Monthly Archive for June, 2005

Russia…is it dangerous?

Published
by
Aaron
on June 27, 2005
in russia and world
. Closed

With constant media attentions concentrating on the meteoric rise of China, are we forgetting another possible hot spot? The wounded behemoth that is the former Soviet Union remains politically unstable…

Russia has spent much of the last century politically isolated from the world we know; yet we feel we should judge it by our own standards. Less than 15 years ago Russia ended the most significant socio-political experiment ever undertaken, and now struggles to emerge in a world it does not recognise.

Less than a hundred years ago this divided nation butchered its own royal family and dislocated itself from its own history. Tired of near serfdom the subjects had revolted and demanded change. The world’s largest country, after a bloody civil war, had committed its people to communism.

The new Soviet State had many enemies both internally and abroad. An ongoing war in the West with Germany had to be resolved, and an Imperial Japan to the East. In order to be strong Russia would have to be united. Peace in the west brought an opportunity for enormous economic growth and with Stalin’s ambitious five years plans the nation rose from its agricultural roots and became an industrial powerhouse. Stalin even enlisted one of the world’s greatest capitalist’s Henry Ford, to help him adopt modern manufacturing techniques.

Russia experienced its Industrial Revolution within the last 80 years, and became a global superpower in less than 50 years. Thousands even millions perished during the transition. But thousands died during our civil war, during our Industrial revolution, and millions have starved during the potato famine in British ruled Ireland. Yet we hold our civilisation in such high regard, and look at Russia with disdain and scorn. There can be no excuse for the murderous purges of Stalin, but he was psychotic but to judge the whole communist experiment at “evil” is ignorant. There was great progress during this time economically, but also socially. Capitalist notions of supply and demand were redundant, so no Keynesian slack in the workforce could be tolerated as unemployment was outlawed. Internal travel was cheap allowing people to visit dispersed relatives. Medicine and healthcare was provided, as was accommodation and holidays.

For one second imagine organising a project of this size?

This is not some organic capitalist model, born out of feudal rule a la Britain, France and America. The Soviet project transformed a continental sized region of the world from monarchic rule and suppression to the successful Socialist Union of the post Stalin era. We can sit pretty in our cosseted Western existence knowing that our developed societies will protect us from the harshness of the world. But we enjoy this safety thanks to the millions who perished before us on the very land we call home.

Russia again faces such a transition. Embracing liberalised market policies it has seen its resources pillaged by Oligarchs, it has seen its once great health service creak and splutter, and it has been unable to protect its many citizens who have relied on the state to provide provisions. All in the name of capitalism.

Putin is wrestling with corruption and gangsterism and has resorted to authoritarian rule naming federal rulers himself. If the social fabric of this nation was unravelling we would be shouting from the roofs for authority and the rule of law. When Putin term is up who will provide Russia with the stability it needs? Putin inherited one of globes most unstable regions in the Caucuses, where religious and tribal hatred is rife. Again Putin has to deal with terrorism, murder, and war. And as we are now finding in Iraq a mix of tribal difference and religious fundamentalism can be a cocktail of disaster. But still we expect Putin to embrace democratic accountability and western values.

Many Russians do not want democratic representation over chaos; they desire stability, safety and leadership. They have seen inflation wipe out their savings, they have seen their cities become corrupt and dangerous, and watch as Russia becomes weak abroad. This explains the rise of nationalism in Russia and the lionisation of Stalin once again. They welcome the safety and collective strength of their past. Maybe Putin is not authoritarian and aggressive enough?

Russia remains dangerous but it is because of Putin’s strong rule that it has remained relatively stable to this day. Without Putin where would the Russian people be now?

I have visited Russia (Siberia) and the people I have met are proud to be Russian. They do not want to see their country raped by the hungry international corporations and they do not want to become a lapdog to America. Putin offers his people strength and stability. He knows that isolation would mean Russia collapsing so he remains committed to protecting its regional influence against American interference (see Kyrgyzstan where US agents funded and supported pro-US political movements). There remains significant anti-Russian sentiment within Washington (this is somewhat understandable) and the power and influence of Putin is undermined and as a result he is viewed as weak at home. What does the West hope to gain from this, Russia’s total collapse and the suffering of millions?

In order for reform on a massive scale and the re-gearing of a giant economy the country cannot possibly hope to embrace the democratic freedoms that developed and stable nations enjoy. This will come eventually but for the benefit of global permanence we need to support, engage, and endorse Vladimir Putin, because the alternative is far more unsettling….

Sphere: Related Content

Big Day….

Published
by
Aaron
on June 19, 2005
in culture and sports
. Closed

There are two reasons why today is a big day; firstly it’s my first father’s day which my 5 week old baby boy and I celebrate together for the first time. The second reason is the one-day international today in Bristol as England takes on an Australian side, which for the first time in years appears mortal.

Last weeks inaugural Twenty20 match - where England roundly thumped the visitors - was written off as a fluke, and laughed off by Aussie captain Ricky Ponting. This was followed by a crushing one-day defeat at the hands of lowly Somerset, and finally capped by yesterday’s thriller at The Oval where test crickets’ whipping boys Bangladesh hit the Australian attack all over the ground.

