Your daily dose of sarcasm

This was a not-too-surprising revelation in the news from a few days ago: "Anti-terror chief 'misled' public"

Big surprise there. The government never misleads its citizens on terrorism for their own political gain. Nope.

Well at least there are real investigations into the deception the government uses, especially when it comes to terrorism and the effort against it.

The differences between Brown and Bush

Brown might be pro-US, but he is no Blair.

The world media still seems to be buzzing about the meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President George Bush. While they seemed to agree on many points, their disagreements — no matter how subtle; often on big issues — are coming to light. Bush views Iraq as the central front in the United States-led 'war on terror', whereas Brown sees Afghanistan as where the real battle against terror is and should be.

Iraq is no doubt full of terrorism, but only because of sectarian violence and foreign occupation. There are many factions, and so many battles. Terror networks via militia exist in both Afghanistan and Iraq and reach even to the national level (e.g. allegations of Saudi Arabia and Iran fueling some groups). But Afghanistan is the original site of the GWOT and the occupation there has the backing of the UN and NATO. Iraq, on the other hand, is much less straightforward and, contrasting with the reality of the occupation in Afghanistan, one can make the case that foreign soldiers being there does little in the fight against international terrorism.

Iraq is becoming a hotbed because of the war (blowback) — both the civil one and the one started in 2003 by the US and its allies; Afghanistan would be a terrorist haven regardless. Some view this blunt difference in priorities as Brown's way of appeasing Britain and wider Europe, vehemently opposed to the Iraq war.

Also on Iraq, Brown said that the United Kingdom will stick to plan and withdrawal troops regardless of whether the United States stays. However it does plan to stay there until the job is done. While the leaders are stressing unity, the fact that Britain intends to go its separate way from the US in Iraq is major. The British PM also opposes the language of a 'war' on terror and thinks a military fight against terrorism is not enough. I agree.

Another good move (away from Bush) Brown made was on terrorism. He rightly described terrorism as a "crime", compared to Bush's view that it is an act of pure evil and we must stop it even if we destroy the constitutional foundation of America in the progress and kill many. Brown is not the politicizer of terrorism his Atlantic counterpart is famous for being; I believed he handled the attempted attacks in Britain earlier this summer well, from both a political and a policy viewpoint. He also is right to be worried and want to take action on climate change; Bush couldn't care less.

In politics message, and thus language, is everything. Bush and Blair managed to illustrate their contrasting views pretty well without looking like they oppose each other absolutely.

[Bush and Brown's] words subtly illustrated, not policy differences, but their own policy priorities and approaches.

President Bush's language was, as always, full of phrases like "the war against extremists and radicals" in Iraq and around the world.

Prime Minister Brown deliberately described terrorism as a "crime", in an effort perhaps to demystify it and make it easier for everyone around the world, Muslims included, to oppose it.

And he tried to paint a more complex picture of Iraq by differentiating the factions - the Sunni/Shia split, the "involvement of Iran", the "large number of al-Qaeda terrorists".

However, as Mr Bush said, both agreed that this was "akin to the Cold War".
...
He called Afghanistan the "front line against terrorism," an honour normally assigned by Mr Bush to Iraq.

The British prime minister also referred a couple of times to the issue of "climate change". Mr Bush did not.

The point about Iraq and Afghanistan is that these are policies that Mr Brown inherited. This relationship has not yet been tested in the development of new ones.

The most difficult one could be Iran. Further sanctions are expected to be discussed at the UN in September but if there is no progress in getting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, there could be pressure within the Bush administration for military action to be taken before the president leaves office in January 2009.

That would indeed be a test to see if the US and UK stayed together.

Brown also seems to be much more serious on humanitarian issues like Darfur than Bush, who limits his action on such issues to mere rhetoric (unless such issues might relate to his fight against terror, like in Somalia, then he'll even agree to indirectly work with/help the dreaded North Korea). Brown takes a special interest in world poverty and the plight of many in Africa; Bush cares only if terrorists may be involved, and even then the focus is not on the possible source of terrorism support: poverty, plight, and insecurity. Africa has plenty of that, and the Islamist extremists are taking advantage of that.

With all this talk of unity and strong ties, the leaders of America and the UK seem to have plenty of issues on which they disagree.

Bush-Brown Camp David accords

Britain's static post-Blair foreign policy with the US: same old thing (?)

On Sunday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown traveled to the United States for a meeting with President George Bush at Camp David. This if the first official meeting between Brown and Bush; it's hard to forget how close Brown's predecessor, Tony Blair, was to Bush. Today Brown will address the United Nations in New York — but the bigger news, of course, is how his relationship with the US is shaping out. If it is any indicator of the possible unchanging rhetorical lip-service policy that carried over from Blair to Brown, Brown stated last night that, as the BBC reported, 'the world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism'. (Who exactly is the US leading?) Superficially nothing much seems to have changed, except Brown wearing a suit as compared to Blair's Chinos; policy-wise it gets more complicated.

There has been plenty of speculation lately about the shift in relations between Britain and America. A report that the UK had been basically used for questionable activity by the US in its 'war on terror' had many, including me, talking about whether the signals of the end of the "special relationship" are valid. The BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, pointed out the lose-lose issue of Brown placating both the US and his electorate (from above BBC article):

Analysts will be looking for signs of the Brown regime distancing itself from the US during the trip.
...
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown was "walking a tightrope" in his dealings with America. ["He's doing all he can to signal to people at home that the Brown/Bush relationship will be very different to the Blair/Bush partnership, whilst striving to reassure the Americans that nothing fundamental has changed.
...
"The Americans are likely to seek reassurances about Gordon Brown's plans for the country that dare not be mentioned."]
He needed to reassure Mr Bush of his commitment to the Atlantic relationship as well as convince British voters that links between the US and the UK would be different to those maintained by former prime minister Tony Blair, our correspondent said.

