Sunday 24th July Molesey Methodist Church
Talks were given by
Rabbi Danny Rich (Chief Executive Liberal Judaism)
http://www.liberaljudaism.org/communities-rabbis/rabbis/175-rabbi-danny-rich.html
and
Jo Goggin (Ecumenical Accompanier)
http://www.londonquakers.org.uk/events/ecu-accompaniment-in-palestine-and-israel
Danny is firm believer in the 'Two State Solution'and advocates Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank. He talked of '10 Principles' for justice and progress which he had presented at a previous Methodist Conference.
(URL needed)
Danny is optimistic that the moderates from both sides will prevail leading to peace via recognition of relative perspectives and narratives.
Jo spoke of her experiences with the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in 2009.
Her views of the possibility of conciliation were less optimistic than Danny's.
A spirited discussion ensued on whether Israel's policies toward the Palestinians can be accurately compared with those which operating under the apartheid system in South Africa.
Monday, 25 July 2011
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Vehicular Electrification
20th July at Imperial College Energy Futures Lab
Michael Hurwitz, Director of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/administration/energyfutureslab/eventssummary/event_30-6-2011-16-28-34
An entertaining presentation with some elements from
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/presentations/Hurwitz.pdf
I particularly liked the slide with the photo instructing 'G Brown 2p off'.
However, there is little point in reducing road CO2 emissions if they are replaced by equivalent outputs from the electricity generators. As overnight battery charging will serve to even out power demand this is a further issue in disputing the green obsession with costly wind power.
Other input:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8650005/Electric-car-scheme-fails-to-excite-motorists.html
Electric car scheme fails to excite motorists
The £400 million drive to persuade motorists to buy electric cars is proving a costly failure, according to the latest Whitehall figures.
Only 215 cars were bought under the scheme, which offers subsidies of up to £5,000 each, over the last three months.
Of these it is understood that around three quarters were bought by businesses, meaning that just over 50 were acquired by private motorists.
'More questions than answers'
Michael Hurwitz, Director of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/administration/energyfutureslab/eventssummary/event_30-6-2011-16-28-34
An entertaining presentation with some elements from
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/presentations/Hurwitz.pdf
I particularly liked the slide with the photo instructing 'G Brown 2p off'.
However, there is little point in reducing road CO2 emissions if they are replaced by equivalent outputs from the electricity generators. As overnight battery charging will serve to even out power demand this is a further issue in disputing the green obsession with costly wind power.
Other input:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8650005/Electric-car-scheme-fails-to-excite-motorists.html
Electric car scheme fails to excite motorists
The £400 million drive to persuade motorists to buy electric cars is proving a costly failure, according to the latest Whitehall figures.
Only 215 cars were bought under the scheme, which offers subsidies of up to £5,000 each, over the last three months.
Of these it is understood that around three quarters were bought by businesses, meaning that just over 50 were acquired by private motorists.
'More questions than answers'
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Energy Policy, Climate Change and all that
Posting on http://www.economist.com/node/18712497/comments#comment-923970
'legally binding targets'?
"In the probable event that the 'legally binding targets' are not met, who penalises whom and how?"
This is the question I posed on 17th June 2010 at a seminar for the Imperial [College] Centre for Energy Policy and Technology (ICEPT) and the Energy Futures Lab. given by Lord Stern and Will Cavendish.
Lord Stern's answer: "It's just words".
Meanwhile, Chris Huhne's 'legally binding' carbon budget will increase power bills, encourage industrial CO2 emigration (e.g. Tata Steel aka Corus aka British Steel), yet have a negligible effect on climate change – assuming that the climate models are accurate – on a global view the UK’s contribution is miniscule.
There is an on-going series of ritual international genuflections on stabilising and reducing CO2 emissions at selected resorts: Bali, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Rio ...
Despite these earnest objectives global fossil fuel consumption continues to rise. The International Energy Agency baseline prediction: CO2 emissions will increase from 30 GTonnes in 2010 to 57 GTonnes in 2050. This is a clear consequence of population growth and increasing living standards.
The philosophy of the UK governing establishment is therefore masochistic and ineffectual: we are to be punished for the perceived sins of the past in leading the fossil fuel powered industrial revolution whilst producing no net benefit by reducing the perceived future threat of climate change.
To what extent should we accept a readily quantifiable economic penalty now to meet an uncertainly predicted danger in 50 or 100 years time? What technology could emerge in the interim to fix the problem?
Cui bono?
[Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?" … is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.]
If we do accept the dogma that global warming is taking place and anthropogenic CO2 is the cause, then, given the increase in fossil fuel burn, global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come - ice will melt; sea levels will rise.
(But: What plans do the pragmatic Netherlanders have to cope? - the UK government’s view in DECC is that the existing Thames Barrier will provide adequate protection until 2070.)
Fossil fuels produce C02; the defossilisation/de-CO2-ification of increasing global energy consumption will become an imperative.
Carbon capture & sequestration is an expensive and unproven palliative.
Wind is intermittent and needs back up from other generators; there are also significant costs to develop a distributed grid infrastructure. The UK is not routinely blessed with sunshine even if solar PV gets cheaper.
Therefore in the immediate term the only viable solution is nuclear (fission) power. This does have the associated problems for managing the waste residues as well as the potential for terrorist attack and WMD development.
In the longer term the ultimate ‘get CO2 free card’ is nuclear fusion. There are no associated residues or risks of catastrophic failure; however, the technology needs major R&D investment to bring down the lead time. This has hitherto invariably been presented as a problem whose solution is "30 years away, and always will be". But there is evidence over the past 40 years that this slippage is entirely attributable to inadequate funding. Using relatively primitive design, communication and computational tools the Manhattan project delivered fission technology for the bomb within 5 years at a cost of $2Bn (less than $30Bn today). Whilst it seems possible and acceptable for institutions like the Fed. and the BoE to create billions if not trillions at the stroke of a pen/at a key-stoke, it seems bizarre that greater urgency is not being given to accelerating the development of fusion technology (an area where UK has world-leading expertise) to deliver carbon-free electricity.
'legally binding targets'?
"In the probable event that the 'legally binding targets' are not met, who penalises whom and how?"
This is the question I posed on 17th June 2010 at a seminar for the Imperial [College] Centre for Energy Policy and Technology (ICEPT) and the Energy Futures Lab. given by Lord Stern and Will Cavendish.
Lord Stern's answer: "It's just words".
Meanwhile, Chris Huhne's 'legally binding' carbon budget will increase power bills, encourage industrial CO2 emigration (e.g. Tata Steel aka Corus aka British Steel), yet have a negligible effect on climate change – assuming that the climate models are accurate – on a global view the UK’s contribution is miniscule.
There is an on-going series of ritual international genuflections on stabilising and reducing CO2 emissions at selected resorts: Bali, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Rio ...
Despite these earnest objectives global fossil fuel consumption continues to rise. The International Energy Agency baseline prediction: CO2 emissions will increase from 30 GTonnes in 2010 to 57 GTonnes in 2050. This is a clear consequence of population growth and increasing living standards.
The philosophy of the UK governing establishment is therefore masochistic and ineffectual: we are to be punished for the perceived sins of the past in leading the fossil fuel powered industrial revolution whilst producing no net benefit by reducing the perceived future threat of climate change.
To what extent should we accept a readily quantifiable economic penalty now to meet an uncertainly predicted danger in 50 or 100 years time? What technology could emerge in the interim to fix the problem?
Cui bono?
[Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?" … is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.]
If we do accept the dogma that global warming is taking place and anthropogenic CO2 is the cause, then, given the increase in fossil fuel burn, global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come - ice will melt; sea levels will rise.
(But: What plans do the pragmatic Netherlanders have to cope? - the UK government’s view in DECC is that the existing Thames Barrier will provide adequate protection until 2070.)
Fossil fuels produce C02; the defossilisation/de-CO2-ification of increasing global energy consumption will become an imperative.
Carbon capture & sequestration is an expensive and unproven palliative.
Wind is intermittent and needs back up from other generators; there are also significant costs to develop a distributed grid infrastructure. The UK is not routinely blessed with sunshine even if solar PV gets cheaper.
Therefore in the immediate term the only viable solution is nuclear (fission) power. This does have the associated problems for managing the waste residues as well as the potential for terrorist attack and WMD development.
In the longer term the ultimate ‘get CO2 free card’ is nuclear fusion. There are no associated residues or risks of catastrophic failure; however, the technology needs major R&D investment to bring down the lead time. This has hitherto invariably been presented as a problem whose solution is "30 years away, and always will be". But there is evidence over the past 40 years that this slippage is entirely attributable to inadequate funding. Using relatively primitive design, communication and computational tools the Manhattan project delivered fission technology for the bomb within 5 years at a cost of $2Bn (less than $30Bn today). Whilst it seems possible and acceptable for institutions like the Fed. and the BoE to create billions if not trillions at the stroke of a pen/at a key-stoke, it seems bizarre that greater urgency is not being given to accelerating the development of fusion technology (an area where UK has world-leading expertise) to deliver carbon-free electricity.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Evidence-based Policy? Or not?
Input to discussion on
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/if-conservatives-can-convince-voters-that-we-have-hearts-as-well-as-brains-we-can-dominate-politics-.html
It's all very well debating head versus heart but if government policies are seen as wrong-headed the heart considerations will hardly be relevant.
Adam Afriyie and David Willetts have espoused the principle of 'Science-led, evidence-based policy'.
We now have examples in Climate Change, Defence, Education, Electoral Reform, Energy, Health, Justice where rational debate has been overwhelmed by noise - just like the environment in the Commons chamber.
Specific recent examples:-
1) Chris Huhne's 'legally binding' carbon budget which will increase power bills, encourage industrial emigration, yet have a negligible effect on climate change - even if the climate models are accurate.
2) Liam Fox's announcement of £3Bn spend on the Trident renewal programme - this at a time when the Defence budget is being cut.
There has been minimal reporting on these matters.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/if-conservatives-can-convince-voters-that-we-have-hearts-as-well-as-brains-we-can-dominate-politics-.html
It's all very well debating head versus heart but if government policies are seen as wrong-headed the heart considerations will hardly be relevant.
Adam Afriyie and David Willetts have espoused the principle of 'Science-led, evidence-based policy'.
We now have examples in Climate Change, Defence, Education, Electoral Reform, Energy, Health, Justice where rational debate has been overwhelmed by noise - just like the environment in the Commons chamber.
Specific recent examples:-
1) Chris Huhne's 'legally binding' carbon budget which will increase power bills, encourage industrial emigration, yet have a negligible effect on climate change - even if the climate models are accurate.
2) Liam Fox's announcement of £3Bn spend on the Trident renewal programme - this at a time when the Defence budget is being cut.
There has been minimal reporting on these matters.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Climate Change Issues: 'Legally Binding Targets'
From BBC R4 Today programme this morning
'0853 The government is preparing to commit the UK to legally binding cuts in carbon emissions, in a deal brokered by the prime minister which will be announced tomorrow. Steve Elliott, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, looks at whether the targets are too stringent.'
email to the editor
This topic will clearly be raised again tomorrow following the government announcement.
Please get your interviewers ask, and keep asking until they get a clear answer: "in the (probable) event that the 'legally binding targets' are not met, who penalises whom and how?"
'0853 The government is preparing to commit the UK to legally binding cuts in carbon emissions, in a deal brokered by the prime minister which will be announced tomorrow. Steve Elliott, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, looks at whether the targets are too stringent.'
email to the editor
This topic will clearly be raised again tomorrow following the government announcement.
Please get your interviewers ask, and keep asking until they get a clear answer: "in the (probable) event that the 'legally binding targets' are not met, who penalises whom and how?"
Monday, 2 May 2011
Alternative Vote: There is an Alternative to FPTP
“No Government undertakes Reform Bills if they can possibly help it. It is the most ungrateful and difficult task with which any Government can be confronted” - Walter Long
[British InterParty Conferences (1980) by John D Fair]
[The electoral system in Britain since 1918 (1963) by D Butler]
The referendum next Thursday provides a once in a generation (if not a once in a lifetime) opportunity to reform the UK's political process.
The proposal is to change from ‘First Past the Post’ – FPTP – to ‘Alternative Vote - AV
The inadequacies of FPTP have been recognised for more than a century; reform has proved elusive.
We should grasp the opportunity for the modest improvement afforded by this Referendum.
There is ample evidence that change is required:-
* The disillusion with political process following the MPs' expenses scandal;
* Reducing turn-out at elections
* Reducing membership of political parties
Prior to the May 2010 General Election David Cameron was unequivocal on the issue:
Fixing Broken Politics 26/5/09
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/02/David_Cameron_Rebuilding_trust_in_politics.aspx
‘ ..anger at the expenses scandal is just the most forceful expression of a deep frustration people feel with our whole political system.
‘It’s a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street. We’ve been seeing the symptoms of that for years. Decisions made behind closed doors. The Houses of Parliament bypassed and undermined.
‘Money buying influence. Too often just an elite few choosing the people who become MPs for many years. We can’t go on like this.
‘We’re just weeks away from an election. This should be the highest point in our democratic life – but never has the reputation of politics sunk so low. We’ve got to fix our broken politics and we’ve got to start fixing it now. The question is: who’s going to do it, and how are they going to do it?’
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx
this political crisis shows that big change is required.
We do need a new politics in this country.
We do need sweeping reform.
Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street.
The opponents of AV claim that it will lead to more coalitions with policies decided after the ballot rather than strong government following election of a Party with a defined manifesto.
However, consider the UK's economic performance since WW2; despite the huge endowment of North Sea oil it compares very unfavourably with that of similar nations: France, Germany - or even Italy.
Much of this relative decline is clearly attributable to the major policy swings from Left to Right and back again associated with the extremes of the two party system: "we have a manifesto commitment".
It should also be noted that the leader of the Conservative Party is selected in a series of votes until the winner gains at least 50% support of the voters. This is effectively the AV system.
The same procedure was adopted last year to select some Conservative Parliamentary candidates in ‘Open Primaries’.
AV has been used effectively in Australia since 1918; despite the allegations of the No-sayers the system remains popular.
Historical Perspective
1909 Winston Churchill on FPTP (as a Liberal)
‘The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation.
- Response to a delegation from the Manchester Liberal Federation 25 May 1909
1910 Electoral Commission
A Royal Commission of 1909-10 [Cd 5163] unanimously recommended the AV system for the House of Commons.
http://lib-161.lse.ac.uk/archives/fabian_tracts/153.pdf
‘The Alternative Vote.
Second ballot is the usual method for determining an election when three or more candidates stand for one seat, and its advantages are obvious, because it prevents the election of a candidate who is voted for by a minority of the actual voters. Our present system—also the rule in the United States and in nearly all the British Dominions—which only allows one ballot, forces compromise before the election, or splits between the various groups or parties which support the ministry or the opposition, with the result that the seat may go to the most solid and not to the most numerous section. The presence of an active and important third party in English politics, the Labor Party, makes some form of second ballot imperative. The alternative vote here proposed is strongly advocated by the Royal Commission appointed to enquire into Electoral Systems in their Report of 1910, signed by Lord Richard Cavendish, the Hon. W. Pember Reeves, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, and others.’
1917-18 The Representation of the People Bill
included proposals for STV and AV following a Speakers Conference of January 1917 which recommended STV in urban constituencies returning 3-7 MPs and AV in rural single member constituencies.
The Bill passed all its Commons readings but was blocked by the House of Lords.
At this stage, Winston Churchill, as a Liberal, supported the proposal.
1931 Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill
Context
In January 1931, the minority Labour government, then supported by the Liberals, introduced a Representation of the People Bill that included switching to AV. The Bill passed its second reading in the Commons by 295 votes to 230 on 24 February 1931 and the clause introducing AV was passed in the committee stage by 277 to 253. (The Speaker had refused to allow discussion of STV.) The Bill's second reading in the Lords followed in June, with an amendment replacing AV with STV in 100 constituencies being abandoned as outwith the scope of the Bill. An amendment was passed (by 80 votes to 29) limiting AV to those constituencies in boroughs with populations over 200,000. The Bill received its third reading in the Lords on 21 July, but the Labour government fell in August and the Bill was lost.
Hansard: debate c. 7hours
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1931/jun/02/representation-of-the-people-no-2-bill#S5CV0253P0_19310602_HOC_298
The Secretary Of State For The Home Department (Mr. Clynes) moving the 3rd Reading
’The Bill marks a definite step in the establishment of democracy on a surer and broader basis … by the device of the Alternative Vote, which endeavours to secure that Members are not returned to this House against the wishes of the majority’
Winston Churchill (as a Conservative)
‘I should greatly have preferred the method of Proportional Representation to the method of the Bill’
‘If the Government reject Proportional Representation, I think … the next best method is the second ballot.’
‘It would have been a wise and prudent feature in our constitution if a substantial proportion of the constituencies voted a few days later in the light of the situation resulting from the first ballots. All the more is this true when such enormous masses of voters are attached to no particular party, and when vast numbers of electors take little or no interest in public affairs, when they have to be almost dragged out of their houses to poll, when millions of people treat the whole process on which the Government of the country rests with indifference’
‘The plan [AV] that they have adopted is the worst of all possible plans. It is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal that the Government have embodied in their Bill.’
1998 Jenkins Commission Report
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-112.pdf
‘The Labour party has had a commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reform since 1993, when John Smith promised one in the first term of a Labour Government. The manifesto did not give a timescale for the referendum, but the joint Labour/Liberal Democrat Joint Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform which reported on 5 March 1997 committed both parties to a referendum in the first term of a new Parliament.’
‘Its report in October 1998 recommended a mixed system, of 80-85 per cent of the Commons to be elected by the Alternative Vote in individual constituencies, and the remaining 15-20 per cent by means of a party list- to be known as Top Up members.’
‘The Commission .. concluded that there was no perfect system: STV required very large constituencies; AV on its own was not proportional; party lists could not offer the same type of constituency link, would be likely to lead to long-term coalitions and were open to manipulation by party bureaucracies.’
Feb. 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill – 4½ hours
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100209/debtext/100209-0011.htm
Feb. 2010 House of Commons Library Briefing Paper
http://main.hop.lbi.co.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05317.pdf
More references:-
http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=327.0
The Economist is also conducting a debate
http://www.economist.com/debate/debates/overview/202?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fdb%2Fbritainalternativevote
Other comment
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/ten-reasons-why-the-labour-no-campaign-are-wrong-on-av/
Hansard Society: The 8th Audit of Political Engagement
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/recent_events/archive/2011/03/31/2969.aspx
The report shows that while last year's momentous political events increased the public's interest in politics to a record 58%, there was no matching rise in political or civic activity. Beyond voting, people were no more likely to get involved or participate in politics than they are in non-election years.
‘Despite very mixed views about the advantages and disadvantages of the Alternative Vote (AV) system, most who took part in our research discussion groups said that, if they vote, they will likely support a change in the system. This was not because of particular dissatisfaction with First Past the Post. Rather, their dissatisfaction with the current system of politics, with MPs, Parliament and government was such that almost any change was preferable to the status quo.’
‘Despite an increase in perceived knowledge of Parliament, fewer people are now satisfied with it (27%) than at any time in previous Audits (36% were satisfied in Audits 1 and 4; and 33% in Audit 7). The level of ‘dissatisfaction’ is broadly consistent with previous years. Rather, the change can be discerned in the number of people – a third compared to around a quarter in the last Audit – who say they are ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ with the working of Parliament’
Speaking about our electoral system in 1909 Winston Churchill said: "The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation."
The same could be said today. In the 2010 general election the largest party was the Conservatives which, with 36.1% of the vote, got 47.1% of the seats and no overall majority.
Contrast this with the result of the 2005 general election when Labour, with 35.2% of the vote, got 55.1% of the seats and a majority of 66 seats in parliament. Labour's share of the vote in 2005 can be compared to the support enjoyed in past elections by losing parties.
Attlee's share of the vote in 1955, when Eden's Conservatives won a majority of 58 (comparable to Blair's majority in 2005), was an amazing 46.4% and Attlee lost the election. Of course, in 1955 there were effectively only two parties fighting the election.
A study of the results of general elections over the last hundred years shows that there is no correlation between the percentage of votes a party receives and the percentage of seats it gets in the Commons. You might as well toss a coin for determining who should form the government. The present system can be seen to be rotten.
Because of our electoral system the political parties are only interested in the ten per cent of constituencies which are marginal and of those only the ten per cent who are floating voters. In other words, they are only interested in one per cent of the electorate because they are the ones that determine the results of the election. (The IPPR think tank assesses these swing voters at 1.6% of the electorate. Lewis Baston describes them as the 'ruling minority'). It is because the two main parties concentrate on this narrow focus that their policies converge.
Our three main political parties in the last election concentrated on what the focus groups were telling them the one per cent wanted. The other 99% were ignored, so even though a majority of the people wanted a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, none of the main parties gave them one. Even though a majority of the people wanted the troops brought home from Afghanistan, none of the main parties offered them that. Even though a majority of the people do not believe in man-made climate change and the subsidies that go with it, none of the main parties offered to scrap the subsidies. This cannot be right. When political parties spend their time and energy on just 1% of the electorate voters feel that democracy has died.
As a method of election First Past The Post (FPTP) is broken. It is not fair. It is time to change. What are the arguments in favour of FPTP?
It gives strong government. Yet we have had minority or coalition governments in 33 out of the last 100 years including at those times when we needed strong government most of all - the two World Wars and the great economic depression of the 1930s. You can add to these critical times the world economic crisis we face today.
It enables an electorate to kick a government out. Yet only once in the last 100 years has a government with a working majority been replaced by an opposition with a working majority. The only time this happened was in 1970 when Harold Wilson lost the election to Edward Heath. In most cases change takes place over three parliaments.
It is our tradition. History shows that this is not correct. We had proportional representation in the university seats up until 1950. Up until 1884 we had multi-member seats and we had those for over 600 years. It is FPTP which is the newcomer, and it was only brought in because the political parties found it easier to control candidates and to manipulate the results. The political parties started seriously organising in the 1870s.
In the referendum we will have a choice between FPTP or the Alternative Vote (AV). One great advantage of AV is that every vote will count so this should increase turnout. Another advantage is that two thirds of the seats will become marginal. This will force the political parties to address the concerns of the majority of the people rather than those of the one per cent. This will stop the practice of one man, Lord Ashcroft, financing 100 Conservative marginal seats and the trade unions doing the same for Labour. That has to be good for democracy.
AV is used to elect party leaders. It is used to elect the Speaker of the House of Commons. So MPs do not oppose AV on principle. Preferential voting was used to elect the leader of the Conservative party. Why? Because when you get over 50% of the vote it gives you legitimacy. We want the same legitimacy for members of parliament.
In 2010, in terms of votes per MP, Labour had 33,370, Conservatives 34,940 and the Liberal Democrats a massive 119,944. Even worse than the Liberal Democrats were Ukip, which got no seats in spite of receiving 920,334 votes. By contrast the Democratic Unionists only needed 21,027 votes for each of their seats.
Our parliament is supposed to be a representative democracy, but it is not representative of women. It is not representative of ethnic minorities. And it is not even representative of our political parties.
Our electoral system is morally bankrupt, so let the people decide.
[British InterParty Conferences (1980) by John D Fair]
[The electoral system in Britain since 1918 (1963) by D Butler]
The referendum next Thursday provides a once in a generation (if not a once in a lifetime) opportunity to reform the UK's political process.
The proposal is to change from ‘First Past the Post’ – FPTP – to ‘Alternative Vote - AV
The inadequacies of FPTP have been recognised for more than a century; reform has proved elusive.
We should grasp the opportunity for the modest improvement afforded by this Referendum.
There is ample evidence that change is required:-
* The disillusion with political process following the MPs' expenses scandal;
* Reducing turn-out at elections
* Reducing membership of political parties
Prior to the May 2010 General Election David Cameron was unequivocal on the issue:
Fixing Broken Politics 26/5/09
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/02/David_Cameron_Rebuilding_trust_in_politics.aspx
‘ ..anger at the expenses scandal is just the most forceful expression of a deep frustration people feel with our whole political system.
‘It’s a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street. We’ve been seeing the symptoms of that for years. Decisions made behind closed doors. The Houses of Parliament bypassed and undermined.
‘Money buying influence. Too often just an elite few choosing the people who become MPs for many years. We can’t go on like this.
‘We’re just weeks away from an election. This should be the highest point in our democratic life – but never has the reputation of politics sunk so low. We’ve got to fix our broken politics and we’ve got to start fixing it now. The question is: who’s going to do it, and how are they going to do it?’
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx
this political crisis shows that big change is required.
We do need a new politics in this country.
We do need sweeping reform.
Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street.
The opponents of AV claim that it will lead to more coalitions with policies decided after the ballot rather than strong government following election of a Party with a defined manifesto.
However, consider the UK's economic performance since WW2; despite the huge endowment of North Sea oil it compares very unfavourably with that of similar nations: France, Germany - or even Italy.
Much of this relative decline is clearly attributable to the major policy swings from Left to Right and back again associated with the extremes of the two party system: "we have a manifesto commitment".
It should also be noted that the leader of the Conservative Party is selected in a series of votes until the winner gains at least 50% support of the voters. This is effectively the AV system.
The same procedure was adopted last year to select some Conservative Parliamentary candidates in ‘Open Primaries’.
AV has been used effectively in Australia since 1918; despite the allegations of the No-sayers the system remains popular.
Historical Perspective
1909 Winston Churchill on FPTP (as a Liberal)
‘The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation.
- Response to a delegation from the Manchester Liberal Federation 25 May 1909
1910 Electoral Commission
A Royal Commission of 1909-10 [Cd 5163] unanimously recommended the AV system for the House of Commons.
http://lib-161.lse.ac.uk/archives/fabian_tracts/153.pdf
‘The Alternative Vote.
Second ballot is the usual method for determining an election when three or more candidates stand for one seat, and its advantages are obvious, because it prevents the election of a candidate who is voted for by a minority of the actual voters. Our present system—also the rule in the United States and in nearly all the British Dominions—which only allows one ballot, forces compromise before the election, or splits between the various groups or parties which support the ministry or the opposition, with the result that the seat may go to the most solid and not to the most numerous section. The presence of an active and important third party in English politics, the Labor Party, makes some form of second ballot imperative. The alternative vote here proposed is strongly advocated by the Royal Commission appointed to enquire into Electoral Systems in their Report of 1910, signed by Lord Richard Cavendish, the Hon. W. Pember Reeves, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, and others.’
1917-18 The Representation of the People Bill
included proposals for STV and AV following a Speakers Conference of January 1917 which recommended STV in urban constituencies returning 3-7 MPs and AV in rural single member constituencies.
The Bill passed all its Commons readings but was blocked by the House of Lords.
At this stage, Winston Churchill, as a Liberal, supported the proposal.
1931 Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill
Context
In January 1931, the minority Labour government, then supported by the Liberals, introduced a Representation of the People Bill that included switching to AV. The Bill passed its second reading in the Commons by 295 votes to 230 on 24 February 1931 and the clause introducing AV was passed in the committee stage by 277 to 253. (The Speaker had refused to allow discussion of STV.) The Bill's second reading in the Lords followed in June, with an amendment replacing AV with STV in 100 constituencies being abandoned as outwith the scope of the Bill. An amendment was passed (by 80 votes to 29) limiting AV to those constituencies in boroughs with populations over 200,000. The Bill received its third reading in the Lords on 21 July, but the Labour government fell in August and the Bill was lost.
Hansard: debate c. 7hours
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1931/jun/02/representation-of-the-people-no-2-bill#S5CV0253P0_19310602_HOC_298
The Secretary Of State For The Home Department (Mr. Clynes) moving the 3rd Reading
’The Bill marks a definite step in the establishment of democracy on a surer and broader basis … by the device of the Alternative Vote, which endeavours to secure that Members are not returned to this House against the wishes of the majority’
Winston Churchill (as a Conservative)
‘I should greatly have preferred the method of Proportional Representation to the method of the Bill’
‘If the Government reject Proportional Representation, I think … the next best method is the second ballot.’
‘It would have been a wise and prudent feature in our constitution if a substantial proportion of the constituencies voted a few days later in the light of the situation resulting from the first ballots. All the more is this true when such enormous masses of voters are attached to no particular party, and when vast numbers of electors take little or no interest in public affairs, when they have to be almost dragged out of their houses to poll, when millions of people treat the whole process on which the Government of the country rests with indifference’
‘The plan [AV] that they have adopted is the worst of all possible plans. It is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal that the Government have embodied in their Bill.’
1998 Jenkins Commission Report
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-112.pdf
‘The Labour party has had a commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reform since 1993, when John Smith promised one in the first term of a Labour Government. The manifesto did not give a timescale for the referendum, but the joint Labour/Liberal Democrat Joint Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform which reported on 5 March 1997 committed both parties to a referendum in the first term of a new Parliament.’
‘Its report in October 1998 recommended a mixed system, of 80-85 per cent of the Commons to be elected by the Alternative Vote in individual constituencies, and the remaining 15-20 per cent by means of a party list- to be known as Top Up members.’
‘The Commission .. concluded that there was no perfect system: STV required very large constituencies; AV on its own was not proportional; party lists could not offer the same type of constituency link, would be likely to lead to long-term coalitions and were open to manipulation by party bureaucracies.’
Feb. 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill – 4½ hours
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100209/debtext/100209-0011.htm
Feb. 2010 House of Commons Library Briefing Paper
http://main.hop.lbi.co.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05317.pdf
More references:-
http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=327.0
The Economist is also conducting a debate
http://www.economist.com/debate/debates/overview/202?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fdb%2Fbritainalternativevote
Other comment
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/ten-reasons-why-the-labour-no-campaign-are-wrong-on-av/
Hansard Society: The 8th Audit of Political Engagement
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/recent_events/archive/2011/03/31/2969.aspx
The report shows that while last year's momentous political events increased the public's interest in politics to a record 58%, there was no matching rise in political or civic activity. Beyond voting, people were no more likely to get involved or participate in politics than they are in non-election years.
‘Despite very mixed views about the advantages and disadvantages of the Alternative Vote (AV) system, most who took part in our research discussion groups said that, if they vote, they will likely support a change in the system. This was not because of particular dissatisfaction with First Past the Post. Rather, their dissatisfaction with the current system of politics, with MPs, Parliament and government was such that almost any change was preferable to the status quo.’
‘Despite an increase in perceived knowledge of Parliament, fewer people are now satisfied with it (27%) than at any time in previous Audits (36% were satisfied in Audits 1 and 4; and 33% in Audit 7). The level of ‘dissatisfaction’ is broadly consistent with previous years. Rather, the change can be discerned in the number of people – a third compared to around a quarter in the last Audit – who say they are ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ with the working of Parliament’
Speaking about our electoral system in 1909 Winston Churchill said: "The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation."
The same could be said today. In the 2010 general election the largest party was the Conservatives which, with 36.1% of the vote, got 47.1% of the seats and no overall majority.
Contrast this with the result of the 2005 general election when Labour, with 35.2% of the vote, got 55.1% of the seats and a majority of 66 seats in parliament. Labour's share of the vote in 2005 can be compared to the support enjoyed in past elections by losing parties.
Attlee's share of the vote in 1955, when Eden's Conservatives won a majority of 58 (comparable to Blair's majority in 2005), was an amazing 46.4% and Attlee lost the election. Of course, in 1955 there were effectively only two parties fighting the election.
A study of the results of general elections over the last hundred years shows that there is no correlation between the percentage of votes a party receives and the percentage of seats it gets in the Commons. You might as well toss a coin for determining who should form the government. The present system can be seen to be rotten.
Because of our electoral system the political parties are only interested in the ten per cent of constituencies which are marginal and of those only the ten per cent who are floating voters. In other words, they are only interested in one per cent of the electorate because they are the ones that determine the results of the election. (The IPPR think tank assesses these swing voters at 1.6% of the electorate. Lewis Baston describes them as the 'ruling minority'). It is because the two main parties concentrate on this narrow focus that their policies converge.
Our three main political parties in the last election concentrated on what the focus groups were telling them the one per cent wanted. The other 99% were ignored, so even though a majority of the people wanted a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, none of the main parties gave them one. Even though a majority of the people wanted the troops brought home from Afghanistan, none of the main parties offered them that. Even though a majority of the people do not believe in man-made climate change and the subsidies that go with it, none of the main parties offered to scrap the subsidies. This cannot be right. When political parties spend their time and energy on just 1% of the electorate voters feel that democracy has died.
As a method of election First Past The Post (FPTP) is broken. It is not fair. It is time to change. What are the arguments in favour of FPTP?
It gives strong government. Yet we have had minority or coalition governments in 33 out of the last 100 years including at those times when we needed strong government most of all - the two World Wars and the great economic depression of the 1930s. You can add to these critical times the world economic crisis we face today.
It enables an electorate to kick a government out. Yet only once in the last 100 years has a government with a working majority been replaced by an opposition with a working majority. The only time this happened was in 1970 when Harold Wilson lost the election to Edward Heath. In most cases change takes place over three parliaments.
It is our tradition. History shows that this is not correct. We had proportional representation in the university seats up until 1950. Up until 1884 we had multi-member seats and we had those for over 600 years. It is FPTP which is the newcomer, and it was only brought in because the political parties found it easier to control candidates and to manipulate the results. The political parties started seriously organising in the 1870s.
In the referendum we will have a choice between FPTP or the Alternative Vote (AV). One great advantage of AV is that every vote will count so this should increase turnout. Another advantage is that two thirds of the seats will become marginal. This will force the political parties to address the concerns of the majority of the people rather than those of the one per cent. This will stop the practice of one man, Lord Ashcroft, financing 100 Conservative marginal seats and the trade unions doing the same for Labour. That has to be good for democracy.
AV is used to elect party leaders. It is used to elect the Speaker of the House of Commons. So MPs do not oppose AV on principle. Preferential voting was used to elect the leader of the Conservative party. Why? Because when you get over 50% of the vote it gives you legitimacy. We want the same legitimacy for members of parliament.
In 2010, in terms of votes per MP, Labour had 33,370, Conservatives 34,940 and the Liberal Democrats a massive 119,944. Even worse than the Liberal Democrats were Ukip, which got no seats in spite of receiving 920,334 votes. By contrast the Democratic Unionists only needed 21,027 votes for each of their seats.
Our parliament is supposed to be a representative democracy, but it is not representative of women. It is not representative of ethnic minorities. And it is not even representative of our political parties.
Our electoral system is morally bankrupt, so let the people decide.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Goldstone Report: update and commentries
1. The Original Report 25 September 2009
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
2. Update from the two other members of the Commission 19 November 2010
Hina Jilani is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
Desmond Travers is a former officer of the Irish Army and war investigator
http://search.wn.com/?results_type=videos&language_id=1&search_type=expression&search_string=un+goldstone+event+with+hina+hilani+desmond+travers&sort_type=-pub-datetime&template=cheetah-search-adv%2Findex.txt&action=search&corpus=current
3. Washington Post article 1st April 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
4.Review on countercurrents
http://www.countercurrents.org/emmerich030411.htm
5. Review on honestreporting
http://honestreporting.com/goldstone-if-i-had-known-then-what-i-know-now%E2%80%A6/
6. Further response from Hina Jilani 4th April 2011
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/interviews/2207-member-of-un-fact-finding-mission-on-gaza-conflict-insists-report-still-stands-unchanged
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
2. Update from the two other members of the Commission 19 November 2010
Hina Jilani is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
Desmond Travers is a former officer of the Irish Army and war investigator
http://search.wn.com/?results_type=videos&language_id=1&search_type=expression&search_string=un+goldstone+event+with+hina+hilani+desmond+travers&sort_type=-pub-datetime&template=cheetah-search-adv%2Findex.txt&action=search&corpus=current
3. Washington Post article 1st April 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
4.Review on countercurrents
http://www.countercurrents.org/emmerich030411.htm
5. Review on honestreporting
http://honestreporting.com/goldstone-if-i-had-known-then-what-i-know-now%E2%80%A6/
6. Further response from Hina Jilani 4th April 2011
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/interviews/2207-member-of-un-fact-finding-mission-on-gaza-conflict-insists-report-still-stands-unchanged
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Mayhem in the Mediterranean: further update 23rd January 2011
23/1/11 Turkil Committee report Part 1
http://www.turkel-committee.gov.il/content-107.html
Update on Ban Ki-Moon Inquiry from
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=deadline-for-un-probe-into-deadly-flotilla-raid-postponed-yet-another-time-2011-01-09
Deadline for UN probe into deadly flotilla raid postponed yet again
Sunday, January 9, 2011
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News
A U.N. inquiry into the Mavi Marmara tragedy has again postponed the release of its report. The report will be released in April.
27/9/10 UNHRC report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf
http://www.turkel-committee.gov.il/content-107.html
Update on Ban Ki-Moon Inquiry from
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=deadline-for-un-probe-into-deadly-flotilla-raid-postponed-yet-another-time-2011-01-09
Deadline for UN probe into deadly flotilla raid postponed yet again
Sunday, January 9, 2011
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News
A U.N. inquiry into the Mavi Marmara tragedy has again postponed the release of its report. The report will be released in April.
27/9/10 UNHRC report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Squaring the Circle: London 13th December
On Monday 13th December 2010 the Henry Jackson Society and Just Journalism are holding a ‘Panel Discussion’: “Squaring the Circle? Britain & the De-legitimisation of Israel”
The panellists are: Israel Ambassador to UK Ron Prosor; Baroness Ruth Deech;
Daniel Finkelstein; Nick Cohen; Rafael Bardaji; Stephen Pollard.
More details on: www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1840
- reproduced below
Any criticism of Israeli policies seems to stimulate a bombardment of largely ad hominem abuse in which Gentiles are categorised as ‘anti-semitic’, Jews as ‘self-hating’.
My own heritage: according to the National Geographic research project, my maternal DNA is associated with Ashkenazi Jewish descent.
The current round of peace talks initiated by President Obama has foundered with the impasse over the freeze in settlement construction.
The BBC’s Today programme, Radio 4 Saturday 11th December 2010 featured an interview with Martin Indyk Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, former United States ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration.
[Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Indyk served as United States ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration. He is arguably best known as one of the lead U.S. negotiators at the Camp David talks - Wikipedia]
His biographical data indicates that he is firmly pro-Israel.
He said:
‘If there are going to be 2 states, the border between them has to be defined’
‘so “it’s the borders, stupid”’ is the new mantra’
He suggested that the way forward should be:
Upfront: Mutual recognition of the 2 states: then state-to-state negotiation.
Revert to the language of the 1947 UN resolution.
Revert to Resolution 242: Borders based on the line of June 4 1967
Settlement blocks: The 1993 Oslo Accords followed by the Camp David negotiations between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak provided agreement in principle that the settlement blocks which hold about 70% of the settlers but exist on about 3-4% of the West Bank territory would be absorbed into Israel with swaps of territory from Israel to compensate the Palestinians.
So to the questions I hope to put:
Do you agree with Martin Indyk’s proposals?
Is it realistic?
There are probably some 350,000 settlers in the West Bank so this implies that there are either c. 100,000 relocations or that these people join the Palestinian state.
(‘As of July 2009, 304,569 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank’ – Wikipedia)
Is Israel prepared to publish an indicative map?
Ow would this compare that published currently on the internet with Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
You might also wish to comment on the negative image which Israel presents exemplified by:
1) Its studied nonchalance on the possession of WMD despite independent evidence from South Africa (1975), Mordechai Vanunu (1986), Jimmy Carter (2008).
2) The casualty figures in Operation Cast Lead; the use of phosphorus munitions; supporting testimonies of Israeli combat soldiers.
(http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/news_item_e.asp?id=1)
3) The interception of the Mavi Marmara.
Other references:-
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-official-barak-s-vision-of-dividing-jerusalem-is-not-government-policy-1.330184
Defense Minister Ehud Barak's expressed support for partitioning Jerusalem along Jewish and Arab lines according to an initiative presented by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2000 is not official Israeli policy, an official in Jerusalem said Sunday,
In his address to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy seventh annual forum in Washington, the defense minister said that Israel should retain control of all Jewish neighborhoods in the capital and relinquish sovereignty over heavily Arab areas to the Palestinian Authority.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/clinton-to-israel-time-to-deal-with-the-core-issues-1.330102
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested in a speech on Friday that the United States will step up pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to move toward establishing a Palestinian state.
Also, in an unusual move, Clinton held an hour-long meeting in Washington with the head of the opposition, Tzipi Livni. Clinton made it clear that the prime minister must begin mapping out the borders of a Palestinian state in the coming weeks, even without direct negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"It is time to grapple with the core issues of the conflict on borders and security; settlements, water and refugees; and on Jerusalem itself," Clinton said in her speech at the Saban Forum in Washington.
"And starting with my meetings this week, that is exactly what we are doing. We will also deepen our strong commitment to supporting the state-building work of the Palestinian Authority and continue to urge the states of the region to develop the content of the Arab Peace Initiative and to work toward implementing its vision."
Clinton focused on simple messages: The peace process will continue, and the leaders must stop trying to find excuses and people to blame. The United States will only step up its efforts in the region. The bottom line, she says, is that a Palestinian state is an inevitability.
"So even as we engage both sides on the core issues with an eye toward eventually restarting direct negotiations, we will deepen our support of the Palestinians' state-building efforts. Because we recognize that a Palestinian state achieved through negotiations is inevitable," Clinton said.
The U.S. administration began on Thursday night by relaying messages to Netanyahu during a meeting with Isaac Molho, the prime minister's adviser. The United States is very serious and wants to advance the process, Clinton told Molho.
An Israeli source who was briefed on Molho's meetings said the Americans described them as "very bad," and Clinton made clear she will not let Netanyahu "water down" the talks and avoid submitting serious positions on the core issues.
Over the weekend, neither Netanyahu nor his office published any response to Clinton's speech.
Special U.S. envoy George Mitchell is due to arrive in Israel tomorrow, his first visit in four months. He will meet with Netanyahu tomorrow and with Abbas on Tuesday.
Several hours before her speech, Clinton sent Netanyahu another message by meeting with Livni in her State Department office for the first time since the establishment of the Netanyahu government. Clinton only met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak for 20 minutes in a side room at the hotel where the Saban Forum was held.
The Obama administration's dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's delaying tactics was evident in Clinton's speech. Contrary to the compliments she offered to Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, she had nothing good to say about the Israeli prime minister.
She said that one does not need to read secret diplomatic cables to know that the situation is difficult. "I understand and indeed I share the deep frustrations of many of you in this room and across the region and the world," she said.
"But rather than dwell on what has come before, I want to focus tonight on the way forward, on America's continuing engagement in helping the parties achieve a two-state solution that ends the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians once and for all, and on what it will take, finally, to realize that elusive, but essential goal."
Clinton said borders and security are of the highest importance, but also mentioned the thorniest of issues in U.S.-Israeli relations.
"The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties along with the other final status issues. But let me be clear: The position of the United States on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself."
She later said that to "demonstrate their commitment to peace, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed.
"And to demonstrate their commitment to peace, they should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so."
Offering condolences to the families of the victims in the Carmel fire, she praised the international contribution to the firefighting effort.
"Israelis are always among the first to lend a hand when an emergency strikes anywhere in the world. So when the fires began to burn, people and nations stepped up and offered help. It was remarkable to watch," she said.
According to Clinton, "The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened. We say it often, but it bears repeating: America's commitment to Israel's security and its future is rock solid and unwavering, and that will not change."
However, Clinton stressed that "Iran and its proxies are not the only threat to regional stability or to Israel's long-term security. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. It denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel's future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States."
Meanwhile, senior Palestinian figures said yesterday that Clinton should have clearly laid the blame for the failure of the talks on Israel. Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the PLO Executive Council, told Palestinian television that the United States has admitted to the failure of its policy for the first time since Vietnam, and that the party responsible for this failure was Israel.
“Squaring the Circle? Britain & the De-legitimisation of Israel”
A Panel Discussion: 7:00-8:30pm, Monday 13th December 2010
Tony Blair, in a recent keynote speech at the Herzliya Forum for Diplomacy in Israel, identified two forms of de-legitimisation of Israel. Traditional de-legitimisation, whereby Israel’s very right to exist is questioned or challenged, is easier to combat because its objectives are clearly stated. But the second form, which Blair termed ‘insidious’ de-legitimisation, ‘is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view.’ This is expressed in subtler fashion and therefore all the more difficult to counter.
Much of the British media has taken a hostile view towards Israel and its actions, be it with respect to the Free Gaza flotilla raid, renewed peace negotiations or the on-going threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Honest criticism of Israeli policies is often overwhelmed by strident voices which refuse to countenance any justification or explanation of those polices, must less acknowledge Israel’s fundamental right to exist. Misleading or tendentious journalism gets published in a cultural atmosphere where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, designed to weaken Israel economically, is considered a viable means of debating the complexities of the Middle East. The British intelligentsia and political class morally compare antisemitic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah to Israel – and often compare them favourably. On radicalised university campuses, ‘Zionism’ is routinely anathematised and presented as a byword for Judaism.
De-legitimisation is a problem with serious and far-reaching consequences not just for Israel and the Jewish diaspora, but is troubling for all those wishing to have a civil discussion in the UK about the Jewish state’s past, present and future, about peace in the Middle East and about the strategic implications of the intellectual currents it so often masks. It is a harbinger of an intellectual climate that must not go unchallenged.
This panel, jointly hosted by the Henry Jackson Society and Just Journalism, is an opportunity to partake in a discussion on the topic with some of the most distinguished voices in the UK who will attempt to analyse the problem and explore strategies for combating this noxious trend across all fields, from politics to the media, academia and the arts.
Biographies
His Excellency Ambassador Ron Prosor has been Israel's Envoy to the Court of St. James’s since 2007. Mr Prosor joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1986 and was in 2004 named Director General, having been previously Senior Deputy Director and Chief of Policy Staff to the Foreign Minister. He was also Minister-Counsellor for Political Affairs in the United States and Spokesman in London and Bonn. He is Fluent in English and German. Serving in the United States during the Clinton-Bush election and the transition from Labor to Likud governments in Israel, Mr. Prosor was part of the Israeli delegation to the Wye River Plantation talks in Maryland in 1998. In London he was instrumental in arranging the first Israeli state visit to the United Kingdom by President Ezer Weizmann, and in Bonn oversaw relations with reunified Germany's five new federal states. Mr. Prosor is married to Hadas and they have three children.
Baroness Ruth Deech taught law at Oxford University until she was elected Principal of St Anne’s College, from 1991 to 2004. At Oxford she was a pro Vice-Chancellor and chaired the Admissions Committee. In 1994 Ruth Deech was appointed chair of the UK Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, a national committee charged with monitoring all IVF clinics and laboratories in the UK, and with approving assisted reproductive treatments and embryo research. In the period of her chairmanship to 2002 the HFEA oversaw the introduction of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and stem cell research. From 2002 to 2006 Ruth Deech was a Governor of the BBC, participating in the accountability and strategy of national TV and radio. From 2004 to 2008 she was the first Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education for England and Wales - a national campus ombudsman - responsible for reviewing student complaints from 147 universities. In 2008 she was appointed Gresham Professor of Law, lecturing in the City of London on reproductive law and ethics. She is a frequent broadcaster on these topics. She is also chair of a national committee on equal opportunities for Women in Medicine. In 2005 she was created a life peer (Baroness Deech, of Cumnor) and sits in the House of Lords as a non-party legislator.
Daniel Finkelstein OBE graduated from the London School of Economics, where he studied economics & politics. He was awarded the OBE in the 1997 honours list. Between 1981 and 1990 he was a member of the SDP, becoming Chair of the Young Social Democrats during the 1983 general election campaign. Before working for the Conservative Party, Daniel Finkelstein was Director of the think tank the Social Market Foundation for three years. Between 1995 and 1997 Finkelstein was Director of the Conservative Research Department. Between 1997 and 2001 he was political adviser to the Leader of the Opposition Rt. Hon William Hague MP, and, together with George Osborne, Secretary to the Shadow Cabinet. Finkelstein joined The Times in August 2001 as part of the leader writing team and was Comment Editor from March 2004 - June 2008. He became Chief Leader Writer in June 2008 and is currently the Executive Editor.
Nick Cohen is a columnist for the Observer and writes occasional pieces for many other publications, including Standpoint and New Humanist. Cruel Britannia, a collection of his journalism, was published by Verso in 1999, and Pretty Straight Guys, a history of Britain under Tony Blair, was published by Faber in 2003. ‘What’s Left?’ the story of how the liberal-left of the 20th century ended up supporting the far right of the 21st was published by 4th Estate in February 2007. His latest book is ‘Waiting for The Etonians’.
Rafael Bardaji is the Executive Director of the Friends of Israel Initiative, a high-level international leadership project recently launched by former President of the Spanish Government José María Aznar to counter the increasing attempts to de-legitimise the State of Israel and its right to live in peace within safe and defensible borders. From 1986 to 1996 he was the Director of the “Strategic Studies Group” (GEES), a private, non-partisan institution based in Madrid which conducts research and produces analysis on international security and defense issues. In 1996 he was appointed Senior Strategic Advisor to the Defence Minister of Spain. In 2002, he became National Security Advisor to Mr Aznar for the remainder of his term in office, and continues to advise him on national and international policy issues.
Stephen Pollard is the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle. He was previously President of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank and is the Chairman of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism. His biography of David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, was published in December 2004. From 1998-2000 he was a columnist and Chief Leader Writer on the Daily Express. From 1995-98 he was Head of Research at the Social Market Foundation, and from 1992-95 Research Director at the Fabian Society. He is the author of numerous pamphlets and books on health and education policy, and is co-author with Andrew Adonis of the best-selling A Class Act - the Myth of Britain's Classless Society (Penguin 1998). He has been described by the BBC as 'Britain's most prolific columnist'.
The panellists are: Israel Ambassador to UK Ron Prosor; Baroness Ruth Deech;
Daniel Finkelstein; Nick Cohen; Rafael Bardaji; Stephen Pollard.
More details on: www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1840
- reproduced below
Any criticism of Israeli policies seems to stimulate a bombardment of largely ad hominem abuse in which Gentiles are categorised as ‘anti-semitic’, Jews as ‘self-hating’.
My own heritage: according to the National Geographic research project, my maternal DNA is associated with Ashkenazi Jewish descent.
The current round of peace talks initiated by President Obama has foundered with the impasse over the freeze in settlement construction.
The BBC’s Today programme, Radio 4 Saturday 11th December 2010 featured an interview with Martin Indyk Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, former United States ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration.
[Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Indyk served as United States ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration. He is arguably best known as one of the lead U.S. negotiators at the Camp David talks - Wikipedia]
His biographical data indicates that he is firmly pro-Israel.
He said:
‘If there are going to be 2 states, the border between them has to be defined’
‘so “it’s the borders, stupid”’ is the new mantra’
He suggested that the way forward should be:
Upfront: Mutual recognition of the 2 states: then state-to-state negotiation.
Revert to the language of the 1947 UN resolution.
Revert to Resolution 242: Borders based on the line of June 4 1967
Settlement blocks: The 1993 Oslo Accords followed by the Camp David negotiations between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak provided agreement in principle that the settlement blocks which hold about 70% of the settlers but exist on about 3-4% of the West Bank territory would be absorbed into Israel with swaps of territory from Israel to compensate the Palestinians.
So to the questions I hope to put:
Do you agree with Martin Indyk’s proposals?
Is it realistic?
There are probably some 350,000 settlers in the West Bank so this implies that there are either c. 100,000 relocations or that these people join the Palestinian state.
(‘As of July 2009, 304,569 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank’ – Wikipedia)
Is Israel prepared to publish an indicative map?
Ow would this compare that published currently on the internet with Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
You might also wish to comment on the negative image which Israel presents exemplified by:
1) Its studied nonchalance on the possession of WMD despite independent evidence from South Africa (1975), Mordechai Vanunu (1986), Jimmy Carter (2008).
2) The casualty figures in Operation Cast Lead; the use of phosphorus munitions; supporting testimonies of Israeli combat soldiers.
(http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/news_item_e.asp?id=1)
3) The interception of the Mavi Marmara.
Other references:-
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-official-barak-s-vision-of-dividing-jerusalem-is-not-government-policy-1.330184
Defense Minister Ehud Barak's expressed support for partitioning Jerusalem along Jewish and Arab lines according to an initiative presented by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2000 is not official Israeli policy, an official in Jerusalem said Sunday,
In his address to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy seventh annual forum in Washington, the defense minister said that Israel should retain control of all Jewish neighborhoods in the capital and relinquish sovereignty over heavily Arab areas to the Palestinian Authority.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/clinton-to-israel-time-to-deal-with-the-core-issues-1.330102
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested in a speech on Friday that the United States will step up pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to move toward establishing a Palestinian state.
Also, in an unusual move, Clinton held an hour-long meeting in Washington with the head of the opposition, Tzipi Livni. Clinton made it clear that the prime minister must begin mapping out the borders of a Palestinian state in the coming weeks, even without direct negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"It is time to grapple with the core issues of the conflict on borders and security; settlements, water and refugees; and on Jerusalem itself," Clinton said in her speech at the Saban Forum in Washington.
"And starting with my meetings this week, that is exactly what we are doing. We will also deepen our strong commitment to supporting the state-building work of the Palestinian Authority and continue to urge the states of the region to develop the content of the Arab Peace Initiative and to work toward implementing its vision."
Clinton focused on simple messages: The peace process will continue, and the leaders must stop trying to find excuses and people to blame. The United States will only step up its efforts in the region. The bottom line, she says, is that a Palestinian state is an inevitability.
"So even as we engage both sides on the core issues with an eye toward eventually restarting direct negotiations, we will deepen our support of the Palestinians' state-building efforts. Because we recognize that a Palestinian state achieved through negotiations is inevitable," Clinton said.
The U.S. administration began on Thursday night by relaying messages to Netanyahu during a meeting with Isaac Molho, the prime minister's adviser. The United States is very serious and wants to advance the process, Clinton told Molho.
An Israeli source who was briefed on Molho's meetings said the Americans described them as "very bad," and Clinton made clear she will not let Netanyahu "water down" the talks and avoid submitting serious positions on the core issues.
Over the weekend, neither Netanyahu nor his office published any response to Clinton's speech.
Special U.S. envoy George Mitchell is due to arrive in Israel tomorrow, his first visit in four months. He will meet with Netanyahu tomorrow and with Abbas on Tuesday.
Several hours before her speech, Clinton sent Netanyahu another message by meeting with Livni in her State Department office for the first time since the establishment of the Netanyahu government. Clinton only met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak for 20 minutes in a side room at the hotel where the Saban Forum was held.
The Obama administration's dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's delaying tactics was evident in Clinton's speech. Contrary to the compliments she offered to Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, she had nothing good to say about the Israeli prime minister.
She said that one does not need to read secret diplomatic cables to know that the situation is difficult. "I understand and indeed I share the deep frustrations of many of you in this room and across the region and the world," she said.
"But rather than dwell on what has come before, I want to focus tonight on the way forward, on America's continuing engagement in helping the parties achieve a two-state solution that ends the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians once and for all, and on what it will take, finally, to realize that elusive, but essential goal."
Clinton said borders and security are of the highest importance, but also mentioned the thorniest of issues in U.S.-Israeli relations.
"The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties along with the other final status issues. But let me be clear: The position of the United States on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself."
She later said that to "demonstrate their commitment to peace, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed.
"And to demonstrate their commitment to peace, they should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so."
Offering condolences to the families of the victims in the Carmel fire, she praised the international contribution to the firefighting effort.
"Israelis are always among the first to lend a hand when an emergency strikes anywhere in the world. So when the fires began to burn, people and nations stepped up and offered help. It was remarkable to watch," she said.
According to Clinton, "The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened. We say it often, but it bears repeating: America's commitment to Israel's security and its future is rock solid and unwavering, and that will not change."
However, Clinton stressed that "Iran and its proxies are not the only threat to regional stability or to Israel's long-term security. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. It denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel's future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States."
Meanwhile, senior Palestinian figures said yesterday that Clinton should have clearly laid the blame for the failure of the talks on Israel. Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the PLO Executive Council, told Palestinian television that the United States has admitted to the failure of its policy for the first time since Vietnam, and that the party responsible for this failure was Israel.
“Squaring the Circle? Britain & the De-legitimisation of Israel”
A Panel Discussion: 7:00-8:30pm, Monday 13th December 2010
Tony Blair, in a recent keynote speech at the Herzliya Forum for Diplomacy in Israel, identified two forms of de-legitimisation of Israel. Traditional de-legitimisation, whereby Israel’s very right to exist is questioned or challenged, is easier to combat because its objectives are clearly stated. But the second form, which Blair termed ‘insidious’ de-legitimisation, ‘is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view.’ This is expressed in subtler fashion and therefore all the more difficult to counter.
Much of the British media has taken a hostile view towards Israel and its actions, be it with respect to the Free Gaza flotilla raid, renewed peace negotiations or the on-going threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Honest criticism of Israeli policies is often overwhelmed by strident voices which refuse to countenance any justification or explanation of those polices, must less acknowledge Israel’s fundamental right to exist. Misleading or tendentious journalism gets published in a cultural atmosphere where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, designed to weaken Israel economically, is considered a viable means of debating the complexities of the Middle East. The British intelligentsia and political class morally compare antisemitic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah to Israel – and often compare them favourably. On radicalised university campuses, ‘Zionism’ is routinely anathematised and presented as a byword for Judaism.
De-legitimisation is a problem with serious and far-reaching consequences not just for Israel and the Jewish diaspora, but is troubling for all those wishing to have a civil discussion in the UK about the Jewish state’s past, present and future, about peace in the Middle East and about the strategic implications of the intellectual currents it so often masks. It is a harbinger of an intellectual climate that must not go unchallenged.
This panel, jointly hosted by the Henry Jackson Society and Just Journalism, is an opportunity to partake in a discussion on the topic with some of the most distinguished voices in the UK who will attempt to analyse the problem and explore strategies for combating this noxious trend across all fields, from politics to the media, academia and the arts.
Biographies
His Excellency Ambassador Ron Prosor has been Israel's Envoy to the Court of St. James’s since 2007. Mr Prosor joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1986 and was in 2004 named Director General, having been previously Senior Deputy Director and Chief of Policy Staff to the Foreign Minister. He was also Minister-Counsellor for Political Affairs in the United States and Spokesman in London and Bonn. He is Fluent in English and German. Serving in the United States during the Clinton-Bush election and the transition from Labor to Likud governments in Israel, Mr. Prosor was part of the Israeli delegation to the Wye River Plantation talks in Maryland in 1998. In London he was instrumental in arranging the first Israeli state visit to the United Kingdom by President Ezer Weizmann, and in Bonn oversaw relations with reunified Germany's five new federal states. Mr. Prosor is married to Hadas and they have three children.
Baroness Ruth Deech taught law at Oxford University until she was elected Principal of St Anne’s College, from 1991 to 2004. At Oxford she was a pro Vice-Chancellor and chaired the Admissions Committee. In 1994 Ruth Deech was appointed chair of the UK Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, a national committee charged with monitoring all IVF clinics and laboratories in the UK, and with approving assisted reproductive treatments and embryo research. In the period of her chairmanship to 2002 the HFEA oversaw the introduction of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and stem cell research. From 2002 to 2006 Ruth Deech was a Governor of the BBC, participating in the accountability and strategy of national TV and radio. From 2004 to 2008 she was the first Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education for England and Wales - a national campus ombudsman - responsible for reviewing student complaints from 147 universities. In 2008 she was appointed Gresham Professor of Law, lecturing in the City of London on reproductive law and ethics. She is a frequent broadcaster on these topics. She is also chair of a national committee on equal opportunities for Women in Medicine. In 2005 she was created a life peer (Baroness Deech, of Cumnor) and sits in the House of Lords as a non-party legislator.
Daniel Finkelstein OBE graduated from the London School of Economics, where he studied economics & politics. He was awarded the OBE in the 1997 honours list. Between 1981 and 1990 he was a member of the SDP, becoming Chair of the Young Social Democrats during the 1983 general election campaign. Before working for the Conservative Party, Daniel Finkelstein was Director of the think tank the Social Market Foundation for three years. Between 1995 and 1997 Finkelstein was Director of the Conservative Research Department. Between 1997 and 2001 he was political adviser to the Leader of the Opposition Rt. Hon William Hague MP, and, together with George Osborne, Secretary to the Shadow Cabinet. Finkelstein joined The Times in August 2001 as part of the leader writing team and was Comment Editor from March 2004 - June 2008. He became Chief Leader Writer in June 2008 and is currently the Executive Editor.
Nick Cohen is a columnist for the Observer and writes occasional pieces for many other publications, including Standpoint and New Humanist. Cruel Britannia, a collection of his journalism, was published by Verso in 1999, and Pretty Straight Guys, a history of Britain under Tony Blair, was published by Faber in 2003. ‘What’s Left?’ the story of how the liberal-left of the 20th century ended up supporting the far right of the 21st was published by 4th Estate in February 2007. His latest book is ‘Waiting for The Etonians’.
Rafael Bardaji is the Executive Director of the Friends of Israel Initiative, a high-level international leadership project recently launched by former President of the Spanish Government José María Aznar to counter the increasing attempts to de-legitimise the State of Israel and its right to live in peace within safe and defensible borders. From 1986 to 1996 he was the Director of the “Strategic Studies Group” (GEES), a private, non-partisan institution based in Madrid which conducts research and produces analysis on international security and defense issues. In 1996 he was appointed Senior Strategic Advisor to the Defence Minister of Spain. In 2002, he became National Security Advisor to Mr Aznar for the remainder of his term in office, and continues to advise him on national and international policy issues.
Stephen Pollard is the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle. He was previously President of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank and is the Chairman of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism. His biography of David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, was published in December 2004. From 1998-2000 he was a columnist and Chief Leader Writer on the Daily Express. From 1995-98 he was Head of Research at the Social Market Foundation, and from 1992-95 Research Director at the Fabian Society. He is the author of numerous pamphlets and books on health and education policy, and is co-author with Andrew Adonis of the best-selling A Class Act - the Myth of Britain's Classless Society (Penguin 1998). He has been described by the BBC as 'Britain's most prolific columnist'.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
4th September: Battle of Britain 70th Anniversary - Concert at Chartwell
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-events/w-events-find_event.htm?c=1
This was a stirring patriotic event: music from the Central Band of the RAF; flypast from a Hurricane & a Spitfire; subsequent chase of a Messerschmitt Bf 109 by the Spitfire.
We also had a vivid pyrotechnic depiction of the London blitz.
The setting was Winston Churchill's family home: he would have approved.
However, I hope Liam Fox and George Osborne were present; failing that some of their senior civil servants. One of the film clips featured suggested that the Red Arrows might be reduced to a team of 11 motor-scooter-cyclists mounted on (Italian!) Vespas.
The impending Strategic Defence Review will be formative - if not traumantic.
This was a stirring patriotic event: music from the Central Band of the RAF; flypast from a Hurricane & a Spitfire; subsequent chase of a Messerschmitt Bf 109 by the Spitfire.
We also had a vivid pyrotechnic depiction of the London blitz.
The setting was Winston Churchill's family home: he would have approved.
However, I hope Liam Fox and George Osborne were present; failing that some of their senior civil servants. One of the film clips featured suggested that the Red Arrows might be reduced to a team of 11 motor-scooter-cyclists mounted on (Italian!) Vespas.
The impending Strategic Defence Review will be formative - if not traumantic.
1st September: Frontline Club - Pakistan under the spotlight
A lively debate chaired by Jon Snow
http://frontlineclub.com/blogs/theforum/2010/09/pakistan-under-the-spotlight-floods-terrorism-and-political-conflict.html
Subsequently a google search on 'Pakistan failed state' produces about 629,000 results including:-
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/the_failed_states_index_2010
Pakistan has been ranked the 10th most failed state in the 20 10 Failed State Index released by the prestigious US Foreign Policy magazine. The list is topped by Somalia, followed by Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Chad.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
The Trident Programme
It seems that the system is vulnerable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7969017/Russian-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html
If the Russians want to get the acoustic signature of the Vanguard subs I guess they could just sit on the shores of Holy Loch with a cassette recorder and a submerged microphone and watch the traffic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7969017/Russian-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html
If the Russians want to get the acoustic signature of the Vanguard subs I guess they could just sit on the shores of Holy Loch with a cassette recorder and a submerged microphone and watch the traffic.
31st August: Afghanistan in the UK
The Frontline Club: A screening of 'Afghanistan in the UK' followed by Q&A with Director Andy Capper, Associate Producer Stuart Griffiths and Richard Dare, former private in the Royal Anglian Regiment.
http://frontlineclub.com/events/2010/08/screening---afghanistan-in-the-uk.html
The army has set up a training facility in Suffolk which attempts to replicate conditions the troops will face in Afghanistan. The chaos and confusion depicted must be an order of magnitude less than that in the field.
Richard Dare's views - following head wound and discharge from the army: it is almost impossible to distinguish Taliban from 'peaceable' inhabitants; we are there to protect the locals from the excesses of the Taliban; however long it takes.
We will see what the lessons of history have taught us in 5-10 years time.
http://frontlineclub.com/events/2010/08/screening---afghanistan-in-the-uk.html
The army has set up a training facility in Suffolk which attempts to replicate conditions the troops will face in Afghanistan. The chaos and confusion depicted must be an order of magnitude less than that in the field.
Richard Dare's views - following head wound and discharge from the army: it is almost impossible to distinguish Taliban from 'peaceable' inhabitants; we are there to protect the locals from the excesses of the Taliban; however long it takes.
We will see what the lessons of history have taught us in 5-10 years time.
25th August: Gideon Levy in conversation with Jon Snow
This was held at the Frontline Club in Paddington; subject Levy's book 'The Punishment of Gaza'.
It is viewable at:-
http://frontlineclub.com/events/2010/08/insight-with-gideon-levy.html
It was a re-run of the event held the previous evening at Amnesty which is reported and commented on Jon Snow's blog:-
http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/an-increasingly-lone-israeli-voice
There is critical review from Richard Millett (unfortunately with lots of mutually abusive comments from third parties} on:-
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/gideon-levy-packs-them-in-at-amnesty/
It is viewable at:-
http://frontlineclub.com/events/2010/08/insight-with-gideon-levy.html
It was a re-run of the event held the previous evening at Amnesty which is reported and commented on Jon Snow's blog:-
http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/an-increasingly-lone-israeli-voice
There is critical review from Richard Millett (unfortunately with lots of mutually abusive comments from third parties} on:-
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/gideon-levy-packs-them-in-at-amnesty/
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Again Afghanistan
This is a reiteration and update of my past posts on this fraught subject.
Our government says it is committed to the principle of 'evidence-based policy'; let us see this followed in this situation where we are faced with continuing needless expenditure of 'Blood and Treasure'.
The oft-repeated justification for this, Britain's 4th Afghan war, is that it is to keep the street of Britain safe by preventing Al Qaeda's use of Afghanistan as a base.
There is little evidence in the public domain which supports this assertion; indeed the reverse is true.
On 20th July Eliza Manningham-Buller gave evidence the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq. Baroness M-B was Director General of the UK Security Service MI5 from 2002 to 2007. She said she had warned what many senior Whitehall officials believed in 2003: that the invasion of Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to the UK.
More than once, the former head of MI5 emphasised to the Chilcot inquiry that the invasion exacerbated the terrorist threat to the UK and was a "highly significant" factor in how "home-grown" extremists justified their actions.
"Our involvement in Iraq radicalised a few among a generation of young people who saw [it] as an attack upon Islam," she said.
Manningham-Buller said she was therefore not surprised that UK citizens were involved in the 7/7 suicide attacks in London or by the increase in the number of Britons "attracted to the ideology of Osama bin Laden" who saw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as threatening their co-religionists and the Muslim world".
The invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly" increased the terrorist threat in Britain.
The recent detailed disclosures of the actions of the NATO forces in Afghanistan via Wikileaks can only exacerbate the situation.
Other eminent speakers in Parliament have recently suggested that the real issue is that failure in Afghanistan would lead to wider conflict involving China, India and Pakistan.
Our attention should logically be directed to addressing this – e.g. by fostering an equitable solution to the Kashmir problem – and leaving the Afghanis to sort out their tribal rivalries internally.
In May Liam Fox described Afghanistan as a “broken 13th-century country”.
This is one area where I agree with him.
Here is a quotation from a display at Auschwitz:-
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana; 1905
Evidence for policy making:-
1. There is no effective central government in Afghanistan. This has not changed since Churchill's analysis of 1897! (or even the 13th century.)
2. The Kazai regime is corrupt.
3. Opium production continues unabated; this serves to fund the Afghan 'insurgency' whilst creating huge consequential costs in our own society.
Conclusions:-
1. Deal with local tribal leaders; motivate them to deal with 'insurgents' whom they can identify far more readily than can 'coalition' [LibDemCon?] forces.
2. Disrupt the Taliban supply chain; Control opium production; by buying it at source and/or destroying it.
3. Invest in development not pay for war.
Why are we sending our men out on patrol to be targets for snipers and IEDs without an accompanying group of ANA soldiers?
Present and Past Posts
1. Responses to Tobias Ellwood: J June 2009/July 2010
2. Gordon's Justifications (Brownian Motions) 18th August 2009
3. Milly Molly Mandy on Afghanistan: Today, today 21st August 2009
3a email to David Miliband 21st August 2009
4. International Terrorism: FBI Names 24th August 2009 updated 26/7/10
5. David Cameron on Afghanistan today 6th September 2009
6. Afghanistan Adventure 216/830 17th September 2009
7. Correspondance with Government via FCO 18th September 2009
8. Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury 25th September 2009
9. Cameron’s War 29th June 2010
1. Responses to Tobias Ellwood: June 2009/July 2010
14th June 2009 The Blue Blog
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/We_must_provide_greater_reconstruction_support_in_Afghanistan.aspx
26th July 2010 Conservativehome
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/06/tobias-ellwood-mp-if-were-serious-about-successfully-concluding-military-operations-in-afghanistan-w.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e2013485b5bd9e970c
The Lessons of History
The First Anglo–Afghan War lasted from 1839 to 1842. ... It marked one of the worst setbacks inflicted on British power in the region after the consolidation of India by the British East India Company.
The Second Anglo-Afghan War .. lasted from 1878 to 1880. .. Abandoning the provocative policy of maintaining a British resident in Kabul, but having achieved all their other objectives, the British withdrew.
The Third Anglo-Afghan War - 6 May 1919 to 8 August 1919. .. It was essentially a minor tactical victory for the British in so much as they were able to repel the regular Afghan forces, in many ways it was a strategic victory for the Afghans.
The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year conflict
The initial Soviet deployment began on December 24, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviet equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War.
"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger." - Winston Churchill 1897
2. Gordon's Justifications (Brownian Motions) 18th August 2009
What are we doing in Afghanistan? A review of Al Qaeda inspired activity
Our leader is widely quoted – although not on government web pages.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8203711.stm
UK deaths in Afghanistan pass 200
Mr Brown said their efforts were helping to make the world safer and that progress had been made in allowing forthcoming Afghan elections to take place.
"We have created space in which we can have Afghan government, Afghan police and Afghan forces and that will make it very difficult for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to reassert themselves,"
"Three quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan,"
"And it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain and keep a stable Afghanistan."
There is no published evidence to support this assertion.
The situation is reminiscent of another triumph of foreign policy which produced the following parliamentary resolution (voted down by New Labour):-
Iraq — Weapons of Mass Destruction Inquiry - 4 Jun 2003 - Division No. 217
This House
* recalls the Prime Minister's assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction capable of being used at 45 minutes' notice;
* further recalls the Government's contention that these weapons posed an imminent danger to the United Kingdom and its forces;
* notes that to date no such weapons have been found; and
* calls for an independent inquiry into the handling of the intelligence received, its assessment and the decisions made by ministers based upon it.
Analysis of Past Attacks
11 September 2001 - “911” Attack
American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
7 July 2005 London bombings
Bombers:-
Mohammad Sidique Khan – born in Leeds
Shehzad Tanweer – born in Bradford
Germaine Lindsay - born in Jamaica
Hasib Hussain – born in Leeds
21 July 2005 London bombings
Bombers:-
Yasin Hassan Omar: originally from Somalia and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers, in 1992. He was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2000.
Ramzi Mohammed: originally from Eritrea and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992. Also reported to be a Somali National.
Muktar Said Ibrahim: originally from Eritrea and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992
Manfo Kwaku Asiedu: Ghanian
Osman Hussain: born in Ethiopia, a naturalised British citizen.
29 June 2007 London car bombs
Bilal Abdullah
Kafeel Ahmed
30 June 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Attackers:-
Bilal Abdullah: British-born, of Iraqi descent
Kafeel Ahmed: Indian Muslim
Other Sources
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2009/08/where-do-the-terrorists-come-from/
Where do the terrorists come from? August 16, 2009 4:11pm by Jim Pickard
I was struck by Gordon Brown’s insistence today that: “Three-quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan and it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain a stable Afghanistan.”
I also noticed Labour MP Caroline Flint making the same point on morning TV.
But - I’m not a Foreign Office expert - I thought I’d read somewhere else that three-quarters of terrorist plots in Britain came from Pakistan per se.
Yes, here it is, back in the spring. From Mr Brown himself: “Three quarters of serious plots investigated in the UK were connected to Pakistan.”
In other words, they are not necessarily anywhere near where we are fighting. (Karachi, where I grew up, is 1,104 km from Peshawar in the mountains).
This seems seriously disingenuous.
The duty press officer at the Foreign Office wasn’t able to answer this one yesterday. Nor did Gordon Brown’s spokesman have the exact details of the stats this morning beyond saying that the UK faced a major threat from people on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
“I don’t think we can necessarily pinpoint exactly where each of these plots orginates…the point that we set out in April is that we need to tackle security in that border area.”
Um, where does the statistic come from then?
I’m told by one reporter who visited Pakistan on the PM’s jet earlier this year that the figure was then said to be closer to 60 per cent than 75 per cent, although I have no proof of this.
(By the way, worth pointing out that it only covers recent years - and so excludes Northern Ireland incidents.)
Now I stop to think about it, maybe most of the people on the list are UK citizens who happen to have relatives in Pakistan? If so, what relevance do they have to our battle in the “mountainous areas”? Do we actually know?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/mumbai-terror-attacks-india
Gordon Brown: 75% of UK terror plots originate in Pakistan
Gaby Hinsliff in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 December 2008
"Three quarters of the most serious plots investigated by the British authorities have links to al-Qaida in Pakistan. Our aim must be to work together to do everything in our power to cut off terrorism” [Gordon Brown] told a press conference in Islamabad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/6040956/Afghanistan-Our-fight-is-against-terror-and-tyranny---not-just-the-Taliban.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6052127
Afghanistan: Our fight is against terror and tyranny - not just the Taliban
"Up to 90 per cent of the recent Islamist terror plots against Britain have originated from the lawless terrain that straddles Afghanistan's southern border with Pakistan."
Gordon Brown said 75%.
Can anyone substantiate these numbers?
Else, they could be as reliable as Bliar's (sic) "45 minutes" scare story.
3. Milly Molly Mandy on Afghanistan: Today, today 21st August 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8213000/8213516.stm
David Miliband interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme 21/8/09
Where are the real facts claimed by Milly?
DM “The security of Britain depends, to a considerable extent, on the degree to which terrorism is suppressed in the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. ....”
JH “ ...How can we justify the British military presence there, except on the basis, which is now the justification for it that it will keep the streets of Britain safer, which of course many people dispute anyway”
DM “I don't think many people do dispute that. I mean it's a fact ....”
JH ” Oh, but surely the do. They point out that, for instance, the London bombers had no connection whatsoever with Afghanistan. It was a home grown plot”
DM “Well, hang on. They certainly did have – there are very significant links to what I call the badlands between the border country between Afghanistan....
JH “But it's pretty tenuous isn't it?”
DH “No, it's not tenuous John ....
JH “A significant link. What does a link mean?”
DM “..... When we say that over 70% of the terrorist plots that are pursued in Britain have links to the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan, we're talking about ungoverned space that is used for training, that is used for planning, and that in its ultimate form was used for planning 911 but which is also used for training, yes, British citizens, who go to Afghanistan or Pakistan for training. That is a deadly practice and its very important that I'm able to explain to British people on programmes like this that we don't say, in a flip manner, that this a security challenge of the highest order. It's based on real fact about murder that's being
done to British citizen both in Britain and around the world from this place.”
3a email to David Miliband 21st August 2009
Dear Mr Miliband
From your interview on the Today programme with John Humphrys this morning:-
as above-
The facts currently in the public domain on the origin of terrorist attacks are listed below.
I request that you provide evidence supporting the "real fact" to which you allude.
11 September 2001 - “911” Attack
7 July 2005 London bombings
21 July 2005 London bombings
29 June 2007 London car bombs
30 June 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Names as listed in in Section 2 above
An answer of sorts was eventually provided - See 7.below
4. International Terrorism: FBI Names 24th August 2009 updated 26/7/10
Not much mention of Afghanistan here
URL http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm
WANTED as at 24/8/09
Rank Name Place of Birth Citizenship
1 Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
2 Adam Yahiye Gadahn United States American
3 Daniel Andreas San Diego Berkeley, California American
4 Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah Egypt Egyptian
5 Ayman al-Zawahiri Egypt Egyptian
6 Ali Atwa Lebanon Lebanese
7 Anas al-Liby Libya Libyan
8 Fazul Abdullah Mohammed Moroni, Comoros Islands Comoros, Kenyan
9 Hasan Izz-al-Din Lebanon Lebanese
10 Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali Egypt Egyptian
11 Jaber a. Albaneh Yemen Yemeni
12 Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan Kenya Kenyan
13 Abdul Rahman Yasin Bloomington, Indiana American
14 Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam Kenya Kenyan
15 Ahmad Ibrahim al-Mughassil Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
16 Ali Saed bin Ali el-Hoorie Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
17 Saif al-Adel Egypt Egyptian
18 Ibrahim Salih Mohammed al-Yacoub Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
19 Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah Gaza Palestinian
20 Abd al Aziz Awda Gaza Palestinian
21 Isnilon Totoni Hapilon Philippines Philippine
22 Mohammed Ali Hamadei Lebanon Lebanese
23 Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi Yemen Yemeni
24 Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
WANTED as at 26/7/10 - new names
Name Place of Birth Citizenship
Fahd Al-Quso Aden, Yemen Yemini
Husayn Al-Umari Jaffa, Palestine Unknown
Wadoud Muhammad Hafiz Al-Turki Baghdad, Iraq Iraqi, poss. Palestinian
Abdul Rahman Yasin Bloomington, Indiana US
Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim Lebanon Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Muhammad Abdullah Khalil Hussain Ar-Rahayyal Lebanon Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Muhammad Ahmed Al-Munawar Kuwait Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub Tarut, Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
Adnan G. El Shukrijumah Saudi Arabia Guyanese
URL http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/terrorismsi.htm
SEEKING INFORMATION as at 24/8/09
Name Place of Birth Citizenship
1 Mas Selamat bin Kastari Singapore Singaporean
2 Noordin Mohammad Top Malaysia
3 Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan Kenya
4 Amer El-Maati Kuwait
5 Adnan G. El Shukrijumah Saudi Arabia
6 Faker Ben Abdelazziz Boussora Tunisia
7 Abderraouf Jdey Tunisia
SEEKING INFORMATION as at 26/7/10 - new name
Abdullah Al-Rimi Ta'iz, Yemen Yemeni
5. David Cameron on Afghanistan today 6th September 2009
www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/Why_we_are_in_Afghanistan.aspx
“We need to make it clear to the British people why we’re in Afghanistan. It’s simple – to stop terrorism here in Britain. We must help the Afghans to stop their country from once again hosting the world’s most dangerous terrorists. So we need to train and equip the Afghan army to root out terrorists, and to support them until they can do this for themselves. “
My Response on the Blue Blog (yet again!)
Plus ca change...
Winston Churchill 1897 quote as above
More
We will always be "the stranger".
Better equipment is not the answer; consider the Russian experience.
Train the Afghan army by all means - but do it in Pakistan, or India, or Sandhurst.
Stifle the supply chain into Afghanistan and its funding via the opium trade - is it not cheaper to buy the entire crop than suffer the consequences of the alternative?
I (and others) have asked Brown/Miliband/Straw to justify their contention that the threat of terrorism "on streets of Britain" is linked to Afghanistan/Pak.
