Offer Asylum to Iraqis Working for the British Armed Forces - 1 comment

I should have linked to this campaign much earlier, but I'm now displaying the banner in the left-hand sidebar, and here's a link to the Facebook group, which has now reached 400 members. Here's what it's all about:

"This is very simple: our forces went to Iraq (for right or wrong - that's not important right now) and needed support from local people, interpreters for example. Brave and intelligent people provided the support our forces needed and continue to do so.

But at a price. They are being kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed.

You may have heard that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Defence are looking into it.

Until policy changes we need to keep up pressure on the government to act. If you haven't written to your MP, please do: http://www.writetothem.com

Some guidance on what you might wish to write is here.

If you haven't signed the petition, please do - it takes only a moment.

If you would like to raise awareness:

1. Please invite people to join this group.
2. Watch and share the following video from Bloggerheads.
3. Keep everyone else posted with updates on the wall below.

And if you do hear from your MP, drop Justin a note at Chicken Yoghurt, so we can keep a tag on which of our representatives are responding."

Why not Zimbabwe? - 2 comments

I like Neil Harding a lot, and admire the fervency of his blogging, but his latest piece: "Euston Manifesto is a busted flush - pathetic right-wingers dressed in left-wing clothes" seems to show no reluctance to join the canon of Euston-bashing articles, that contains a scant few thoughtful ethically-serious pieces amid a sea of bile from some truly dreadful bloggers and cranks. Leaving aside my rhetoric, the most popular strategy of opponents is to judge the Euston Manifesto not on the basis of what it states, but on the basis of the very worst behaviour (past and present) that can be attributed to those politicians, writers, and other public figures who it is believed (rightly or wrongly) as signers/supporters, as if their contrary words and actions can be taken as a refutation of that Manifesto.

Neil is quite entitled to ask whether the behaviour of individuals/administrations that declare they have changed their mind - you won't be surprised to hear that the topic is "US commitment to worldwide democracy" - is significantly different after the event from what it was before. However, a healthy scepticism does not allow an observer the right to assume - when evidence is available one way or another - that the declaration is a lie, and use language like "It didn't take a genius to deduce...", and "it is pretty clear which was the priority..." in order to prop up a pet theory about economic determinism - a theory that sucks moral and ethical concerns out of the political space, replacing them with claims and counter-claims about "who profits?", amid mounting ignorance and cynicism about policy-making.

But why Iraq and not also Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia - all these countries are severely lacking in democracy with brutal regimes oppressing their citizens.

For hopefully the final time, here's why I can't attribute a genuine moral seriousness to those who include passages such as the above. It's not that questioning why there was military intervention in Iraq and not the other countries is taboo, or an uninteresting question, it's that those who move swiftly past questions like "Should the regimes in any/all of these countries be toppled, for the sake of their suffering population?" and "If so, what strategy is most likely to achieve a positive result with the widest international support, and the minimum fallout?" have overstepped the line that those who claim to be primarily motivated by the rescue of the suffering populations must walk. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those who ask the quoted question 70% of the time, and the latter two questions 30% of the time, but not to those who are happy with a 95%-5% balance, whichever way around.

Then again with only economics (well, if you reduce it to "profit" and "Oil") as a possible foreign policy motivation, what else can you lobby your elected representative about on the subject of Zimbabwe? How else can a document that talks about egalitarianism, democracy, and the rights of individuals over states be routinely labelled "right-wing"? There's always the possibility of an internal uprising, of course, it's just a shame about those repressive state apparatuses with no concern for human life...

Harriet on Iraq - 6 comments

I only made two choices in the deputy leadership election, neither of which were for (my former MP) Harriet Harman. The idea that having a male-female duo at the helm is something a political party should aspire to, rather than happen upon - by which Harriet seems to be convinced - seems a ridiculous one. And yet I have a funny feeling the public are suckers for this kind of thing (luckily I'm not in charge of election strategy). Now she's in place, I'll wish her all the best and wait to see what kind of job she can do.