So will Brown try harder to please voters, or please the American government? Considering what he's spewed out so far, it appears he is following Blair by pursuing the latter option: kiss up to the superpower, act like the 'war on terror' is a really good thing, point out all the things going right, ignore those going wrong, and let people know how lucky we are to have a nation like America in the international community (if only America gave back... diplomatically, that is; I'm not denying that the US doesn't do a lot of good, but it does do plenty of bad).

Will Brown be frank and serious about issues like the closure of Guantanamo, Britain's role in Iraq, and the unfair (to the UK) one-way treaties his predecessor dared not speak about with his American counterpart? Probably not, but we'll see. The Guardian offered an editorial/leader on the need for Brown to 'send the right signal'. There is no need for Brown to be irrational and anti-American like, worryingly, a good amount of his fellow Britons are becoming, that's not going to happen anyways; it would also be bad for him to be exultingly pro-American, failing to put the US in its place when it strays, and giving it the upper hand in nearly all aspects of their transatlantic relationship.

On at least one issue, Iraq, Brown is following lock-step with his predecessor's stubborn, possibly in-independent view. However the UK is not in nearly as much muck there as America. Today Brown said he agreed with Bush that the UK had "duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in Iraq. He then moved on to talk about moving "control to the Iraqi authorities", but failed to specify, as usual, roughly when or how. Bush seems to be testing the (Brown) water, i.e. trying to gauge whether Brown will be nearly the ally Blair was.

I agree with the shadow foreign secretary that Brown really needs to make his policy on US-UK relations clear, rather than letting confusion reign. It does appear, however, that Brown's attitude towards the US and his own government differs from his predecessor's. For one thing, he is to wear a suit to the meeting at Camp David; Blair often was more casual and brought his wife along. "Sofa" government has been thrown out with Blair, it seems, and Brown is hoarding less power from the parliament he is a member of compared to Blair's often unchecked power. Parliament should have such power; the prime minister provides leadership.

'Special relationship' breakup imminent?

Britain's "special relationship" with the US looks like it's heading into another rough patch.

BBC News:

British concerns did not appear to "materially" affect US actions in its "war on terror", the UK's intelligence and security committee has said.

The committee, which reports to the prime minister, was probing possible UK involvement in rendition flights.

It said America's "lack of regard" for UK concerns had "serious implications" for future intelligence relations.

In response, the UK government said the countries' intelligence relationship was "close" and "must continue".

The committee said it had found no evidence that the UK was directly involved in rendition flights - the transportation of terror suspects to foreign prisons where they could face torture.

But Britain's security services had "inadvertently" helped in one case after the US ignored caveats placed on supplied information.

It looks like bad boy America is further corrupting its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic with its 'war on terror'. These 'extraordinary renditions' — in certain cases confirmed by the Bush administration — are legal black holes: the CIA places terror suspects in secret prisons. To do so it must transport them. It has been revealed that the UK is one of many European nations helping America in this controversial program, breaching international and national law even inadvertently so. As if the US's involvement wasn't enough in the many programs of the 'war on terror' that have tarnished its image; third parties are assisting in this mass disregard of human rights.

Under Tony Blair, the UK and US were quite close, especially in going to war in Iraq and engaging in a 'war' against terror. Steadily many Britons got fed up with the relationship their nation shared with America, leading some to call Blair Bush's 'poodle'. However with the arrival of Gordon Brown as the new prime minister relations have cooled, no matter how much Brown's administration denies it. There have been conflicting statements by high-ranking cabinet members about a change, or lack thereof, of the UK's foreign ties to the United States.

The Brown government's ultimate reaction to this new report might serve as an indicator of how much 'war on terror' cooperation with the US — or as some see it, exploitation by the US — Britain will tolerate. Will Gordon Brown and his foreign minister, David Miliband, move beyond the rhetoric and institute a fair but open relationship with America, or will they continue to insist things haven't changed. Things have changed and Brown must decide whether to try to continue the foreign policies of his predecessor or adapt to the new reality.

US and UK terror alerts

First of all, happy first of July.

 

There has been a string of suspected terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, the first of which was allegedly stopped before it occured in London (police found explosives, etc., in two cars). Just a bit after the London discovery a Jeep full of gas cylenders rammed into the terminal of an airport in Glasgow, Scotland. Inital reports of the Glasgow car ramming made it sound like the car was already on fire before it hit the airport. Now that appears not to be true. It is unknown whether these events are related or whether they are part of a wider network of attempted and planned terror attacks by an al-Qaeda cell or sub-group. There are possible additional plots too:

Glasgow - Burning car driven into doors of Glasgow Airport on Saturday. Two people arrested at scene

London - Two car bombs that failed to detonate found in central London on Friday

Paisley - Controlled explosion carried out on car at Royal Alexandra Hospital

Cheshire - Man and woman arrested overnight on M6, then taken to London for questioning

Liverpool - Man arrested. Police searching two addresses

Houston - Police searching houses in village near Glasgow

Newcastle-under-Lyme - Police searching house in Staffordshire

See here for the alert as it pertains to US national security. Remember, however, though these plots seem serious, and they are, no doubt politicians will try to get the best of us at times when we are most suceptable to the fear and terror these attacks are supposed to create. The UK is at the highest level of its terror alert.  Brace yourselves.