What is clear is that these games were not test matches where the all round superiority of the players from down-under would have shone through. An informed friend commented last night that regardless of the result, Bangladesh could face the Aussies a hundred times at test match level and not record a single win. Over a 4 or 5 day test, class will prevail and the opportunity of the second innings means that such surprise results are rare.

Sadly for England the Ashes will be contested over a series of 5 difficult and tense tests, and Australia will look to dominate from the off. But the question is now being asked is whether the Aussies are rocking? Is this the inevitable demise of this team? With McGrath and Warne aging, is the Australian attack now blunted? Lee remains one of the fasted bowlers in the world but he’s expensive and lacks the precision of McGrath and Gillespie. Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, and Gilchrist is the best batting line up in the world bar none, but they have failed to show this certainty this summer.

England and crucially Vaughn must stick in and turn the knife. Being magnanimous is all well and good but the Aussies have never offered us such respect. We know noble sportsmanship has gotten us nowhere, as Botham has shown in the past only rattling the Aussies and by playing up your successes will you have the psychological edge.

So lets take this chance to further humiliate this visiting colossus and lets start by sharpening our knives….

Sphere: Related Content

To clarify

Published
by
Aaron
on June 17, 2005
in economics and uk
. Closed

I feel that I may have given the implication that the current woes of British workers is down to some inherent laziness. This is not the crux of the argument. I am not blaming the British personally, just the system that has produced an expectation within the workplace that is unrealistic. I’m sorry but if you work in manufacturing you are competing directly with Far-Eastern people who will work longer and harder for less.

So the expectation of excellent working conditions and a good wage are sadly unrealistic, hence the collapse of Western European and American manufacturing in the face of outsourcing.

I worked in a factory and would be frustrated by lack of incentive to work. People in this country have it very good if you consider the global community as a whole. It is impossible to appreciate economics as a whole without being relative. We are competing with cheaper more streamlined economies and only by closing markets – which would shatter investment and exports – can we ever avoid this reality.

Anyone who reads my posts will know my political standpoint. I am very left-wing and I believe passionately about pooling our common resources, but sadly this is not our political reality.

I apologise if I may have been misconstrued as criticising British workers personally; I assure you this is not my standpoint. They have proven historically they are hard working and innovative in the right economic climate.

I want good pay. British people deserve good pay, good conditions, and ample holidays. But this is not realistic if we expect to compete directly the Far-East.

The Labour government does provide various schemes that enrich the standards of working families (tax credits, child support) but these are disincentives that curb competition in the labour market, and are at a cost to the economy in general. This is not vast amounts of money, but they are a cost that their economic contribution does not warrant in this time of globalisation. This is the problem; there is not the value in general manufacturing for it to be a viable economic choice for a modern economy.

Where this leaves the working classes of this country is not clear…..

But that is not the question.

Sphere: Related Content

Migrants taking all our jobs?

Published
by
Aaron
on June 17, 2005
in economics and uk
. Closed

I must admit I’m getting a little bemused by the whole argument that migrants are coming over and taking jobs off British people, and the persistence of some to link immigration and the deterioration in the UK manufacturing base.

This link is simply not there. As someone who was a manager in manufacturing for four years I can state categorically that immigration contributes far more to the survival of British manufacturing than to its demise.

The closeted myopic view of many in this country is that it’s all the fault of Johnny foreigner, never some shortcoming of the indigenous populous. What rubbish.

Oh here we go you cry….”You’re a self-loather”. No I am merely objective enough to realise that we have contributed to our own demise and are subject to uncontrollable global trends. This country lost most of its manufacturing backbone through years of poor management skills and too powerful unions. The Americans, Japanese, and yes even the French could be often heard joking about British production management, and their lack of sophistication and commercial awareness. The emergence of professional development and organisations such as the Institute of Operation and Production Management has begun to improve aptitude among the countries many managers.

There is also the cliché of working in a factory, that leads many of our best and brightest to steer clear of manufacturing, leading to a critical shortage of skill and talent. Many of the managers that run facilities have no formal training in efficient production management or cost control. Many British companies have been found out and have subsequently gone bust.

Many cite the Labour government and its poor record within manufacturing, this is admittedly poor, but to claim that it’s all Labour or the ‘liberals’ fault is absolute nonsense.

The reality is far more international and historical….

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the balance of power tipped to America, and its many corporations could now spread across the globe more freely. This also coincided with huge reform in the Indian political system leading to a new stability, liberalised markets, and pro-globalisation policies. Coincidence struck again as Deng Xiaoping’s reforms finally came to fruition succeeding in “opening-up” China. China has become a manufacturing giant (80% of Wal-Marts manufactured goods are produced in China), swallowing up oil and steel and record rates, causing a rise in commodity prices therefore increasing the relevance of labour costs.

The other major factor has been the pioneering of the Internet and the ability to connect truly global supply-chains instantaneously. Sales order processing now seamlessly interfaces with remote - cheaply run – production facilities. Armed with a satellite tracked logistics backbone companies now enjoy a small flat world. Corporations exploit increasingly open markets to maximise productivity and reduce unit costs. Manufacturing jobs are not being lost to immigrants in this country but lost entirely oversees.

