lord of the blog

« February 2004 | Main | April 2004 »

Monday, March 29, 2004

Responses

Thanks for the further comments particularly on the Fabian document.

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is a difference between the psychopathic killers who take over nation states and those states that are failing. The former can very rarely be changed from within. So Saddam’s Iraq or the present regime in North Korea must attract special attention unless we don’t care at all about the inhabitants. That is why I said in the pamphlet that I thought China should be supported if it chose to intervene in North Korea. It is also why I think the Vietnamese were right to intervene in Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Similarly with Tanzania’s intervention in Idi Amin’s Uganda.

Those states that are not in such an extreme situation need different measures and if there is an indication that they are trying to change then we should assist that process. That is why I think Daniel Brett is wrong about Pakistan. Incidentally, India did intervene to ensure Bangladesh came into existence when there was a revolt against the then government of Pakistan.

Pakistan, like a number of states, has got multiple problems but not sufficient to justify external intervention even if it was possible. Would India really want to take over the government of Pakistan? I very much doubt it.

In some of these countries it is right that we try and train and equip the police and army. That might worry some people but ask what happens in Indonesia, which now has a form of democracy and law. The problem is the Government is not able to enforce its decisions so the local army commander decides what happens in some of the islands without any concern about the government’s policies let alone human rights.

These are difficult problems and I haven’t got a neat one size fits all policy but I really don’t think we can go on hiding behind our dislike of the current Bush administration or of the supremacy of the nation state argument to ignore the destabilising effect of these regimes and governments nor of the suffering of the inhabitants.

The US will not be so dominant for much longer. Both India and China are fast emerging as super powers and we will then return to a multi polar world. So I say to Ivan Petrovsky lets do some of the thinking and groundwork sooner rather then later.

It is also necessary to remember the limitations of the UN policing operations. Remember Serbia and the UN troops disarmed by the Serb police and tied to posts in exposed positions? That’s why it had to be NATO and not the UN that intervened.

Ingrid, I don’t have an absolute definition for the rule of law or free and open societies but they are not just Western concepts. True, much law is based on the Western tradition especially English common law but you don’t have to look too long into the history books to find plenty of free societies with their own type of law long before the West became so dominant. Indeed the great Islamic civilization taught us some lessons about freedom.

Finally to Martin Whitlock I’m too much of a novice myself to give any advice but I’ll try linking!

Sunday, March 28, 2004

Transport in West London

In that great novel the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Ford Prefect’s adventure starts when the Earth has to be demolished to make way for an inter galactic highway. I sometimes think the same is happening to my constituency and West London generally!

Initially there was the proposal for the third runway at Heathrow then came the proposal for a tram along the Uxbridge Road and now comes Crossrail. And if that wasn’t enough there is a proposal for a bus garage in Horn Lane, Acton!

As with all major developments these schemes have their supporters, their opponents and that large body of silent residents who are either unaware of what is about to happen or are agnostic about it.

I start from the position that improved transport facilities are a good thing. That’s the easy bit! It is important to remember that one of the criticisms of London is that the transport, especially public transport is not as good as it ought to be. If London is to remain one of the world’s premier cities then it has to have good transport links.

It is also true that although people complain about road, rail and air transport links house values tend to go up when you live near an improvement. Look at any estate agents blurb. “ Within walking distance of the tube” “Or close to the M40” are the type of comments that help give houses added value unless of course you are too close to them!

Even the Heathrow flight paths don’t seem to reduce house prices in Chiswick, Ealing and Richmond. As I live under one of these flight paths I know the noise impact well and I don’t like it. Like most people however I know that one of the reasons house prices are high and unemployment historically low even during the great slumps of the 1980’s and 90’s is because of Heathrow. Direct and indirect employment from Heathrow is about 150,000 jobs – only a little lower then the whole of the coal and steel industry until its collapse in the 1980’s with all that meant for unemployment.

As I was brought up on the East side of London I know what happens to an area if a major source of employment goes. When the docks closed it took East London years to recover.

The recent announcement on British airports has put Heathrow on the slow track for a time. So all the focus is now on crossrail and the tram. Neither is certain to go ahead. Crossrail will need a hybrid Bill to go through Parliament and that takes time so it is extremely unlikely to be agreed before the likely date of the next election. The tram is contentious not least because of its cost.