 

I'l still on vacation of course, but had a bit of downtime and felt the urge to hop on the net since I can (darn you wireless internet access!). I couldn't resist blogging at least a bit. Anyway, more soon.

Brown's cabinet shuffle

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has named his cabinet today. The major changes include two different education secretaries, no deputy PM, and a mix of old and new people.

The commons leader is Harriet Harman, after being elected on 24 June to the position of deputy Labour Party leader; Alistair Darling is chancellor; the fairly young David Miliband will serve as foreign secretary (previously he was the environment minister); Jacqui Smith as home secretary; Alan Johnston for health (previously education); Jack Straw for justice (previously Commons leader; Hilary Benn for environment (previously development); and Des Browne will continue his job as defense minister in addition to a new role leading the Scotland office. There are a total of 22 in Brown's Cabinet.

This is a pretty major revamp, although some, including the fussy Liberal Democrats, have stated they view this as not enough change.

Miliband is not as supportive of Israel and America as Blair was; he also wants strong action to be taken on the issue of climate change. In addition, might his family's background play a role in how he serves in the Foreign Office?

David Miliband's Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East.

Israel will welcome this - but equally it allows him the freedom to criticise Israel, as he has done, without being accused of anti-Semitism.

The biggest issue facing him will be Iraq, with three British soldiers killed there on the day of his appointment.

He is reckoned to be in favour of getting British troops out as soon as possible, consistent with Gordon Brown's declared policy of withdrawing when conditions allow.

Diplomats are wondering whether, as foreign secretary, he will become a blogger - recording his thoughts in an online weblog - as he was in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

I liked the fact that he blogged. When officials not only show their human side but allow their constituents and others to chime in on their policy-related opinions, it assists the transparency and flow of a democracy. It also allows statements and announcements at a less official level than, say, press releases. Policymakers' blogging creates a more open, two-way line of communication between public and government. Miliband got much attention — both positive and negative — for his 'eDemocracy'.

Exit Blair, enter Brown

As scheduled, Gordon Brown has taken over as leader of the United Kingdom. He immediately promised change in British politics — a promise we can only hope he can keep (not just in rhetoric). He has already spoken with a number of world leaders; US President Bush said he's looking forward to "working closely" with Brown government — hopefully not nearly as closely as he worked with Blair. Brown is quite the intellectual, but he will have to make up for some of his weak points, especially in comparison to his charismatic predecessor.

Meanwhile, outgoing PM Tony Blair is to become a Middle East envoy for the Diplomatic Quartet consisting of the US, EU, UN, and Russia. Considering all the troubles of the Mid-East — Israel/Palestine, the growth of terrorism, Lebanon, Iraq's civil war, Iran's nuclear program — Blair has quite a job ahead of him. Just hours after he resigned as UK prime minister... I guess he cannot resist working with Bush on, um, helping the Middle East. The White House is sad the "special relationship" between leaders Bush and Blair has effectively come to a close. Funny how America mourns the lost of the British leader as the UK is, for the most part, glad he's leaving.

technorati tags: UK, britain, united+kingdom, politics, news, bush, blair, brown, gordon+brown, tony+blair, prime+minister, middle-east

Blair's last day

Tomorrow, 27 June, will be the day Gordon Brown takes office as the 52nd Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He will be asked by the Queen to form a government tomorrow. Brown is currently Blair's chancellor of the exchequer and fellow Labour MP, and has been so since Blair has been Britain's leader.

Blair handed over the party leadership to Brown a few days ago (24 June) following his promise at the Labour Party conference last fall he would step down as party leader and prime minister before the next conference. He announced his departure in May. Since the announcement there's been much analysis in retrospect of the 10 years Tony Blair, the current prime minister, has been in power.

Considering the important position he currently fills and the even more important one he will have tomorrow, relatively little is known of Gordon Brown. We know he was actually supposed to become prime minister if Labour won the 1997 election, which it did, but the charismatic Tony Blair ended up getting the gold. Brown has been waiting years for the top job — and less than 24 hours it will be his.

I personally am a bit excited not only because a change in leadership means a change in politics (i.e. more news coverage and more blog posts), but mainly due to the 'war on terror' and fiasco in Iraq Blair has lost his edge. His best accomplishments were helping the economy, reducing poverty, increasing education, lowering crime, continuing the good policies of his Conservative predecessor John Major on making peace in Northern Ireland and achieving that peace, including with the IRA, and helping the NHS — though that was one of his failures too. Blair's worst characteristics were his civil liberties-restricting anti-terror policies and following the necon Bush administration into Iraq.

Expect Brown to distance himself from George Bush. The White House will likely feel the sting of a very different relationship with its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic. However on Iraq Brown is expected to roughly maintain the status quo. A cautious person from what I've read, he will not want to run the risk of pulling UK troops out immediately and being blamed for making the conflict there worse. He has spoken much on Africa and poverty, being at the forefront of aid and debt initiatives.

Brown shares the general viewpoint of many fellow politicians on the threat of global warming — remember he was the one who commissioned the Stern report on the economic impact of climate change. He is a calculated, practical man and has shown to be tough on terrorism — is that good or bad? — and very interested in international affairs, such as the Darfur genocide in Sudan and the Israel-Palestine conflict. We can guess he'll be more 'liberal' than Blair foreign policy wise, but to what extent is not really known.