The influx of immigrants - in reality - do many of the jobs the British people do not want to do, pampered as they are with ever greater state provided provisions and unrealistic expectations. Why work in a factory when the minimum wage means that it’s just as worthwhile to sell shoes in a nice smart shop? Why work in a hot kitchen when you can earn just as much as a receptionist? In my experience I have seen wages spiral in production factories, as the minimum wage has reduced the available workforce prepared to work in a factory. The option of last resort is imported agency, which are even more expensive, but do turn up and do the work. That’s right in reality foreign agency workers (as the majority of Polish, Portuguese, and others are) actually work out more expensive than the average British worker. I know I have conducted the work-studies (however the fact that the turnover is generally lower with contracted agency, means the costs eventually become lower as businesses are not constantly advertising, recruiting, and training).

As I stated the provisions and working standards of this country, allied with an increasing unproductive and transient workforce, have pushed up costs and lowed competitiveness further. No wonder businesses outsource so much of their production.

America and Europe have both suffered significantly from the shift, and both regions have experienced a retraction in their manufacturing base. The past decade Europe and America have diversified to concentrate on the service sector and added value markets, this has been reasonably successful but growth is now slowing.

So the worker rights, the scandalous corporate salaries, and the social benefits we enjoy are contributing to our collective demise. We are yesterday’s men. We’re expensive, pampered, and inflexible.

Is this all Labour’s fault? Is this the fault of economic migrants?

No. It’s the reality of this borderless flat world. And any suggestion otherwise is simplistic opportunistic xenophobia.

Sphere: Related Content

Mac Power

Published
by
Aaron
on June 16, 2005
in admin, culture and tech
. Closed

I have recently changed from a Windows based NEC 15” laptop to an Apple 12” iBook, so I am getting used to the Apple OSX Tiger operating system and I have to say I’m very impressed.

Tiger is so much more elegant and logical than Windows. Most of us have grown up with Windows but the change is relatively simple and the use of a third party mouse enables the second button option that is desperately necessary.

So if anyone out there is considering the switch…go for it!

Sphere: Related Content

Bushbashing

Published
by
Aaron
on June 13, 2005
in middle east and usa
. Closed

I posted the Bush II piece below on a political website and received all sorts of criticism from the usual right-wing brigade. One even had the gall to claim that by criticising Bush’s economic record I was against medical aid for pensioners!

Seriously.

Obviously I outlined the futility of his argument, that allying increased government spending with tax cuts was financially irresponsible, and more like economic suicide than good governance!

Is Bush deliberately increasing the costs of Medicare so it becomes insolvent? We all know that the Republicans have always looked to dismantle the social safety nets that help America?s poor.

The so called Trojan Horse?.
political website

Sphere: Related Content

George Bush II - George the Inept

Published
by
Aaron
on June 12, 2005
in middle east, politics, usa and world
. Closed

Is the American people are now beginning to realise the long reign of George W. Bush will be remembered by its expensive and misguided foreign policy and nonexistent progress at home.

As the polls suggest, the American public have opened their eyes and can now see the damage this administration has done not only to America’s image and standing but also to its infrastructure and security.

In a recent Post-ABC News survey 52% of those questioned said that the war in Iraq is not contributing to America’s security. 49% said that they disapproved of Bush’s handling of the war on terror. Bush’s strongest electoral asset now lies in tatters only 6 months after the election.

Bush’s overall approval stands at 50%. In another Pew poll the approval stands at 52%. Is the tide turning? Is Bush destroying any chance of his Republican successor securing office?

As support sours towards the Republicans the record of the 43rd American President is increasingly under the scope. In the Post today David Broader quoted a conversation with former speaker Newt Gingrich that outlined such insecurities explaining that there are “a lot of parallels between the restiveness of European voters, and what I feel when I’m on the road.” Could American voters revolt against the status quo a la the French and Dutch?

Of course the Whitehouse remains oblivious to criticism or reality, deflecting criticisms towards media outlets such as Newsweek. Spokesperson Scott McClellan who - while a report on the military’s handling of the Koran was being suppressed - had the Nixonian impudence to blame the magazine for the rioting in Afghanistan, something both Gen. Richard Myers and Hamid Karzai refuted. Much like in the time of Nixon’s press bruiser Charles W Colson, the media is to be controlled, suppressed, and intimidated. Press passes have become political tools to punish and ostracise non-compliant journalists, however should one play the game the Whitehouse proved any fraud can just walk into the most exclusive briefing in the world.

The court of Bush accepts no dissenters.

Foreign Policy

President Bush has proved unusually internationalist for a Republican, he has had a great deal of work to do. Unfinished business in Iraq (an open wound from the Bush’41 tenure) was to be completed, and nothing was going to stand in his way. In an unholy alliance with the Puppet Master Dick Cheney and the Warmonger Donald Rumsfeld, Bush moved quickly to build the case for war. As the Downing Street memo now proves there was a premeditated plan to invade, with or without UN authority.

One and a half thousand US servicemen have returned home dead, draped in the Stars and Stripes, a scene too symbolic to be filmed. Thousands more try and rebuild shattered lives with multiple injuries and lost limbs. Countless civilians have also perished following the invasion and the country has remained in a state of high alert. Years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein the occupation forces are unable to even secure the road between Baghdad and the airport. But the War is going well according to the Whitehouse and the compliant Right wing media machine; the truth diluted as it vanishes before our eyes.

