it.

It really is this simple. It's not a case of Bush hating, but it may well be a case of partisan politics excusing the most fundamental betrayals of the ruled by the rulers: Lying to propagate nefarious political decisions. The Tories have a history equally as bad. All we want is some decency and integrity from our leaders - surely that's not too much to ask...or is it?

Very interesting read and very important points made.

Also nice to see a 'think tank' pamphlet that isn't full of fashionable jargon and is written in plain English!

"if this war is/was really about democracy, then Britain and the US should immediately hand over the situation in Iraq to the UN."

I'd prefer it if they handed it over to the Iraqis personally. The UN would probably do a worse job and would still be dependent on the US in any case.

As for the issue of contracts being handed out, those contracts are being paid for by the American taxpayer.

http://www.blacktriangle.org.uk/blog/archives/000449.html

There is nothing preventing France, Germany and Russia from joining the coalition and putting their taxpayers money into Iraq.

Anthony,

Why on earth should the Russian, French and German taxpayers pay for the very thing that they explicitly voiced opinions against? The British, American and Australian taxpayers should pay for the reconstruction since they are from the countries that destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure.

Perhaps if the US paid its huge backlog of money owed to the UN, then the UN would have the ability to do a much better job. The main reason it is pilloried by the western nations is that it won't dance to their tune, and who can blame it when many of those non-western member countries are held in poverty by the west.

It's clear to me Anthony, with all due respect, that you need to do much more reading and research to back up your viewpoints. At the moment they just imply to me that you are a party member towing the line and not using the grey matter between your ears. People need to educate themselves with the truth and not just take politicians' words as gospel. I have no wish to dominate this arena so this is my final post. Have a look at www.informationclearinghouse.info and see what you think - there's a lot of information there not reported by the mainstream press. You have to sift it as some of it is just plain propaganda.

Finally, although I disagree with many of Clive's points of view, it is a privilege for all of us to be able to debate openly in a pleasant manner, something which I am well aware was not the case in Saddam's Iraq. Thank you, Clive, for the forum.

Hi Clive,

I'm a writer on Web User magazine, and I have a column where I look at different and interesting blogs across the world. I was hoping that you'd agree to feature in it and answer a couple of questions about the blog and yourself.

If you would like to, let me know.

Many thanks,

Toby

Thanks Clive for this blog, it's great to be able to debate/talk with ones MP.

Regarding the UN in Iraq, I feel that the 'coalition of the willing' undermines the UN be trying to be a 'UN II'.

While operations take place under this placard, the UN's role will always be muted.

One would not set up a 'Houses of Parliment II' if legislation the present government wanted passed did not make it through.....would one ??

I look forward to using this site more often.

Kind regards,

Andrew Price (NW10)

Hi Anthony,

'As for the issue of contracts being handed out, those contracts are being paid for by the American taxpayer.

http://www.blacktriangle.org.uk/blog/archives/000449.html

There is nothing preventing France, Germany and Russia from joining the coalition and putting their taxpayers money into Iraq.'

If those countries joined the 'coalition', would this not undermine further the UN ?

Also, while I understand US domestic reasons for wanting US aid to be spent on US products, surely the first priority is to get aid to those who need it regardless of whom is paying for it.

A large part of the problem with world perception of the US is that they think the US wants to control everything while on the other hand wanting everyone on board their way.

This is were the problem is. While the US is seen quite rightly as the worlds policeman, it is looking like a corrupt police force with an internal agenda.

This does not make it a 'coalition of the willing' but a 'gang of the subservient'.

All problems at present stem from percieved US control of various situations from intraction in some areas (the US/Israeli stance) to unilateral strikes (Iraq II). While the US is dominent at present, it's mistake is in its utalitarianism and its 'your either with us or against us' stance.

Regards,

Andrew Price

In response to Clive Soley and Anne Clwyd's discussion of "regime change" as being part of international law, I would support such a move if it was implemented fairly. However, I feel that the government has double standards on human rights and the implementation of international law.