Here are some links useful for learning more about the PM-in-waiting:
Wikipedia article
BBC News article on his known foreign policy views
Prospect article (year-old) on Brown's foreign policy
Profile by The Economist
10 Downing Street (PM's office) homepage
Guardian Unlimited profile
BBC News profile

And here's some good news to start Brown off on a positive note tomorrow:

Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will take office this week with his Labour Party ahead of its Conservative rivals for the first time in eight months [i.e. since October], a [Ipsos-Mori] poll showed today.

The poll, in the Observer newspaper, put support for Labour at 39 per cent and the Conservatives at 36 per cent.

Forty per cent of voters believed Brown would make a more capable prime minister, compared to just 22 per cent who prefer his Conservative rival David Cameron.

Still, an early election might not be the best of ideas for Brown. Spring 2009 is the expected time of the next general election. The Conservatives have been doing well for a while now, and it's only recently that the political pendulum appears to have swung in the way of Labor. The Liberal Democrats seem to be proving more stubborn towards Brown than the Tories, demanding a snap election so that Brown can prove himself legitimate.

So who will Brown be governing with? Justice Minister Harriet Harman was elected deputy party leader on Sunday in a surprising win of 1% over Alan Johnston. From the BBC Question Time deputy leadership debate I watched, she seemed a reasonable candidate. She strongly disagrees with Blair's Iraq policies as well as his media spin — something both he and his American counterpart Bush have mastered. Even during the Blair-Brown transition has the government been accused of burying stories. Brown has expressed hopes for a cross-party cabinet, although a Lib Dem has already turned him down after being offered the position of N Ireland minister.

Competition troubles at the EU summit

One of the things holding Europe back from reaping more financial successes are the restrictive anti-competition laws and practices. Outside firm A is proposing to buy European firm B, the courts or government step in, deal falls through. Though necessary at times — such as to prevent monopolies and safeguard finances — meddling protectionist measures like these muck up the free market. We are seeing this time and time again, especially as more foreign funds attempt to buy up both successful and failing European firms.

Another issue, is bankruptcy laws in Europe. In America more liberal business bankruptcy laws have allowed new start-up firms like, say, Google and Digg to flourish in the tech entrepreneurial hotbed of Silicon Valley. Perhaps the reason Europe does not have a Silicon Valley of its own is because of its less friendly, more restrictive bankruptcy laws. The lack of new start-ups and fresh ideas indeed feeds into the lack of competition. And competition is a fuel the market economy needs.

This is related to the European Union summit going on right now in that competition and the free markets has been a major issue. Which leads us to Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, who received the backing of The Economist because of his reformist economical stance. The free marketers' candidate appears to have reservations about, well, free markets at this EU summit.

HAS Nicolas Sarkozy really dealt a nasty blow to the free-market foundations of Europe? The question has caused much confusion at a European Union summit unfolding in Brussels. It emerged on Thursday June 21st that France’s new president had succeeded in removing “free and undistorted competition” from a list of the EU’s core objectives at the top of a new “reform treaty” being thrashed to replace the defunct constitution.
...
During his campaign to become president he presented rival public faces: the pro-business reformer alongside the populist defender of French national interests. The elections won, it is still not clear which of these is the true Mr Sarkozy.

The EU treaty is at the top of this summit's agenda, and is why it is receiving so much attention. Whenever most countries agree, there seems to always be one or two that have their own (selfish) reservations. And yes, for the sake of sovereignty and answering to the voting public, it is important for a country to stand up for what's best for it, but some cases aren't as clear. Sometimes diplomats and leaders should ask themselves, 'Is it worth it to fight for this when there are so many other things I may need to stand up for my country?'

There is, however, good news. Apparently Sarkozy has been convinced to let some things go in his one-man battle against the competition law in the EU treaty. Sarkozy may have gotten "free and undistorted competition" taken out from the treaty's preamble, but

sources in Brussels say a legally binding protocol will be added that protects existing competition law.

So all this fuss over just a superficial word change?

With Mr Sarkozy's change also remaining in place, he will be able to tell the French voters he has defended French jobs.
...
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has already said that there are 13 references to free market competition in existing EU treaties, so the EU's powers over competition would not be changed.

Leaders of the 27 EU states are meeting in Brussels to agree the main parameters for a new EU treaty.

A future conference would then decide the final text.

The treaty is designed to replace the planned European Constitution, which was rejected by both French and Dutch voters two years ago.

France's economy is far too bogged down by regulation and government intervention. The public sector often makes the private sector look tiny. Contrary to the wishes of the old left, such a gigantic public sector isn't good for the workers either: notice how there always seems to be a giant worker's protest going on in France? Even though its government-run health system is arguably better than the United States' — and it's free — French doctors get paid one-third of what their American counterparts take home. The government cannot afford much more. While I am in favor of state-run national health services in many cases, France needs to open up and privatize many areas of its economy.

Next bump in the path to a new EU treaty: Poland doesn't want Germany to have too much power. I can sympathize to an extent, since Poland is still being bullied (e.g. energy wise) by Germany and Russia, but playing war card isn't an acceptable move. The trouble is over a voting system of the EU; Poland wants more votes to compensate for lives lost in the Second World War. This Poland versus Germany battle looks to continue, as the United Kingdom throws it's hat into the ring too — questionably at that.

In addition,

draft treaty submitted for debate at the summit makes several concessions to EU member states that had opposed key parts of the planned constitution.

Proposed changes include:

* Removing any mention of the word "constitution"
* Providing countries with a chance to opt out of EU policies in the area of policing and criminal law
* New voting system to approve decisions
* Full-time president of European Council instead of current system where members take six-month turns
* New foreign affairs head and a smaller commission

Correspondents say failure to reach a deal on the treaty would plunge the EU into a fresh crisis as deep as the one that followed the rejection of the constitution two years ago.
...
A draft treaty submitted for debate at the summit makes several concessions to EU member states that had opposed key parts of the planned constitution.

Proposed changes include:

* Removing any mention of the word "constitution"
* Providing countries with a chance to opt out of EU policies in the area of policing and criminal law
* New voting system to approve decisions
* Full-time president of European Council instead of current system where members take six-month turns
* New foreign affairs head and a smaller commission

Correspondents say failure to reach a deal on the treaty would plunge the EU into a fresh crisis as deep as the one that followed the rejection of the constitution two years ago.

Britain has also been the target of some complaint. It has backed out of various areas, seeking special treatment, and the negotiating "has been shambolic, according to one insider", says BBC's Europe editor Mark Mardell.

The summit, at two days long, will end today and the future of the EU and the constitution, or whatever they aim to call it, is at stake. Many quarrels deal with political language, and some are bringing up issues of long ago to their advantage.
To see some countries' stances and what they will attempt to exempt themselves from, and more, see here. The agreement of 27 diverse nations — with political rifts between many of them — is a tough goal. However, the European Union treaty must be tackled before people loose yet more hope.

Sir Rushdie the infidel

A religious row over the knighthood of a controversial writer turns political, on an international scale.

Salmon Rushdie — I mean Sir Salmon Rushdie — has a history of flaring the tempers of more hard-line Islamists (can you say death threats? like the fatwa against the British-Indian novelist by Iran), as well as the Muslim world as a whole. The Iraqi foreign minister has condemned the honoring of Rushdie, whose novels, namely the popular Satanic Verses, often attack Islam (it's fiction!). His knighthood has also sparked large, widespread protests in Pakistan and Malaysia, among other nations. This has even turned into a (minor) diplomatic crisis for the UK.

Whenever any certain group feels it has been attacked at all by a book, a movie, or other works of art — e.g. Catholics and albinos for The Da Vinci Code; Muslims for Rushdie's books; Italian-Americans for The Sopranos — they blame it on mere works of fiction and get all up in arms about it. "Your [type of fiction] makes our people look bad. It is blasphemy to us [group of people]. We will [action taken by aforementioned peeved group]." Get over it people.

Cross-posted with modification; originally from In Perspective's sister blog, In Perspectives.

Surprise G8 compromise

At last G8 leaders have reached an agreement on climate change. Only the US had differing views from the other powers on global warming.

According to an extract from the agreed text published on the G8 website, the leaders agreed to take "strong and early" action.

"Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions," the text says.

The American view seemed to switch between "Human-caused global warming isn't happening" and "Oh, that global warming — we don't want to do anything about it". The latter view was recently held by President Bush in his usual policy format of baseless rhetoric.

The disagreement over how to take action against climate change has been an issue since America fought the proposed climate change initiatives earlier last month. In addition to the usual issues, the strained relations between Russia and the West — including the US's hope for missile defense shields in Europe, and Russia's retaliation to such an idea — is also going to be a major factor at the G8 summit.

The Group of Eight developed nations, or G8, includes Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, France, Germany, and Japan. The summit in its 33rd year is hosted this year by Germany and lasts from 6 June to 8 June. It is one of the major yearly world meetings. This will be the last summit for Britain's Tony Blair (leaving office on 27 June) and Russia's Vladimir Putin. It is the first for newcomers Shinzo Abe of Japan and Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany, plays host and tries to mediate hot issues like global warming; Prodi of Italy tries to please his fellow G8 members while keeping his fragile center-left coalition together; George W. Bush isn't well liked and along with Tony Blair will throw light jabs at the provocative Putin. The EU is also represented there. See also the G8 website.

technorati tags: bush, climate+change, global+warming, g8, united+states, politics, international+relations, diplomacy, foreign+affairs,

Well, maybe it's not a new Cold War, but...

Diplomatic relations between Russia and the West sure are getting chillier.

Whether its the war of words with the United States (the missile shield issue comes to mind), the Litvinenko murder case straining relations with with Britain, or the ill-concluded talks with the European Union at the EU-Russia summit — especially over oil and gas, as well as Germany siding with Russia as, for example, Poland suffers.

Both sides might well be overplaying their cards, warning of new 'war's, how one side is demonic, etc. But as this is the often fragile game of world diplomacy, overplaying such cards is not a wise choice — by the EU, America, or Russia itself. The UK's situation is a bit more sticky, as the former KBG man and Putin dissenter Alexander Litvinenko looks to have possibly been killed by a _ of Russia's vast, post-Soviet security fringe within the government.

If Russia is getting wealthier because of its energy exports, why are freedoms shrinking? Why is Vladimir Putin becoming a dictator, if he isn't already one? It's interesting to look at how wealth, and even education, do not always result in freedoms for the population of a state. A closer look at that soon.

technorati tags: russia, EU, putin, diplomacy, international+relations, USA, united+states, european+union, cold+war, germany, litvinenko, UK, britain, missile+shield

Blair sets date for departure

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced he will leave office on 27 June.

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been very lucky to lead "the greatest nation on earth".

He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be Gordon Brown.

In an emotional speech, Mr Blair said he had been prime minister for 10 years which was "long enough" for the country and himself.

He thanked the British people for their support and apologised for when "I have fallen short".

(See also speech in full.)

Blair has done a lot of good, Northern Ireland and living standards come to mind, but also a lot of bad, namely by buddying up with the Bush administration in its 'war on terror' and passing questionable anti-terror laws as well as entering the Iraq war. One thing arguably good or bad was his reforming of the Labour Party.

Blair is a charismatic, intelligent leader, who seems to believe what he enacts. The UK's National Health Service has not been made much better, one of the major domestic hot topics that has faced the Blair occupation of No. 10 this past decade. The economy is doing better and education has seen some noticeable changes. He brought transparent, democratic government initiatives such as the Prime Minister's Questions, which I personally like immensely, but Blair also brought about some civil liberties crushing anti-terror reforms following the attacks on 9/11 and 7/7.

Labour has suffered defeat lately in local elections, especially in those of Scotland — a rebuke to the Blarite leadership? The fact of the matter is he's needed to leave for a while now, and his announcement today comes as no surprise.

As historians point out, Tony Blair has political savvy, he did work towards ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, but he also brought the power of the PM to a "presidential" level.

What happens next?

Current Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown is likely to take over.

These days Mr Brown likes to talk about Britishness, which he sees as the fount of shared values that can bind society together. It often sounds a bit stilted. But of one thing Mr Brown is convinced: like him, the British care passionately about fairness. If he is right, and if he can find the words to express it (both big ifs), the voters may in time decide that there is something in this strange, clumsy, powerful champion of social justice that they find, if not likeable, at least admirable.

How long he will last is another question, but he is certainly qualified. Blair finally endorced Brown earlier this month for the job, and no serious contenders within Labour seem to have arisen.

Brown is an interesting man nonetheless. For one thing he is Scottish, which worries some English nationalists and xenophobes.

The not-so-conservative David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, is the greatest threat to Brown. On one hand he does not want to call a general election so soon (the last one was in 2005; they are generally five or so years apart), and by the way Labour is going Brown would probably loose. On the other hand he doesn't want people to look at him as a dictatorial-like successor to Blair, especially as the conservative media has labeled him "Stalinist" after his latest budget.

Rightfully, Blair has admitted the "blow-back" from Iraq. There has also been blowback at home from his Middle East excursions. Hopefully Brown will keep a more independent, yet international and liberal/centrist, foreign policy.

Farewell Tony. The end of the Blairite New Labour era — with all its ups and downs — is nearing. As Labour is down in the polls and the UK faces a number of important issues, a new, strong political leader is needed. Hopefully Brown will be able to step up to the plate. He has waited long enough.

technorati tags: tony+blair, downing+street, gordon+brown, david+cameron, labour+party, united+kingdom, blair+PM+resignation, prime+minister, news, iraq

Scottish nationalists get what they want

As a follow-up to this post on Scottish independence and the state of the Union of the Great Britain...

Reuters:

Scottish nationalists committed to independence from Britain became the biggest party in the Scottish parliament on Friday in elections which left a political headache for Prime Minister Tony Blair's successor.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) ended 50 years of Labor dominance in Scotland in Thursday's vote and Labor suffered heavy losses in local council elections in England and lesser losses in elections to the devolved Welsh assembly.

With Blair expected to announce next week he is stepping down as prime minister after a decade in power, he leaves a poisoned chalice to finance minister Gordon Brown, the 56-year-old Scot who is almost certain to succeed him.

The confusing victory for SNP was riddled with technical difficulties. The Nationalists have a very thin majority: 47 to Labour's 46 in the Scottish Parliament. Political analysis of these latest developments reveal a great fracture in the political climate in Britain.

The future of Scotland, and the state of a Union

It would be hard to believe that the land united for hundreds of years with England and Wales could become independent some day soon. But it may be a reality.

Although the Scottish Parliament is weak compared to the British parliament, one might compare the power to that of an American state, albeit more deluded, England does not have its own separate legislature — just Westminister. Therefore lies the argument by English nationalists: Scotland gets more powers from political devolution, and England has even less of a say. Put simply: Scotland has its own MPs in the House of Commons, it also has its own parliament; England just has its MPs in the Commons. They both also have representation in the mostly-symbolic European Parliament. Do only the Scots deserve partial domestic rule, or should the other parts of the union of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland get similar devolution too, as odd as it sounds. I'll discuss that — the fairness, practicality, and my 'solution' — later.

The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), an up-and-coming political force in Scotland, may at first sound right-wing, like BNP. However, it is a progressive center-left party whose primary goal is Scottish independence. I skimmed through their policies and other writings on their website, and I must say I'm impressed. One issue might be if Scotland does reach independence, what's to keep the SNP from not following through on its bold promises? What will it have to work for — besides reelection? Right now SNP is working hard for Scottish independence, not just pressing for devolution yet also not being militant about it. When their primary goal is accomplished — if ever — how do we know they will act as they promise when their basic political premise has been accomplished. (Alas, therein lies the problem with party politics.) People ranging from businessman Sir Tom Farmer to world-famous actor Sir Sean Connery have voiced their support for SNP, and Connery has provided plenty of funds also — that is, until regulations prevented him from doing so. SNP is doing well in the opinion polls.

The SNP may even take power in the Scottish local and Parliamentary elections on 3 May. The election ironically falls two days after the 300th anniversary of the union of England and Scotland (i.e., with Wales, the United Kingdom). If SNP stays in the minority, a referendum on splitting the union — one that could officially take place as early as 2010 — would be pointless. As of now, no other major political party supports such an independence referendum, and even though SNP is up in the polls, no party is likely to come out with a clear governing majority.* Gordon Brown*, British chancellor of the exchequer, heir-apparent to the prime ministry later this spring, and a Scotsman himself, has stated a Scottish split from the union would be devastating economically for Scotland. Others seem to view the same of the SNP's proposed economic policy. I guess he also wouldn't have a constituency in the British parliament if Scotland were independent... At least England would be an independent Scotland's 'biggest pal'.