I notice that Harriet's come in for some hostile criticism regarding her - on the face of it - mystifying backtracking 'on Iraq' (the coded phrase into which the deep and wide issues being played out in Iraq can be distilled). Apparently now:

She said she had not been referring to the need for an apology, but agreeing with the need for reconciliation with the public.

"I have not said I will press for a public apology from the government or the Labour Party," she said.

Good. The idea that the British people, who have suffered so little, have a grievance that should be addressed as a priority strikes me as pretty sinister. The government can legitimately be blamed for its mishandling of the legitimate case for intervention against Saddam Hussein, and can take some blame for the mishandling of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq - lessons must be learnt - but to propose giving the kind of apology that would imply:

• That there wasn't a legitimate case for intervention.
  
• That the smallest fraction of Iraq's woes can be blamed upon the British government.
  
• That the British people have a legitimate grievance, above all others.
  
• And that the priority of Labour members should be to win that apology, rather than, say, direct their energies to supporting peaceful and democratic forces across the Middle East and elsewhere.

Would be not only a pointless gesture, but a misdirection, and a morally unpleasant one. I hate to think Labour members would have been motivated by such a thing during the recent voting, when others were voting on the basis of who could best reorganise the party and make it a better campaigning force. Nonetheless, though I can't explain Harriet's argument and wouldn't condone anything underhand, I have to say that I'm glad that pro-apology voters have been stymied. Can we now move on?

Humanitarian Intervention post-Iraq - no comments

At a meeting on Monday 30th April (sorry, short notice) in the Jubilee Room, Westminster Hall, Houses of Parliament, "a panel of leading Ministers, MPs, and thinkers" will come together to discuss the future of humanitarian intervention, after the conflict in Iraq.

The speakers include:

• Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, Minister for International Development and a candidate for the Labour party deputy leadership.
• Prof. Brian Brivati, Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights at Kingston University.
• Nick Cohen, journalist for the Observer and New Statesman, and author of ‘What’s Left? How Liberals lost their way’.
• Gary Kent, Director of Labour Friends of Iraq.
• Pat McFadden MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Cabinet Office
• Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust (tbc.)

Apparently, the meeting will be broadcast on YouTube. You can download full details here. I'll get back to you with a start and and end time for the event.

Thousands March - 6 comments

[Via] For a quiet life, appeasement of Iran, against internationalism, and to oppose mistreatment of the Palestinians - when it suits them:

Armed groups in Iraq have killed dozens of Palestinian refugees since 2003. Last month, Human Rights Watch documented killings, threats of violence and other security concerns of the estimated 34,000 Palestinian refugees in Iraq in the report, "Nowhere to Flee: The Perilous Situation of Palestinians in Iraq."

Iraqi Oil - 1 comment

Few arguments are more likely to kill an intelligent conversation on world politics than the one that sets out that the toppling of Saddam Hussein was "all about oil", especially as to retort with a political (whether well-, or poorly-intentioned; well-, or poorly thought-out) or moral argument is to be derided as hopelessly naive. Also popular is what I would call the "blood and oil" argument, namely that a country's natural resources are for the sole "use" of that country's inhabitants, and that the involvement of foreigners (especially Westerners) can be construed as "raping" a country's land/assets, etc. Of course there's an environmental case for leaving natural resources where they are, but generally when we have an asset we try to use it, extracting from it the greatest possible economic value we can. Given that we can't drink oil, or build houses out of it, we can either refine it ourselves, or sell it to someone who can do a better job, if they'll make us more money, cause less waste or damage in doing so, invest in local facilities, recruit and train local workers, and so on.

Economic nationalism, however, is one of the basic economic errors that causes governments to allocated assets to individuals, or to companies, who share the same nationality, when there are foreigners willing and able to make better or more profitable use out of them. The dangers of nationalism are even more expensive in developing countries, where scrutiny is weak, when a government takes control over the use of the resources, providing opportunities for it to use the revenue corruptly, to siphon off revenue, manipulate employment, curtail investment, or to top-up falling revenue elsewhere.