As Bush and his gang tear apart and clumsily rebuild the shattered country other pressing issues are allowed to fester. An avoidable crisis in North Korea has allowed hardliners to gain control, and they have used their announced nuclear capabilities to emasculate American influence on the peninsular. Bush likes to encourage China to take a lead on the issue ignoring the historical divisions between the two countries. The two-way talks the Koreans demand are rejected for the continued policy of inaction.

Again with meaningless rhetoric the administration has enflamed anti-US sentiment in Iran. Just as women are beginning to challenge their imposed subservience, and students look to build confidence in their decent; the US has come to the aid of Clerical leadership, providing a common enemy for which to rally support against. Such examples of ill thought policy are de rigueur with this pro-war neocon agenda.

In the Afghanistan conflict, which proved, a swift and comprehensive victory (with multinational support and UN recognition) there has been a breakdown in the fragile peace following highly suspect elections and reports of the torturing of detainees. There has also been a significant increase in the exportation of opium, although in fairness the British contingent was supposedly responsible for the post-war opium control. Just as Myanmar is looking too kill off its heroin trade the Afghan’s are happy to fill the gap in demand.

However we must remember that the Afghan conflict was an effort to find and capture Osama Bin Laden. Osama continues to enjoy a secretive if highly symbolic freedom.

A positive and effective response to the Tsunami disaster aside, there has been little to recommend from half a decade of Bush and Cheney.

At home

Few American citizens would be able to describe Compassionate Conservatism, the foundation for the Bush victory in 2000, as so little has been evident. Teachers unions continue to criticise the counter productive No Child Left Behind initiative, where nonsensical targets continue to suppress progress and development.

Bush’s early Medicare reform was sold to congress on odious figures and appears completely unsustainable, just the sort of neocon Trojan horse that now threatens Roosevelt’s social legacies. Fiscal revenue will continue to flow into the pockets of the healthcare companies who so inflated the Bush election purse. Bush did not stop there; he campaigned last year on tort reform, which threatens to limit the liability healthcare corporations owe their customers (the US people). Spiralling health care insurance costs were to blame however Bush refuses to debate the possibility of sourcing vastly cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe. Why? To prevent terrorists tampering with the medication. It’s an Orwellian nightmare.

Bush this year - bathing in his victory - went on tour to sell Social Security reform to the masses. Again if you follow the money it leads to investment firms and their hungry eyes, Wall Street cannot wait too devour this socialist hangover. Again newspeak is used too bamboozle and convince the American public into selling its future to the men in suits who know what’s best.

Staged rallies are arranged where Bush talks of crisis and impending doom, never allowing dissenters, the president talks of choice and ownership. Now with the American public rejecting the proposal 2 to 1, Bush is forced to justify the initiative using figures something he has been unable to do. The Whitehouse response of course is to cry foul and claim the Democrat’s are spoilers, unsupportive of an empathetic democratically elected president.

The proposed Clean Air policy has led to increased carbons in the atmosphere and a failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The US people’s response? To go beyond the protocol taking the matters into their own hands using local democracy to challenge pollution at source city by city, proving how out of step Bush has become with his own electorate.

Homeland security remains a sticking point with current account deficit at unsustainable levels and his regressive tax cuts to be financed, there is little left to secure the nations ports and boarders, immigrants and possible terrorists flood into the country. America is no safer.

And what of the economy? Ford and General Motors’ stock is declared junk and American manufacturing has suffered its worse period for decades. The Chinese support the treasury with an endless supply off bond purchases creating a legacy of debt that future generation will have too reconcile. Bush will be safely retired to his Austin ranch in time to miss the debts being called in. Only the stuttering early performance of the Euro has stopped the dollar from loosing its privileged position as the global default currency. This is deeply symbolic and creates vast wealth for US government as it enjoys the benefits from all US Dollar exchanges.

With the American economy suffering slowdown the companies associated with the Bush and Cheney families have enjoyed something of a blue patch. Halliburton has made a fortune from the Iraq invasion charging literally millions of dollars for work valued in the thousands. Cheques are never questioned only authorised, the American taxpayer will pick up the tab.

The Carlyle Group who helpfully employs Papa Bush have also seen numerous defence contracts signed. In the case of their subsidiary United Defense they have even seen a policy change where a cumbersome and slow military vehicles life is extended to ensure a healthy corporate flotation. Nothing is too much to ask young George.

So what now for the American people? Well first they have 3 more years of Bush filling his coffers and squandering his opportunity. Then maybe America can evaluate this inept and corrupt administration and rejoin the global community and live up to its responsibilities.

Sphere: Related Content

The Nuclear Option

Published
by
Aaron
on June 12, 2005
in economics and uk
. Closed

We need to deal with our ever increasing demand for energy before crippling oil prices crucify the economy.

As consumers our lives are becoming increasing dependent on high usage devices such as dishwashers, air-conditioning units, and the automobile. In fact according to the DTI we use 11.8% (adjusted for temperature) more fuel than in 1970 – equivalent to 25m tonnes of oil a year.

While industry has reduced consumption by 53% (see the collapse of primary and secondary industries), domestic and logistical usage has spiralled. Domestic usage is now 30% greater than 35 years ago and transport has seen a jump over the same period of around 98%.

How do we generate most of this power? Primarily through the burning of fossil fuels which are beginning to become more expensive and scarce as demand grows.

Last year the UK became a net importer of fuel for the first time in a decade. This troubling news arrives at a time when emerging Asian economies are consuming oil at record levels. High prices within the commodity markets are pressuring manufacturers to reduce labour costs; this has led to labour outsourcing and the scaling back of production operations in expensive western countries.

These figures point to one obvious objective, to reduce consumption. Progressive measures such as the recent car tax reform will go someway to temper the rapid thirst for oil. We should also introduce restrictions on household consumption to encourage energy saving technology and contemplative usage. We need radical measures to counter extreme growth in energy demand.

We also desperately need to reduce our dependence on unstable oil producing regions, where our oil revenues help finance terrorist groups and fundamental teachings, outlined in my previous post.

Few doubt that Britain is about to hit a recession caused by the slow down in the housing market. Retail and service sectors have been artificially stimulated by increased consumer credit financed through property sale and other forms of equity liquidation. The pressure on the UK to increase its balance of trade will never be as important (crippling fuel imports will not help).

With rising prices caused by the squeeze on oil, and poor productivity; the UK could well find itself with a nasty dose of Stagflation. This would kill off the remaining manufacturers and throw the economic stability we hold dear into turmoil.

What to do?

While we must reduce emissions and achieve our Kyoto commitments - something which looks increasingly unlikely, we must also remain competitive and ensure we do not fall too far behind our competitors.

Renewable energy - while preferable – remains expensive and inefficient; can we really afford to write off the Nuclear Option? The answer sadly in the short/medium term is No.

We must realise that Nuclear energy is the logical energy source while alternative solutions are pioneered and perfected. The UK has to remain competitive if it is to have any future within the global marketplace.

So it is with a dose of reality and sadness that this ‘lefty’ welcomes the nuclear option.

Sphere: Related Content

Oil Prices

Published
by
Aaron
on June 12, 2005
in economics, middle east, uk and world
. 1 Comment

There are several reasons why the proposed transport reform is both acceptable and welcomed…

1. Most countries with a net surplus of oil are inept, corrupt, and in many cases suppressing the freedoms of their citizens (or subjects).

Take Saudi Arabia; years of religious oppression, a justice system where torture is rife, and almost no democratic freedoms (and I include the very limited recent elections). The Saudi Monarchy is legitimised by the religious clerics, who in return for this endorsement are given spheres of influence in areas like Education, and Justice.

Islam within the Kingdom is practiced using strict Wahabbiism teaching, which represent some of the strictest and most fundamental aspects of the Muslim faith. Saudi money is then funnelled to countries such as Pakistan, and Indonesia where Wahabbiest teachings are taught to some of the poorest people on earth. Wahabbi textbooks write of the evils of the west, and refer to US citizens as infidels.

The very terrorism that Mr Bush is said to fighting is propagated by some of his closest friends (members of the Saudi Royals were frequent visitors to Texas as personal guests of Bush pre-9/11, as were more frighteningly members of the Taliban).

Without Oil revenue the country would be unable to sustain these religious exports, and maintain its hold on its people. As former oil states such as Bahrain have proved, that without the guaranteed oil revenues the monarchies and dictators must-up open their economies to trade and begin to give freedoms and representation to their people. As investment slowly takes hold in the country, the need for knowledge and skills would necessitate the overhaul of the education system. By propping up these regimes with our thirst of oil we are supporting both terrorism, and holding back the Islamic renaissance that many progressive Muslims around the world desperately welcome.

2. As fuel becomes more expensive the British people would be more receptive to alternative fuel supplies such as fuel cell technology and in the short-term hybrid technologies. Why do they not buy these technologies now? Because choice is limited as investment is not in place. Why should struggling carmakers like Ford invest in new engines when people are lapping up conventionally powered automobiles?

The scientific consensus is that the global warming is a far bigger threat to humanity than terrorism, and our love affair with the automobile must be broken.

3. There are quite simply too many cars on our roads. Anyone with experience of the M25, M1, M6, and many of inner cities would acknowledge that the current levels of traffic are unsustainable.

Higher duties and re-nationalisation of the rail system are the progressive and obvious choices. This is the real issue – will the government now make the tough choices this country needs? However whether any of the current group of political parties has the bravery to make these decisions is still in question. Equally suspect is whether the increased taxes will lead to real investment in the transport infrastructure and technology?
It is also of very little significance if such a measures are exclusive to the UK. Developed countries must take the lead of this issue. This includes helping developing countries also achieve high levels environmental governance. The global community must also demand that the US toes the line on Kyoto. Other countries have economies and workers too. Other signatories to the protocol have will take the hit, so why not the US? The US claims to be the leader of the free world, leaders take tough decisions, leaders lead by example, leaders understand fairness and equality. I beg and implore the US to live up to its ideas of grandeur.

Current signatories should equally be held to account; this is the greatest threat to our way of life. This is an issue we the global community cannot hide from. The US maybe the world biggest polluter (25% of global air pollutants) but we cannot ignore our own responsibilities just because someone else does.

Taxes are not the anathema that the right claim. They can lead to real social good, improved infrastructure, and in the case of cigarettes, alcohol, and fuel; they can control consumption. We don’t like being told what to do, however sometimes we need it. Just ask your mother?

Sphere: Related Content

AFRICA - A liberal guilt trip?

Published
by
Aaron
on June 5, 2005
in economics, politics and world
. 1 Comment

I do not believe that the trouble in Africa is my fault or yours. I also don’t believe that their civilisations deserve any particular aid or assistance from the people of Britain.

I think at present much of the aid that the developed world does indeed get siphoned off by corrupt regimes.

The only aid I send (or have ever sent) to Africa is £5 a month to Farm Friends (Farm Africa) who work in Africa and provide Chickens and Goats to families in Africa. I’m from a farming family and I feel a sense of pride that something I do may help a family to provide for themselves in the future. I earn a decent salary and can spare this amount easily (it’s not a lot I know), and I also donate the same amount to the NSPCC. I donate neither because I feel guilty, I donate because I would like to help fellow human beings reach something like the standard of living I have.

Does this make me one of the liberals the right loath with such vitriol?

If so that’s thier problem, not mine.

I repeat that I never feel guilty for the people of Africa. I do feel a sense of caution when British companies such as Shell drill for oil in African counties such as Nigeria; I hope that we pay as fair price for what is natural resource of the African people.

Pouring money into the pockets of dictators will not make up for the excesses and brutality of the British colonial rule. I will not feel guilty for the actions of my dead countrymen, but I do like to help my fellow man, both as a human and as a Christian.

We are such a wasteful civilisation. EU Food Mountains are crushing African Markets and we enjoy much of our privileged existence at the expense of many of the worlds poor, much like the rich of this country who owe much of their wealth to those less fortunate British citizens. We should address the disparities in wealth in this country also. But I defend our right as a compassionate nation to help countries such as Africa in their hour of need. The actions of a corrupt dictator are no excuse to watch a million Africans perish of starvation.

The Englishness the right is so proud of was built not on isolation and ignorance, but on internationalism and intervention. There would be no Empire without the colonies, many of which were in Africa. Again this is not a guilt trip, or some liberal tirade, I am simply explaining why I feel that we should help the people of Africa is raising their standard of living. Raising the standards in the third world would help in various causes, namely the fights against drugs, terrorism, and help to reduce those seeking asylum.

The key is breaking the despotic rules such as those in Uganda, Togo, Ivory Coast, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. I welcome the moves to freeze assets in Western banks and using the International Criminal Court to bring these evil leaders to justice.

Again the UN has proved impotent to deal with these issues as nationalistic agendas cloud any ethical progress (I’m looking at you China). Here the US should use its influence and dominance to do real good in the world, such a stand would repair much of the tattered reputation of American foreign policy. I have no problem with US power if it is used responsibly.

I welcome the focus on Africa and I welcome the rights criticisms of wasted money thrown away down the drain that has been Africa, but this focus should be used to readdress our strategy and turn the heat on their so-called Leaders. The US and British should also table a resolution to completely isolate countries that deal in arms while enjoying our aid. Take Ethiopia and Eritrea; their leaders are buying up arms while the international community are working to help feed their starving populations.

Who is selling these arms? They should be forced to stop.

It is in our interest to help, to get involved. Britain is an island but it is not invulnerable to global issues such as drugs, terrorism, resource scarcity, and disease. The world is a very small and borderless place now.

We need a new strategy, because we need a new Africa.

http://www.farmfriends.org.uk/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1499462,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1499475,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1499460,00.html

Sphere: Related Content

US military base in Uzbekistan

Published
by
Aaron
on June 4, 2005
in russia, uk, usa and world
. Closed

In today’s Washington Post the news of the United States’ plans for a base in Uzbekistan can only further the frustration of Human Rights organisations in the region.

In President Bush’s inaugural speech in January he stated: -

“There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.”

All this seems honourable and logical in the move to spread democracy across the former Soviet Union and beyond, however the record of the compliant Uzbek leadership calls into question Bush’s real commitment to freedom. The president of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov recently suppressed an uprising in the city of Andijan leading to the reported deaths of between 500-1000 civilians, described by the Republican Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham as a “massacre”.

The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray has repeatedly claimed that the country “is not a functioning democracy”, and adding his authority to claims that the regime have boiled people alive stating that “all of us know that this is not an isolated incident”. Upon claims that MI6 had used Uzbek information obtained under torture, Murray was removed from his post for “operational” reasons.

How can President Bush be consistent with his inaugural address when he supports a dictator such as Karimov?

In 2000 eleven days before Mr. Bush’s first inaugural address Uzbekistan went to the polls in what the US argued “was neither free nor fair and offered Uzbekistan’s voters no true choice”. How soon our standards change?

Bush and Blair launched a war on the sovereign nation of Iraq without UN approval in what Kofi Annan described as an “illegal invasion”. When no weapons of mass destruction were found the occupation quickly changed their story, arguing that the invasion was to remove a “tyrant” and bring freedom to the people. What about the Uzbek people? Demonstrators in Andijan were described by Whitehouse spokesperson Scott McClellan as “terrorists”, well one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Ukrainian demonstrators were legitimate because they opposed a Moscow strongman; however the language is different if you oppose a Washington strongman.