So what does an MP do when faced with developments like these? Because the decisions will be made by a combination of private investors, government and local authorities the most constructive thing I can do at this stage is to make sure the arguments for and against are properly heard and, if they do go ahead, to make sure those people most directly affected are given some protection against the environmental impact.

It is also important to look at the scheme in detail. Is it really desirable to have a station at Turnham Green for example? This is where consultation matters and so far I am not impressed by the attempts to inform the public. Both Crossrail and Transport for London need to try harder and my first objective is to see that consultation is improved

Monday, March 22, 2004

Responses

Thanks for some interesting responses both to my entry on Tony Blair’s speech and on my Fabian article.

I have posted my apologies for claiming a first on blogs and the Fabians below – I got that wrong so perhaps my first point should be to Edgar Pole who believes if you get it wrong you must be a liar. It doesn’t follow!

Politics isn’t the nice rationale activity I would sometimes like it to be but that is one of the reasons I don’t accuse people of lying without very good evidence - or of being stupid. (Except when I’m angry!) It just makes it even more difficult to get progress.

Having got that of my chest I want to repeat a point I made in the Fabian document. We need a range of actions to help states that are struggling and to intervene in the really dire cases. I don’t agree with Daniel Brett that Pakistan is as bad as he suggests. It is true they need to address some really basics questions, not least serious corruption problems but they are trying and that means we should support them

The US has paid its UN fees now. It is one of the better things that George Bush did. I understand the point made by Ivan and others that the US is inclined to double standards but as the dominant power of the day we can’t get effective intervention without their support.

In Europe we have to watch our own double standards. We wanted intervention in Kosovo (without UN support) and we asked the US to help. We could have contained the Kosovo problem the same way we contained Iraq. We didn’t Why not? Because it was Europe?

All the powers tried to squeeze Saddam Hussein after 1991 and frankly we all made a bit of a mess of it. Years of sanctions and containment are not in my view the best way of dealing with these cases. We need something better and that’s why I want to start a debate on the reform of the UN and of international law.

The two big challenges of the 21st century are the enviroment and how to get good government. By good government I mean the rule of law and free and open societies. Can we rise to the challenge?

Apology

So okay, I’ve put the cork back in the champagne bottle and profuse apologise to Tom Watson MP and to Chris Brooke. I really did think I had got a first incorporating a Fabian pamphlet in a blog.

Now I know how Scott of the Antarctic felt when he found the Norwegian flag at the Pole!

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.

Sunday, March 07, 2004

Responses to Clare post

Thanks for the responses on Clare. Perhaps because I have known Clare for a long time and she has supported me on tough issues like Northern Ireland I am reluctant to be too critical but I do think she was wrong in a big way.

Edgar Pole says he prefers honest politicians. Don’t we all but politics is more prone to allegations of dishonesty then most trades. Often those allegations are unfair and you can see the problem when Clare says she had a transcript of a bugged conversation with Kofi Annan. She didn’t. That doesn’t necessarily mean she was lying. I don’t know what she did have but I’m not alleging that she is lying. Some times we all believe our own propaganda and sometimes we exaggerate.

Polls on international issues like war and peace can’t be a guide to policy making. The Prime Minister is unpopular over Iraq. I know he didn’t expect it to make him popular! He was right to say it is about judgement. I think the judgement was right but the jury is still out.

Saturday, March 06, 2004

Tony Blair's speech

At last! Tony Blair has made the speech that I have been asking for. I know some people will still want to pursue the dishonesty agenda but the real issue is how to help the world get through the inevitable instability of the next few generations.

Iraq was always a matter of judgement and those who argue against on the basis of further destabilisation or the risk of increasing terrorism had good arguments. Those who claimed it was all a great conspiracy or war mongering had weak arguments.

The core issue for me remains the reform of the UN so that we can find better ways of dealing with brutal and failing states. Anyone who saw the BBC programme on Zimbabwe will know the importance of this.

I suspect it is only going to be a matter of time before South Africa has to intervene in Zimbabwe – just like the Vietnamese did against Pol Pot or Tanzania against Idi Amin in Uganda. Both without UN support. We do need to get this right.