If there needed to be any regime change in this world, it should be in Islamabad. General Musharraf is a war criminal. He is known in Pakistan occupied Balawaristan as the "butcher of Baltistan" after his Halabja-style massacre in Gilgit in 1988. He masterminded and led mujahideen forces in Pakistan's Kargil misadventure. He overthrew an elected government, hijacked the country and rigged a referendum on his presidency. Senior figures in his regime, including himself, were implicated in the peddling of nuclear weapons technology to "rogue states" - something which the West, for some reason, chooses to forget. His Inter-Services Intelligence continues to train, fund and arm anti-India terrorist groups, many of whom are linked to Al-Qaeda - which was (maybe still is) backed by the Pakistani government.

If regime change in Iraq was right, then why is Anne Clwyd not shedding crocadile tears for the victims of the Pakistani state - a state that has never been anything but a criminal enterprise since its foundation in 1947? When will Blair and Bush impose an arms embargo on Pakistan and force it to stop aiding terrorists, threatening India and occupying land illegally?

People want consistency, not duplicity.

Slight correction: This is the first *new* Fabian pamphlet to be published through a blog.

I reissued William Morris's lecture on "Communism" a short while ago through my blog, The Virtual Stoa, and this was a text which was first published as Fabian Tracrt #113 in 1903...

Ah. Hyperlinks not allowed in comments:

Try this, then:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd1368/weblog/2004_01_01_archive.html#107408026576732987

Hi Clive,

As a constituent of yours, it is always interesting catching up on your views. The Fabian document certainly makes sense to me. To those who see the UN as 'purer' and more morally acceptable as nation states or coalitions of the willing, you should remember that the organisation is perhaps out of date and needs some serious reorganising if it is to be effective in the future. I am thinking specifically of the fact that it was created nearly 60 years ago upon the fundamental principle of the sanctity of the nation state. The UN charter claims that 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.' With a new global awareness of universal human rights, this emphasis within the UN needs to change if it wants to play an effective role in helping make the world a better place.

Mr. Soley,

Thank you for your Fabian 2 paper. As a left-of-center Democrat in the US, I rejoice in intelligent viewpoints on the war, and on the responsibilities faced by our leaders in confronting the problems of terrorism and rogue states. These cannot be simply AVOIDED. Anti-Bush rhetoric does nothing about them. I believe the U.S. Democrats will be able to frame an effective alternative to the Bush foreign policy when left-wing parties in Europe are willing to face thse issues, get tough, and shoulder some of the burden. And perhaps not until then.

Yrs., David Perkins
Williamsburg, MA. USA

A commendable document, Clive. Are they mirrored in the Semantic Web Consultancy for whom I speak? How can we be of help to you and our friends?

Clive, your views, as shared with us, are Mainstream Thinking and we are Responsible for the sharing of them, and I address that comment to all who have read that which we talk about. It is a transitional phase before Order is brought to Chaos.

The Semantic Web is the Virtual Control available to Media, enabling IT to provide us with the Visions of the Future that we can deserve rather the Present that they show us.
It is also available as a Virtual Governance Tool enabling Good Government and disappointly, appears to have been overlooked by the Cabinet Office, with whom it has been shared. That suggests a certain lack of awareness or belief in the Control available or more disturbingly, no awareness at all.

However, Clive's document proves there are many fellow Joint Venturers. Nice one, Clive.

Bush is such a Nincompoop!

GEORGE BUSH IS DEFENDER OF THE FREE WORLD. More BUSH I say.

Sort out the Soleys of this world I say.

Why do the morons all end up with saying 'nice one, Clive' or is their vocabulary so limited? or is it mr soley responding to his comments? no one would truly agree with the crap he comes out with.

A man from mars would sup with the devil. Think of where he's coming from. He's either mr soley, his parrot or a supporter who is getting some benefit. what?
another dodgy arfur daley scheme?

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: