It is a refreshing change when Liberal Democrat colleagues support the views of our American friends.
And no Liberal Democrat colleague comes more exalted than this Liberal Democrat colleague.
I hope the Prime Minister is hanging his head in shame.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Friday, 27 April 2007
Thursday, 1 February 2007
British government timorous in the face of death
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the Labour government has no sense of principle or decency. Nevertheless, I am saddened to read that British diplomats have been ordered to torpedo plans in Europe to propose the abolition of the death penalty to the UN General Assembly.
That it would have been an example of gesture politics is without doubt. There is no likelihood that the General Assembly, where unanimity is required, would have passed such a motion. The death penalty remains popular in much of the globe; tyrannical regimes use it as the ultimate deterrent against dissent; and nations without a Christian heritage have entirely different underlying views of punishment, retribution and the sanctity of human life.
It is also true that the proposal has more to do with Romano Prodi’s efforts to shore up his fragile coalition than it does with evangelical zeal.
Yet neither of these are reasons not to promote our values abroad. While we may question the right of nations to dictate to one another by what standards they should live, spreading our beliefs by peaceful means is both a right and an inevitable consequence of interaction. There is an ocean of difference between the work of missionaries and that of conquistadors (to wit, the Atlantic!).
Slavery had a longer history in Africa and the Middle East than it did in Britain and America, but was largely stamped out when Britain and later America banned the practice (though even today there are thriving slave markets in Southern Sudan, among other places). And by-and-large, action on the international stage may be legitimised by international law or natural justice, but it is fuelled by the private interests of the actors: the efforts by 34 countries to liberate Kuwait in 1991 were no less justified because selfish interests motivated their involvement.
The case against the death penalty is strong, and we should consider it a duty to share that case with our neighbours. Admittedly, last month I sounded a note of caution around the time of the execution of Saddam Hussein. I argued that the moment when a nation emerging from tyranny executes its tormentor is not the best time to lecture them on the limitations of the state – the state did not appear very limited under Hussein! As Shami Chakrabarti has commented (in a different context), just because one has a right to say something does not mean one always should.
It does not follow, however, that because there are times when one would be wise not to hector a particular nation, one should hesitate to make a general point to a wide audience. It will always be a difficult moment for somebody. There is in fact a rather pusillanimous air to the government’s reluctance to bring this proposal to the General Assembly on the grounds that it might create difficulties for the Americans.
Britain should welcome an opportunity to advocate, along with our European partners, a noble cause. Sadly, the present government is suffering from a peculiar form of self-censorship: afraid to upset the American administration despite there being no indication from America that they do, in fact, object.
Anyway, the government should not be shaping its foreign policy purely on the basis of American opinion. As I have argued before, a true friend is one that tells you when you are wrong; we will not be doing either the United States or any other country a favour if we keep our counsel to ourselves because of concern that the truth might hurt. This takes courage, however, as well as honesty. Neither of these are virtues associated with the Labour government.
That it would have been an example of gesture politics is without doubt. There is no likelihood that the General Assembly, where unanimity is required, would have passed such a motion. The death penalty remains popular in much of the globe; tyrannical regimes use it as the ultimate deterrent against dissent; and nations without a Christian heritage have entirely different underlying views of punishment, retribution and the sanctity of human life.
It is also true that the proposal has more to do with Romano Prodi’s efforts to shore up his fragile coalition than it does with evangelical zeal.
Yet neither of these are reasons not to promote our values abroad. While we may question the right of nations to dictate to one another by what standards they should live, spreading our beliefs by peaceful means is both a right and an inevitable consequence of interaction. There is an ocean of difference between the work of missionaries and that of conquistadors (to wit, the Atlantic!).
Slavery had a longer history in Africa and the Middle East than it did in Britain and America, but was largely stamped out when Britain and later America banned the practice (though even today there are thriving slave markets in Southern Sudan, among other places). And by-and-large, action on the international stage may be legitimised by international law or natural justice, but it is fuelled by the private interests of the actors: the efforts by 34 countries to liberate Kuwait in 1991 were no less justified because selfish interests motivated their involvement.
The case against the death penalty is strong, and we should consider it a duty to share that case with our neighbours. Admittedly, last month I sounded a note of caution around the time of the execution of Saddam Hussein. I argued that the moment when a nation emerging from tyranny executes its tormentor is not the best time to lecture them on the limitations of the state – the state did not appear very limited under Hussein! As Shami Chakrabarti has commented (in a different context), just because one has a right to say something does not mean one always should.
It does not follow, however, that because there are times when one would be wise not to hector a particular nation, one should hesitate to make a general point to a wide audience. It will always be a difficult moment for somebody. There is in fact a rather pusillanimous air to the government’s reluctance to bring this proposal to the General Assembly on the grounds that it might create difficulties for the Americans.
Britain should welcome an opportunity to advocate, along with our European partners, a noble cause. Sadly, the present government is suffering from a peculiar form of self-censorship: afraid to upset the American administration despite there being no indication from America that they do, in fact, object.
Anyway, the government should not be shaping its foreign policy purely on the basis of American opinion. As I have argued before, a true friend is one that tells you when you are wrong; we will not be doing either the United States or any other country a favour if we keep our counsel to ourselves because of concern that the truth might hurt. This takes courage, however, as well as honesty. Neither of these are virtues associated with the Labour government.
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
Moon shot makes Trident look like a bargain
“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.”
So John F. Kennedy told a special joint session of Congress on 25 May 1961, and there was much rejoicing. I wonder if they would have been so pleased had they known that the Apollo Programme was destined to cost $135 billion (2006 dollars)?
One thing is for certain. The programme was not value for money. It has been over thirty years since anyone has been back. Apart from a few marginally interesting lumps of rock and an above average film starring Tom Hanks, we have little to show for it. Some of the technology has been used elsewhere, but it would have been cheaper to aim specifically for that technology than to go to the moon to justify it; it’s like justifying the 2012 Olympics on the grounds that it will regenerate East London.
But governments have never let something as mundane as thrift or prudence stand in the way of a costly boondoggle. So, with the scar tissue now barely perceptible on the fingers of the American taxpayer, NASA has announced that it is time to spend another $100 billion planning an initial return to the barren lump of rock. Planning, mind! The actual mission will cost more. And this time, they’re staying. The stuff of science fantasy is coming true as a genuine Moon Base Alpha is to be created. Hundreds of billions of dollars will literally go up in (or rather, on) flames.
And what vital purpose is this base going to serve? Why, it’s going to prepare the way for the first ever manned trip to Mars! I have no figures on what this will cost, but I cannot see how a moon base and a Mars-shot can cost less than $1 trillion. Admittedly, man may not walk on the moon again until 2020, and maybe man won’t set foot on Mars before (for an off-the-cuff date) 2046. But were my back of an envelope guesstimates to be correct, that would entail spending $25bn a year over the next forty years.
I cannot help thinking that there must, must be something better on which to spend a trillion dollars than sending men somewhere that is better suited for (cheaper, more effective) robots. In fact, would the US Government not be better off not spending it at all. Republicans are supposed to believe in small government and fiscal prudence; Democrats in social welfare. But the lure of the boondoggle is always too great for politicians.
So John F. Kennedy told a special joint session of Congress on 25 May 1961, and there was much rejoicing. I wonder if they would have been so pleased had they known that the Apollo Programme was destined to cost $135 billion (2006 dollars)?
One thing is for certain. The programme was not value for money. It has been over thirty years since anyone has been back. Apart from a few marginally interesting lumps of rock and an above average film starring Tom Hanks, we have little to show for it. Some of the technology has been used elsewhere, but it would have been cheaper to aim specifically for that technology than to go to the moon to justify it; it’s like justifying the 2012 Olympics on the grounds that it will regenerate East London.
But governments have never let something as mundane as thrift or prudence stand in the way of a costly boondoggle. So, with the scar tissue now barely perceptible on the fingers of the American taxpayer, NASA has announced that it is time to spend another $100 billion planning an initial return to the barren lump of rock. Planning, mind! The actual mission will cost more. And this time, they’re staying. The stuff of science fantasy is coming true as a genuine Moon Base Alpha is to be created. Hundreds of billions of dollars will literally go up in (or rather, on) flames.
And what vital purpose is this base going to serve? Why, it’s going to prepare the way for the first ever manned trip to Mars! I have no figures on what this will cost, but I cannot see how a moon base and a Mars-shot can cost less than $1 trillion. Admittedly, man may not walk on the moon again until 2020, and maybe man won’t set foot on Mars before (for an off-the-cuff date) 2046. But were my back of an envelope guesstimates to be correct, that would entail spending $25bn a year over the next forty years.
I cannot help thinking that there must, must be something better on which to spend a trillion dollars than sending men somewhere that is better suited for (cheaper, more effective) robots. In fact, would the US Government not be better off not spending it at all. Republicans are supposed to believe in small government and fiscal prudence; Democrats in social welfare. But the lure of the boondoggle is always too great for politicians.
Thursday, 30 November 2006
How Britain can be a true friend of the United States
Lurking under a headline worthy of The Times’s new tabloid format is a damning indictment of Tony Blair’s failure to manage Britain’s relationship with America. According to Dr. Kendall Mayers, a UK specialist at the State Department, Blair’s relationship with George Bush has been “a one sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes… there was nothing. There was no payback, no sense of reciprocity”.
Herein lies the root of much of the failure of Western policy in the Middle East. I have been and remain a staunch defender of the Atlantic Alliance and Britain’s “special relationship” with the United States. I am unashamed to call myself an friend of America. Yet the current Administration has treated the British Government with utter contempt. While I do not doubt the sincerity of Labour ministers when they say that they have always made strong representations to the American Government in private, it is clear that these have been brushed aside in a naïve display of hubris.
The catalogue of missed opportunities is long. Between 9/11 and the Iraq War, Britain pressed the US to take a holistic approach to the Middle East; no settlement could be achieved if the Israel/Palestine tragedy was not resolved. Yet the Bush administration has steered clear of this knottiest of problems, leaving it as a festering wound enraging Muslim opinion.
Only a few days ago Jeremy Greenstock, formerly Britain’s chief diplomat in Iraq, reiterated the claim that Britain urged the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority not to disband the Iraqi army. The Americans ignored this advice, sacked three hundred thousand of troops and started aggressively de-Baathifying the country. The newly jobless and disaffected quickly mounted an insurgency that only later took on an Islamist dimension.
The UK has repeatedly urged the US to close the Al Queda recruiting office at Guantanamo Bay. And the US ignored Britain’s suggestion that they engage with Iran in 2004; two years later we will go to Tehran cap-in-hand.
This is a tragedy. When asked on his death-bed what his greatest mistake was, President Eisenhower famously stated that he should have supported Britain over the Suez War. Despite the illegality of this conflict, the Anglo-French debacle gave a fillip to Arab nationalism that led directly to the Baathist takeover in Iraq and so to this second, equally ill-starred conflict. I do not tell this story to justify either that war on this one. Rather, I wonder whether President Bush will also one day come to rue ignoring British advice and treating his closest ally as a client state.
Having said all this, I do not share Dr. Mayers pessimism that the “special relationship” is doomed. However, a re-evaluation is due. Both Britain and America must learn that friends and allies serve one another best when being honest and tough with one another. There are many truths that friends do not wish to hear, but a real friend does not sit quietly by and bury his fears because he does not want to upset his friend with an uncomfortable truth. Rather, he tells it how he sees it, sticks to his guns (or ploughshares) and challenges his friend to prove his fears ungrounded. This is not what the Blair government has done, nor what the Bush administration has encouraged. But this is what the future must entail.
Britain must be a true friend to the United States. To be this, we must be a friend that says the truth.
Herein lies the root of much of the failure of Western policy in the Middle East. I have been and remain a staunch defender of the Atlantic Alliance and Britain’s “special relationship” with the United States. I am unashamed to call myself an friend of America. Yet the current Administration has treated the British Government with utter contempt. While I do not doubt the sincerity of Labour ministers when they say that they have always made strong representations to the American Government in private, it is clear that these have been brushed aside in a naïve display of hubris.
The catalogue of missed opportunities is long. Between 9/11 and the Iraq War, Britain pressed the US to take a holistic approach to the Middle East; no settlement could be achieved if the Israel/Palestine tragedy was not resolved. Yet the Bush administration has steered clear of this knottiest of problems, leaving it as a festering wound enraging Muslim opinion.
Only a few days ago Jeremy Greenstock, formerly Britain’s chief diplomat in Iraq, reiterated the claim that Britain urged the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority not to disband the Iraqi army. The Americans ignored this advice, sacked three hundred thousand of troops and started aggressively de-Baathifying the country. The newly jobless and disaffected quickly mounted an insurgency that only later took on an Islamist dimension.
The UK has repeatedly urged the US to close the Al Queda recruiting office at Guantanamo Bay. And the US ignored Britain’s suggestion that they engage with Iran in 2004; two years later we will go to Tehran cap-in-hand.
This is a tragedy. When asked on his death-bed what his greatest mistake was, President Eisenhower famously stated that he should have supported Britain over the Suez War. Despite the illegality of this conflict, the Anglo-French debacle gave a fillip to Arab nationalism that led directly to the Baathist takeover in Iraq and so to this second, equally ill-starred conflict. I do not tell this story to justify either that war on this one. Rather, I wonder whether President Bush will also one day come to rue ignoring British advice and treating his closest ally as a client state.
Having said all this, I do not share Dr. Mayers pessimism that the “special relationship” is doomed. However, a re-evaluation is due. Both Britain and America must learn that friends and allies serve one another best when being honest and tough with one another. There are many truths that friends do not wish to hear, but a real friend does not sit quietly by and bury his fears because he does not want to upset his friend with an uncomfortable truth. Rather, he tells it how he sees it, sticks to his guns (or ploughshares) and challenges his friend to prove his fears ungrounded. This is not what the Blair government has done, nor what the Bush administration has encouraged. But this is what the future must entail.
Britain must be a true friend to the United States. To be this, we must be a friend that says the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