Again this represents the mishandling of foreign affairs by the inept Bush administration. Hell-bent on imperial expansion. the US is oblivious to the reactions its policies are causing around the globe. Washington’s support of Karimov feeds the Anti-US feeling throughout the Islamic world. Karimov has suppressed, tortured, and killed Muslims in Uzbekistan. The UN described torture in the country as “institutionalised, systematic, and rampant.”

How can America continue to be a beacon of freedom, liberty, and opportunity while it props up despotic dictators like Karimov?

Sphere: Related Content

Nuclear proliferation

Published
by
Aaron
on June 4, 2005
in economics, middle east, uk, usa and world
. Closed

It seems that both the US and the UK will replace their current arsenal with next-generation ICBM’s, and in the case of the US a possible “bunker-buster” nuclear delivery system.

What sort of message does this send out to Iran and N. Korea? “We will make ourselves stronger, increasing our hegemony, and undermining your sovereignty. You will stay weak.”

Robert McNamara appeared on BBC R4 yesterday and was heavily critical of the Bush administration’s policy with Korea. He claimed that for all the sabre rattling and rhetoric being spouted by the Whitehouse it does not mean a jot. N. Korea has thousands of weapons aimed at Seoul and US troops stationed in the region. Bush allowed the Korean issue to disappear off the radar and is now without a policy to deal with the rogue state.

Back to proliferation…

The USAF has requested licence to build weapons that would operate above the earth’s atmosphere, designed to take out enemy satellites to ensure US dominance of space in the advent of conflict. This threatens to break out into another arms-race as the Russians and Chinese would have to ensure some protection/retaliation capability.

The reason the US has avoided this avenue before now is their dependence on its communication web; the US would be affected more than any potential foe by a communication blackout. Paradoxically Rumsfeld of course is concerned with the whacky ideology of the Star Wars programme, even though its relevance and feasibility are in question. Iraq has proven there is no substitute for troops on the ground.

The future conflict theatres are likely to be further ‘rogue states’, this means that the traditional infantry unit will become increasingly important (as regional stability will be more relevant that invasion), and America is struggling to maintain troop levels as Niall Ferguson pointed out in the New York Times last month: -

‘So could today’s all-volunteer force somehow be expanded to double (at least) the troops available? That too seems unlikely. Indeed, the current system is already showing alarming signs of stress and strain as more and more is asked of the “weekend warriors” of the reserves and National Guard, who account for roughly two-fifths of the force in Iraq. In December, the Army National Guard acknowledged that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the preceding two months. Many members of the Individual Ready Reserve have been contesting the Army’s right to call them up.’

So why the investment in space programmes and nuclear weapons?

It appears that throughout the eighties the Americans had their fingers crossed when they championed the cause of non-proliferation (suckering the world into concurrence). This is the sort of leadership we have in the US now: always war, never dialogue.

Still what should we expect from a president who’s Daddy’s an arms dealer?

Sphere: Related Content

Europe - Evolve or Die

Published
by
Aaron
on June 3, 2005
in economics and europe
. Closed

I am not embarrassed to state I support The European Project. For all the protectionist rhetoric of the Right they have never proposed a workable alternative that would enable the UK to thrive in the new era of globalisation.

Britain is crowded and lacks the enterprise and resources to “go it alone”. Internal competition, shared technology and knowledge would enable Europe to create a flexible vibrant economy.

As Nicolas Sarkozy stated yesterday in reference to the French economy: -

“The best social model is the one that gives work to everybody. It is not, therefore, our own.”

I agree that Europe should have social model to rival any region on Earth, but should we ‘gold plate’ our social model leaving us uncompetitive and at the mercy of more streamlined economies? No of course not and Sarkozy is right if unfashionable.

With the European political climate becoming more hostile following a decade of stunted growth and high unemployment, the electorate will look to realists who will have to bring in the very reforms the French have just rejected.

Blair – or more likely Brown – may find himself with willing allies in Sarkozy and Angela Merkel (the likely future German Chancellor). This trident of realists who understand that Globalisation cannot be ignored – and are equally aware of the demands of a socially pampered electorate – will have to modernise the stagnant European economy.

Thomas L Friedman; someone who understands globalisation more than most, wrote in today’s New York Times: -

‘It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour workweek in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck.’

Friedman’s tongue may have been firmly in his cheek, but his point is very real. India represents a modernising market friendly environment that attracts industry and jobs away from the developed countries of Western Europe and the US. Jobs in the service industry are all well and good for countries that rely on tourism, but for sophisticated economies like those of Germany and Britain it is manufacturing jobs that help weigh the trade balance in our favour.

Britain too like Europe has lost many manufacturing jobs as it began increasing its social system without the means to finance it. So Britain too has an interest in reforming the economy both at home and on the continent.

Even in the Guardian yesterday the much-travelled Timothy Garton Ash wrote: -

‘Substantive Blairism, which is what Europe needs in its socio-economic model, only has a chance of being accepted if Blair’s Britain is not seen to be its main missionary.’

Europe may indeed need more radical Thatcherism but this will never wash across much of Europe. Garton’s main thrust is that only with likeminded allies can we hope to reform the EU, and again be competitive.

We will never compete with Asian economies in labour-intensive industries such as mass produced plastics and textiles, but we can embrace key areas such as high value automobiles, electronics, software, and corporate services. We can ensure that the first call of technology companies when looking for expansion is the EU.