In my mind, if further Scottish devolution is to take place, why shouldn't England, Northern Ireland, and Wales* get their own parliaments? They would only deal with local matters, and be pretty powerless. Britain is a unitary state, with a central government; if there would to be devolution for lands other than Scotland in the Union, maybe there'd be less resentment to the Scots and xenophobia in England, and less problems between Westminister and Wales and N Ireland. It seems only fair. Either that or a push for Scottish independence. But a 300-year union is a hard one to break. Let's see how things play out at the polls in a couple of weeks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has emphasized the upcoming Scottish election's importance. He is right to do so: the state of the Union is at stake.

Update:
One of the Nationalists' primary goals is entry into the EU and UN as a proper nation-state, of course that is yet another barrier for those yearning for an independent Scotland. Might their dreams look better on paper and manifestos than as a reality?

***Corrections:
Thanks to Anonymous for informing me that Wales 'already has devolution', it is the Labour Party that has a deal with the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, and that I once again misspelled "Brown" (I am used to spelling it 'Browne' on account of a family name).

technorati tags: scotland, SNP, scottish+nationalists, tony+blair, gordon+brown, scot, united+kingdom, britain, england, politics, news, westminister, scottish+parliament+elections

A 'present' to the UK: British sailors to be freed

I've been reading that the situation between Iran and the UK, which had seemed to have spiked, was calming down and the two countries were negotiating. Iran announced it would not put the soldiers on trial, even after many riots by Iranians for the sailors to be put on trial. Much drama has come to life over this series of opposing events. 15 naval crew members of the British military were detained by Iran on 23 March.

It looks like diplomacy worked. Imagine how horribly bad this could have turned out if the US or UK resorted to military force against Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the sailors, though they 'invaded' Iranian waters, are free to go, consider it a 'present to the British people'. He made the seemingly benevolent comment in a patronizing ire.

Ahmadinejad is the hardline president of Iran, a controversial one at hope and abroad for tempting sanctions on Iran and challenging the international community by continuing Iran's nuclear weapons program. Remember he is not the ultimate power figure, because Iran is a semi-theocracy there are many influential religious figures.

BBC News:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.
...
He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.

It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

"We have every right to put these people on trial," Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.

"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."

"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.

Britain says the confessions were extracted under duress.

"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself."

"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake," Mr Ahmadinejad added.

As you can see, each side had its own view of the events, albeit confusing ones.

UK VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters

IRANIAN VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Royal Navy crew stray 0.5km inside Iranian waters
2 Iran gives set of co-ordinates to back up their claims
3 According to seized GPS equipment, the Royal Navy crew had previously entered Iranian waters at several other points
4 Iran informs Britain of the position where the crew were seized, inside Iranian waters

technorati tags: iran, ahmadinejad, british+sailors, sailors+iran, uk+iran, uk, news, politics

Slavery and more

Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. See here (official UN site) for more details.


"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." Article 4, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It's been about 200 years since the abolition of slavery in Britain and the British Empire, and an odd altruistic sort of crusade against slavery by the British. It's also around two centuries since US President Thomas Jefferson signed an act banning the slave trade, though slavery continued for years to come.

Of course, slavery and similar practices are still around today.

technorati tags: slavery, history, holidays, UN, british, jefferson, human+rights, racism

Historic day for UK?

In a very surprising move, members of the UK House of Commons have voted to change the system by which the Parliament has been structured for ages. However, the vote is not final. It proposes a change in the House of Lords, which is currently filled with unelected peers. Even though it is technically the upper body, like the Queen its power is very limited. The vote was 305 to 267.

The Guardian:

MPs tonight voted in favour of a fully elected House of Lords, in a historic move towards reforming and democratising the upper chamber.

In a series of votes, the Commons also voted for an 80% elected Lords, and rejected all other options.

Although the vote is purely advisory, it gives huge momentum to reformers in all three parties wanting to see an elected second chamber.

Jack Straw, the leader of the Commons, called it a "historic step forward", although he only favoured a 50/50 split between elected and appointed members.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, called it a "truly historic occasion" and a "famous victory for progressive opinion both in parliament and in the country".

The prime minister, Tony Blair, voted for the 50/50 option, Downing Street later confirmed.

It will now be up to the government to decide whether to accommodate the wishes of the Commons in a bill to reform the Lords.

Peers will themselves vote on the same options next week.

MPs faced several votes on various options for the future of the upper chamber, with differing proportions of elected to appointed members on offer.

It’s hard to believe that a nation with such a standing on democratic tradition and reform can still the posses the antiquity of the unelected, monarchal system. It bothers me not that the figurehead and technical head of state of Great Britain is a monarch; what does trouble me, however, is that the House of Lords — at the risk of sounding blunt — still exists in such an undemocratic form. Though the previous Lords’ Act of 2000 did much to bring the Upper House of British Parliament out of the dark ages, and acts before that also accomplished much, what is keeping the British government from demolishing the hereditary and appointed constructs of Lords, not to mention the Church of England’s seats. It may be too hard a move to remove the ceremonial figurehead of the Crown, but the House of Lords’ large uselessness, redundancy, and hereditary peer aspects are unacceptable — would it hurt England’s government or tourist revenues if those parts were removed?

The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 also played a role in cutting the power of the Lord Chancellor and, thus, the House of Lords as a whole. 2008 will see a new area of British government form: the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will then be the highest judicial body. What will that do to the Law Lords? Come 2008 the House of Lords will serve only the purpose of giving large political campaign financiers peerage (cash for peerage scandal). Not only will it be undemocratic, it will be redundant, serving only for debate on policy, (thankfully) not action on it. The executive branch of Britain is Her Majesty’s Government, though the queen really has no power. The executive contains the Prime Minister — right now Tony Blair — and his or her cabinet as well as governmental departments similar to that of the United States’ executive branch.