Economists can suggest and exhort policies, however, there's a time and a place to raise objections like these - and higher priorities. Reflecting this, a new petition has been set up at the Downing Street site, headlined:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to not allow the privatisation of Iraqi oil, against the wishes of the Iraqi people.

The key point is "the wishes of the Iraqi people", which is why you should consider signing this one. Here's a back-of-an-envelope order of policy-making precedence:

1. The policy must be: Democratically approved
2. The policy must be: Transparent and accountable
3. The policy must be: Economically aware/well-informed
4. The policy must be: Efficient
5. The policy must: Reflect public biases
6. The policy must: Reflect public biases abroad
   

I don't know that the Iraqi people have actually voted on who should process their oil, but once the arguments have been put forward, they must approve any policy. Besides, the petition states that Tony Blair gave assurances about the dispersal of oil revenues back in 2003. The next priority is that revenue doesn't subsequently disappear into the government machine, to be used corruptly - the effects of that would be worse than any economic policy. If we're OK with (1) and (2), the next priority should be that the government at least researches the opportunities available to it, and then that it attempts to maximise revenue and minimise waste, and it's at this stage that any privatisation decision can be made. Far less important a consideration must be the nationality of oil firms, and even further down the scale is the question of whether the decision appears to armchair critics to be a defeat for America, a victory for imperialism, etc.

So if, as the petition suggests, Western corporations really are pressurising the Iraqi government into making a decision other than what is in the best interests of Iraq, that's totally unacceptable. It's another good reason to sign the petition, and support democratic forces in Iraq (which will be a first time for quite a few people), which could really do with not losing legitimacy in the face of what looks like a stitch-up. Nonetheless it would be a shame for Iraq if future economic decisions had to be made on the basis of what was necessary for national cohesion, and what minimises the chances of a backlash against foreigners. It may be essential in the medium term, but closing the economy can only make it poorer it in the long term, and this isn't a happy situation for anyone.

Neal Lawson's illiberalism - 2 comments

Says the Don (who also links to several other critiques), Compass Chair, Neal Lawson, is "a man with a track record of inept and counter-productive support of a range of good causes". The latest mission: using your own ignorance of economics and philosophy, and reluctance to engage with other's arguments, erect a straw man, and call him The Political System. Then, contrarian, demolish with whatever argument you fancy: here, the lukewarm platitudes of priests.

Where do we get moral leadership from today? As we pick up the pieces of another swiped out festive season it's a fitting question. Is there something more to life than the endless cycle of overconsumption? How can the Iraq war or exorbitant city bonuses be justified? Increasingly it is our religious rather than political leaders who attempt to answer these difficult and pressing questions.

The mainstream media in this country undoubtedly trivialises politics in the UK, but the world is full of moral guidance (leadership, if you must): throughout our lives we watch, listen to, and read about the activities of people ranging from family members, to schoolteachers, businesspeople, politicians, and people with many different points of view and ideology, and we respond to what we take to be the positive and negative consequences of those actions, adapting towards what we hope to be 'the good life'. It's central to Lawson's argument that humanity is incapable of any such growth; without the moral leadership - and Lawson clearly has specific moral leadership in mind - the result is disaster. After all, what else could "overconsumption" mean? It's impossible to prove either way, it can be defined any way Neal likes, it sounds bad, and it plays on our guilt, so it's an essential part of the vocabulary for any budding puritan.

I had intended to post just before Christmas in defence of consumerism. It seems to be used overwhelmingly in a puritanical, as well as a snobbish manner, implying that self-appointed arbiters are a better judge of what people spend their money on than they themselves, that the general population is too unsophisticated to see through advertisers' messages, that most shoppers - unlike the happy aesthete - shop out of habit, and for the sheer love of money, and possessions. Consumerism^* also implies the population, free to walk the streets, and the puritan fears this kind of mass movement. What is this moral guidance that the religious authorities have to offer? An anti-democratic contempt for the above, but without anything so controversial as an appeal to charity, humility, or generosity? Nothing but platitudes appear in Lawson's piece, just the unfalsifiable "Something (what?) is wrong; something must be done!" that we expect from a Cameron or a Princess Di.