If our continent can just about keep its collective head above the water while wielding such a cumbersome and unhelpful social model, just imagine it liberated from its current legislation and expense.

Britain so long on the fringes of Europe following De Gaulle’s veto in 1963, can now take the reigns from the beleaguered incumbent leaders and enforce this much needed radical agenda. The French have proven they no longer have the vision or stomach to run Europe.

The Tories had it half right with “In Europe, but not run by Europe”, but I suggest the far more committal “In Europe, and running Europe.”

La Constitution britannique Est Mort, Vive La Constitution britannique!

Sphere: Related Content

The G8 and Globalisation

Published
by
Aaron
on June 1, 2005
in economics, europe, uk and world
. Closed

The G8 are much like the other “international clubs” (such as the UNSC), where the only real agenda is protecting the status quo. No progressive agenda would ever gather much momentum, as this would require sacrifice and consensus, which is beyond the current global leadership.

The era of globalisation is exploitative and profit driven however there are positives from this phenomenon. While cultural diversity and identity are homogenised out of existence - as Starbucks and Nike brand the world - we have to realise that globalisation is probably the greatest force of peace in our history. Thomas L. Friedman once stated that there has never been war between two countries with a McDonald’s restaurant. I do not know if this is true, but I suspect it may be.

Economic stability thrives in a peaceful environment, and corporations ensure that markets are secure. If globalisation means an end to War, then I for one will challenge my own opposition.

There is of course a difference between globalisation and heartless capitalism (the sort that inhabits the Whitehouse, and can be identified by organisations such as the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and Exxon-Mobil). Globalisation has evolved from capitalism but is aware of its own mortality, it realises that consumer power can make or break any organisation (look at Mattel’s protection of the Barbie brand).

In America the moral crusade of the right is now shaping globalisation and the products retailers sell. Wal-Mart may be able to turn a healthy profit on a saucy magazine, but its consumer’s en masses may object. The majority then has decided the corporation’s policy. Klein would of course argue that this impinges free speech and I would tend to agree, however we that consumer have a responsibility to be sophisticated in what we demand. Is this not democracy in action?

The French referendum is being labelled a vote against Globalisation. I don’t believe this. If Sarkozy were the leader the yes vote would has been victorious, the anti-Chirac vote was enough to swing the electorate in favour of a non. Chirac is a vulpine disingenuous opportunist with little charisma or ideology, he deserves like Schroeder to be resigned to the scrap heap. Globalisation cannot be dismissed anymore than burying ones head in the sand can avert an earthquake. Globalisation is the post-Cold War world, and to deny ones need to face up to it is to ignore reality.

The G8 have little control over the Globalisation juggernaut, it too easily crosses boarders and has become too powerful. The G8 represent a hangover from a previous global order that is as outdated as those that lead it. Globalisation represent like no other movement real power for the people, should we choose to use it.

Will we be a demanding consumer, who commands environmental responsibility from our suppliers, or will we be the supine advertising led commodities we have become?

The beauty of globalisation is it’s our choice….

————–

I can see the major shortcomings of globalisation, and the short-term myopic view of shareholders, but my main point is one of consumer choice. This economic model has been forced across the world by American aid and influence, there are always string attached to American aid (it represents the main thrust of US foreign policy). And the corporations can now exploit both the consumer and worker in their quest for supernormal profits.
The consumer must take the lead here and see beyond the barrage of advertising and misinformation. Hence the necessity for the BBC – an oracle beyond the grasp of the corporate word, not at the behest of the advertisers and their purse strings - unlike say CNN and Fox. Lets not forget that advertising no longer informs but misleads, and an uninformed consumer is market failure by default as this corrupts the price mechanism (the reason people pay over £100 for a pair of trainers).

This is where the media must play a leading role in highlighting the injustices of the corporate world. The Internet can take a great deal of credit for allowing media outlets a cost-effective medium to operate within; the Net has led to an informed consumer who now knows of the great injustices and demands change.

If corporations refuse to change then we need governmental intervention, but again as voters the power is in our hands.

Observe, reflect, and vote.

The greater point is one of leadership. In the past great leaders have answered the call of destiny. Churchill was no peacetime leader but he answered a call when our country was in its hour of need. Where are today’s progressive globally savvy leaders? Blair for all his shortcomings is probably the closest to a modern leader– just a shame he wasted his political capital on a foolish jaunt with Messer’s Bush and Cheney.

It’s only just over decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the birth of this new global economy, so maybe we will have to wait for the next generation of responsible leaders. Leaders who realise the fragility of this earth and do not hide behind misguided sceptics and corporate sponsored research which echos the pro-smoking lobbies of the 50-80’s.

Politics again much like the market; we must demand change. Marx of course encouraged change and conflict as a way to break free from the shackles of the past, a way of evolution by revolution. So maybe the anti-globalisation protesters have an important part to play in the debate?

Does anyone else feel we maybe on the cusp of a great global change? One where the old system is brushed away to make way for a new progressive market economy? We may miss our chance as the neo-phobic masses recoil into themselves, thinking only of protecting the assets they own, as opposed to achievements we the greater global population could accomplish.

Sadly with leaders like the ones who make up the G8, we will never evolve…

Sphere: Related Content