I understand that the elected House of Commons is more powerful, and is ultimately where governmental power lies, and some aspects of the House of Lords, such as the judicial area where judges, Law Lords, are appointed to the House of Lords like in the United States Supreme Court, are fine, but the legislative part with its traditionalist ties is not. One might think of the House of Commons as the real parliament of the UK, and many democratic legislatures are based off of it.

Even in a country such as the US with a non-parliamentary system, the House of Representatives closely resembles the House of Commons — both have representatives elected from local districts and a subset power structure within the legislative body. With the exception of the highest appeals court, the British justice system is independent from the legislative and executive branches; many governments have this same structure as English law, novel in its time, spread.

1689 brought the monarch’s real power to a virtual halt (emphasis on virtual, it took a little while until it became more than words on a sheet of paper, remember the power-limiting Magna Carta in 1215?). Though the Crown is theoretically in charge of all three branches of British governance, that’s obviously not a reality. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, ironically without a constitution, with a parliamentary system of government. I am in favor of a parliamentary system; though I am torn between a presidential system like that of France and the basically just-parliamentary system of the UK.

A problem with democratizing the House of Lords is there is (thankfully) no federal system in the UK. I think having a portion of Lords elected and some appointed because of their specializations, and not because they are part of the Church or their father was a peer, would be the best and most likely route.

technorati tags: government, house+of+commons, house+of+lords, lords, UK, united+kingdom, britain, british+politics, politics, news

Blair reduces UK Iraq force

BBC News:

Prime Minister Tony Blair has told MPs that 1,600 British troops will return from Iraq within the next few months.
He said the 7,100 serving troops would be cut to 5,500 soon, with hopes that 500 more will leave by late summer.

Remaining troops will stay into 2008, to give back-up if necessary and secure borders, but the Iraqis would "write the next chapter" in Basra's history.

Source: BBC
There are approximately 132,000 US personnel currently in Iraq accounting for more than 90% of the occupying force

Iraq is divided into 5 main military zones. The US controls the north and west of the country, as well as Baghdad

The Centre-South is run Polish forces, but US troops lead any major operations against insurgents in this area

The UK's 7,100 soldiers are based in the South East zone. Three provinces - Muthanna, al-Najaf and Dhi Qar are now under provisional Iraqi control. Basra and Maysan provinces are expected to follow suit in the first half of 2007

Though some seemed surprised by this move, the cut in Basra and southern Iraq forces was inevitable as planned.

Does Blair truly believe in an Iraq exit or reduction as strategically positive, or is he just trying to salvage his legacy and New Labour movement tarnished by his later foreign policy debacles?

Blair is expected to step down from his post as prime minister by mid-summer this year. He has held the position for a decade, following a sweeping victory for Labour in 1997. There are plenty of people — including myself — ready for his departure.

Newsweek has an exclusive 'exit interview' of Blair, though the article is written in a decidedly pro-Blair bias. One thing that peeved me was how the article stated Blair was

Perhaps more than any British post-World War leader, save Margaret Thatcher, Blair personified his era, transforming the nation's politics and ushering in unrivaled prosperity.

Does the writer even know about a man named Clement Attlee? Attlee transformed Britain following their loss of their superpower status and the end of the British Empire. Thatcher's affect on the nation have yet to be seen as positive.

technorati tags: tony+blair, uk+troops, britain, iraq, politics, thatcher, blair, prime+minister,

Just some ideas...

Really busy; here are some random thoughts.

The Ruth Kelly controversy.
Should British Education Minister Ruth Kelly’s child have to suffer by not getting the education their parents see fit for them just because their parent is the education minister? This always seems to be a problem when a politician at any level sends their kids to a private school — especially if their position in government deals with the education system itself. It is Kelly’s choice where her kid goes to school and just because she is the education minister and just because she is a politician, her child should not have to suffer in the name of politics and for their mum not to be a called a hypocrite.


BBC News on the execution of two more Saddam regime figures (as if Saddam's execution wasn't done poorly enough).

United Nations and European Union leaders have condemned the executions in Baghdad of two of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's top aides.

Some say that these executions are sparing the individual rights for the greater good… Then again, what do the executions accomplish — other than killing the executed?
Hasn't Saddam's death just made Iraq worse?

As far as the United States’ mission in Iraq and the wider Middle East goes… ‘We had already accomplished the mission; we just need to accomplish it [again]!'
'Almost there... again!’


Blair gives some climate change wisdom on how we can help...
Sacrifice one’s pleasures for the greater good? Bullocks says soon-to-be-gone (thank god) UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. How does ‘impractical’ face off with essential, Mr. Blair?


Admiring only after death: what the deaths and ensuing mourning and gratification historically of people like Reagan and Ford show us about our society and its guilt and ‘respect’ — or disrespect too — for death, and the media’s place in it all.


You scratch my back, I won’t scratch yours: the United States expects the African Union to help, but has not helped — or even consulted — the AU over the US’s Somalia policy.


A metaphorical war against an unknown, and largely symbolic as a whole, terrorist enemy like the US’s Communist ‘enemy’ in the Cold War, but even more oblique. Terrorism is a vast movement. It is a word of many definitions and a description of many meanings. To label all of Islamic extremism as a collective enemy is loony enough; to label all terrorism an enemy is well over the edge.