To sacrifice the concept of individual freedom, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor appears to advocate - something that the powerless have struggled to seize from the powerful (religious leaders very much included) throughout human history - in favour of some hot air about "the fundamental questions on the sense and direction of our lives", seems designed to return humanity to the stupefaction of centuries past. If Lawson were to realise that it is attempts by religious authorities to increase their presence in schools, to advocate and enforce dress codes (those affected naturally only become "some of society's most vulnerable people" for Neal when the rules are challenged, and the religion takes offence on the individuals' behalf), to defend blasphemy laws, to suppress freedom of speech, to meekly tolerate violence against their own communities, or to tolerate and even advocate the preaching of violence against others - rather than the peaceful faith of individuals - that is a matter of legitimate public concern over the influence of religious representatives, he might be less inclined to impugn atheists, secularists, rationalists, and politicians, not to mention workers at Goldman Sachs.

Our politicians have forgotten that power and principle are two sides of the same coin. Politics has stopped being a different vision of the good society and is instead a job for technocrats and for self-proclaimed rationalists.

To suggest that those involved in politics aren't interested in visions of a good society is a pretty ignorant comment for someone loosely involved with the blogosphere, and who must encounter individual politicians and political bloggers frequently. Neal might have a point if he has "managerialism" in his sights, but substituting the idea that unelected religious teachers should "lead and motivate the nation", in place of elected politicians doing so, hardly seems an attractive one, even if you believe that people have to be led. The fact that individuals, companies, or collectives, could be empowered to tackle society's problems in a more decentralised way seems hardly to have been considered. Now who's out of touch?

Not content with using the current state of Iraq to say "we were right" to the disparate group known as "opponents of the war", whatever the arguments - some 'realistic', some repulsive - those individuals employed, what Lawson implies is a kind of victor's justice, under which those who fall into the "supporters of the war" camp are to be judged moral criminals, morally vacuous, timorous, or 'careerist', irrespective of the arguments they used, and the principles they sought to promote and defend. Whatever kind of politics could produce this, it's not liberal. Only a tyrant - or a mob - could celebrate the chaos in Iraq - or indeed any argument they believe themselves to have won - with a victimisation of their opponents, as if the moral case was done and dusted, and the continuing debate pushed to one side. Norm's piece on this is a breath of fresh mountain air in comparison.

I don't deny that there will be religious figures (and to reiterate, I'm not talking about individuals with religious faith) who, on the basis of their brains, imagination, humanity, and so on, have acquired a moral authority of their own - or who bring evidence to discussions - and have earned the right to be listened to by thoughtful people. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes they enjoy the same right on the basis of their status within their particular sect, or on the basis of a personal recommendation by Neal Lawson (for whom "overly rationalist" is a censure, rather than a precondition for an intelligent debate), can get to the back of a very long queue.

-----
^* My dictionary gives an additional definition of "consumerism", namely "the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers". Is this also frowned upon?

Saddam and capital punishment - 5 comments

As consistent opponents of capital punishment I hope we can join in:

• Condemning the execution of Saddam Hussein.
• Applauding his (flawed, perhaps, but essentially fair) trial, and conviction.
• Agreeing that even the tiny proportion of his crimes brought before the court entitled him to the most severe punishment possible under the law.
• Peacefully (and consistently) lobbying all governments that practice capital punishment, in order to end the practice.

I believe these are the necessary priorities for someone, today, concerned with the eradication of capital punishment. Hardly controversial, surely.

I'm sure some will hijack this debate in order to push their own politics (for more, see here) - references to "predictability", "convenient outcomes", "loss of moral high ground", "democracy failing first test", etc. will abound, but, frankly, I haven't got time to spend trawling through the morally vacuous responses to find the few principled ones. Nor should we be distracted from the long, tedious work of persuasion, by those for whom "Iraq" is just a stage for their own exciting political theatre.