6. Afghanistan Adventure 216/830 17th September 2009
From The Times September 18, 2009
General David Petraeus: allied failure ‘would intoxicate terrorists’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6839321.ece
The Generals say;-
“no quick fixes” = a 40 year commitment?
"NATO had yet to find the right formula for success" - what constitutes success?
Lessons of history.
This is Britain's 4th Afghan adventure.
The Russians failed despite huge amounts men and materiel.
Why will it be different this time?
Of course, we have yet to deploy the most valuable (costly) weapons in our armoury: Eurofighters, nuclear submarines, Trident missiles...
Think of the difference their use would make.
Meanwhile...
"Italy wants to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible, Silvio Berlusconi said yesterday after a suicide bomber killed six Italian soldiers in one of the worst attacks suffered by a Nato contingent in Kabul."
7. Correspondence with Government via FCO 18th September 2009
On 21/08/2009, Richard Tebboth wrote:
Dear Mr Miliband
From your interview on the Today programme with John Humphrys this morning:-
…
The facts currently in the public domain on the origin of terrorist attacks are listed below.
I request that you provide evidence supporting the "real fact" to which you allude.
From JB@fco.gov.uk
to richard.tebboth@gmail.com date 18 September 2009 15:11
subject RE: Afghanistan Aberrations
Dear Mr Tebboth,
Thank you for your email to the Foreign Secretary dated 21 August 2009. As an officer with responsibility for Afghanistan, I have been asked to reply.
There is no question that Afghanistan under the Taliban was a safe haven for terrorists to use as a base from which to plan and implement attacks against the international community. Our involvement in Afghanistan is as vital to ensuring our security in 2009 as it was in 2001, and it is focused on an enduring aim as expressed by the Prime Minister in a statement to the House of Commons in December 2007: “denying Al Qaida a base from which to launch attacks on the world.”
Your email raises your concern about the nationalities of those involved in terrorist attacks and whether they had links to Afghanistan. Regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators, the majority of significant attack plots against the UK have links to Al Qaeda and/or other militant groups in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the UK-based networks linked to them. This has been illustrated in a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent years; for example, the trial relating to the plot, disrupted in January 2007, to kidnap and murder a British soldier. Furthermore, the conflict in Afghanistan remains ideologically significant for Al Qaeda and the draw of Afghanistan for extremists worldwide is significant in providing Al Qaeda in Pakistan with recruits and finances.
Your email includes a transcript of an interview which raises the issue of ‘home grown’ terrorism. With regards to British nationals, our strategy for preventing terrorism includes working with the Afghan and Pakistani governments as well as building resilience in UK communities. The police and security services work hard to disrupt those who wish to travel to undertake terrorist activity abroad. Where they have evidence or intelligence that individuals wish to travel abroad to commit terrorist acts, the police will act to disrupt this travel using a range of powers available to them.
The UK also recognises that extremists across the world continue to use the presence of Western forces in Afghanistan to radicalise vulnerable individuals. We are, therefore, not complacent about the importance of engaging with Muslims in Britain and elsewhere to explain the UK’s role in Afghanistan. We have implemented a programme of outreach to Muslim communities around the UK by Ministers and senior officials to engage on a variety of foreign policy issues which are of most concern to those communities, including Afghanistan. We are also committed to engaging with the general public more widely in the UK and international community to explain our foreign policy goals.
From RT to JB
Dear JB
Thank you for your email.
It is difficult to comment on the events in 2001; the relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not well understood; given bin Ladan's background one could probably construct a significant Saudi link.
Ii is my view that our efforts in Afghanistan are ineffectual in “denying Al Qaida a base from which to launch attacks on the world” but are too easily portrayed in the madrassah culture as being anti-moslem. They are also clearly proving disruptive within Pakistan.
"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbour. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger." - Winston Churchill 1897
We are "the stranger".
You say "the majority of significant attack plots against the UK have links to Al Qaeda and/or other militant groups in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the UK-based networks linked to them"; I would be grateful if you would direct me to the evidence supporting this claim.
This assertion has repeatedly be made by government ministers associated with numbers like 70% or 75%; this implies at least 10 such plots. There is little evidence in the public domain of any large number of plots; what evidence is available points to the few plots being almost exclusively "home-grown".
Returning to the military situation:-
This is Britain's 4th Afghan adventure; the previous three ended in ignominy.
The Russians failed despite the investment of huge amounts men and materiel.
Why will it be different this time?
JB has not replied as at 29/7/10
8. Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury 25th September 2009
On Wednesday 23rd September there was a "fringe meeting at the LibDem conference which was addressed by Lord Avebury and attended by inter alia the Afghan ambassador.
Dear Lord Avebury,
I was at the Muslim/Afhanistan meeting in Bournemouth on Wednesday and raised the question about the identity of the "insurgents"
To reiterate and expand the question:
"Insurgent implies outsider. Who are the insurgents?
Why do the Afghan population harbour them?
Are we not seen as the insurgents?
You argued the necessity for the continued presence of our armed forces but with the imperative that they only be applied military targets.
If we cannot identify the insurgents this is impossible.
Indeed, given the inevitable (and horribly euphemistic) "collateral damage" to the civilian population, our actions exacerbate matters.
Lessons of history: this is our 4th Afghan adventure; what makes it different this time?
Surely, our only rational and achievable objective should be to empower the local communities to resist insurgency whether labelled "Taleban" or "al Queda" or even "another ethnic group" by training the Afghan National Army and police force.
Bright idea?
To assist this process: there are significant numbers of Afghan young men seeking to get to the UK as refugees. We could allow them in on condition that they undergo military training and then return to Afghanistan to directly contribute to the establishment of the Rule of Law thereby removing their need to be refugees.
I would remind you of your own words from 4th December 2008:-
"My Lords, a few hours ago the Minister said that we invaded Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a haven for international terrorism. She did not remind your Lordships that that was also one of the excuses given for the invasion of Iraq, which, as President Mubarak said at the time, was likely to create 100 bin Ladens. He was probably out by a factor of 10, but that has happened. It has also involved us, as the noble Baroness said, in a £700 million contribution so far towards reconstruction, has placed huge burdens on our Armed Forces, and is an ingredient in the motivation of terrorists across the world."
I would also remind you of the words of another (then) Liberal:-
Winston Churchill 1897 quote as above.
9. Cameron’s War 29th June 2010
Comment on Times article
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2579794.ece
Afghanistan is the Prime Minister’s conflict and he needs to clarify his aims over commitment and exit strategy
It is reported that some 77% of the UK public are in favour of early withdrawal;
the available evidence supporting the contention that our presence is necessary to make the streets of Britain safe is minimal;
the cost in immediate "blood and treasure" is immense - as are the consequential costs of caring for the returning troops;
the lessons of history of Britain's previous three Afghan adventures - as well as those of the Russians - go unlearned;
there was a much trumpeted "success".in delivering a turbine to the Kajaki dam - it lies uninstalled;
opium production continues thereby funding the insurgency and causing further consequential damage to our society.
"Let's call the whole thing off".
Our government says it is committed to the principle of 'evidence-based policy'; let us see this followed in this situation where we are faced with continuing needless expenditure of 'Blood and Treasure'.
The oft-repeated justification for this, Britain's 4th Afghan war, is that it is to keep the street of Britain safe by preventing Al Qaeda's use of Afghanistan as a base.
There is little evidence in the public domain which supports this assertion; indeed the reverse is true.
On 20th July Eliza Manningham-Buller gave evidence the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq. Baroness M-B was Director General of the UK Security Service MI5 from 2002 to 2007. She said she had warned what many senior Whitehall officials believed in 2003: that the invasion of Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to the UK.
More than once, the former head of MI5 emphasised to the Chilcot inquiry that the invasion exacerbated the terrorist threat to the UK and was a "highly significant" factor in how "home-grown" extremists justified their actions.
"Our involvement in Iraq radicalised a few among a generation of young people who saw [it] as an attack upon Islam," she said.
Manningham-Buller said she was therefore not surprised that UK citizens were involved in the 7/7 suicide attacks in London or by the increase in the number of Britons "attracted to the ideology of Osama bin Laden" who saw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as threatening their co-religionists and the Muslim world".
The invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly" increased the terrorist threat in Britain.
The recent detailed disclosures of the actions of the NATO forces in Afghanistan via Wikileaks can only exacerbate the situation.
Other eminent speakers in Parliament have recently suggested that the real issue is that failure in Afghanistan would lead to wider conflict involving China, India and Pakistan.
Our attention should logically be directed to addressing this – e.g. by fostering an equitable solution to the Kashmir problem – and leaving the Afghanis to sort out their tribal rivalries internally.
In May Liam Fox described Afghanistan as a “broken 13th-century country”.
This is one area where I agree with him.
Here is a quotation from a display at Auschwitz:-
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana; 1905
Evidence for policy making:-
1. There is no effective central government in Afghanistan. This has not changed since Churchill's analysis of 1897! (or even the 13th century.)
2. The Kazai regime is corrupt.
3. Opium production continues unabated; this serves to fund the Afghan 'insurgency' whilst creating huge consequential costs in our own society.
Conclusions:-
1. Deal with local tribal leaders; motivate them to deal with 'insurgents' whom they can identify far more readily than can 'coalition' [LibDemCon?] forces.
2. Disrupt the Taliban supply chain; Control opium production; by buying it at source and/or destroying it.
3. Invest in development not pay for war.
Why are we sending our men out on patrol to be targets for snipers and IEDs without an accompanying group of ANA soldiers?
Present and Past Posts
1. Responses to Tobias Ellwood: J June 2009/July 2010
2. Gordon's Justifications (Brownian Motions) 18th August 2009
3. Milly Molly Mandy on Afghanistan: Today, today 21st August 2009
3a email to David Miliband 21st August 2009
4. International Terrorism: FBI Names 24th August 2009 updated 26/7/10
5. David Cameron on Afghanistan today 6th September 2009
6. Afghanistan Adventure 216/830 17th September 2009
7. Correspondance with Government via FCO 18th September 2009
8. Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury 25th September 2009
9. Cameron’s War 29th June 2010
1. Responses to Tobias Ellwood: June 2009/July 2010
14th June 2009 The Blue Blog
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/We_must_provide_greater_reconstruction_support_in_Afghanistan.aspx
26th July 2010 Conservativehome
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/06/tobias-ellwood-mp-if-were-serious-about-successfully-concluding-military-operations-in-afghanistan-w.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e2013485b5bd9e970c
The Lessons of History
The First Anglo–Afghan War lasted from 1839 to 1842. ... It marked one of the worst setbacks inflicted on British power in the region after the consolidation of India by the British East India Company.
The Second Anglo-Afghan War .. lasted from 1878 to 1880. .. Abandoning the provocative policy of maintaining a British resident in Kabul, but having achieved all their other objectives, the British withdrew.
The Third Anglo-Afghan War - 6 May 1919 to 8 August 1919. .. It was essentially a minor tactical victory for the British in so much as they were able to repel the regular Afghan forces, in many ways it was a strategic victory for the Afghans.
The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year conflict
The initial Soviet deployment began on December 24, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviet equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War.
"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger." - Winston Churchill 1897
2. Gordon's Justifications (Brownian Motions) 18th August 2009
What are we doing in Afghanistan? A review of Al Qaeda inspired activity
Our leader is widely quoted – although not on government web pages.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8203711.stm
UK deaths in Afghanistan pass 200
Mr Brown said their efforts were helping to make the world safer and that progress had been made in allowing forthcoming Afghan elections to take place.
"We have created space in which we can have Afghan government, Afghan police and Afghan forces and that will make it very difficult for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to reassert themselves,"
"Three quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan,"
"And it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain and keep a stable Afghanistan."
There is no published evidence to support this assertion.
The situation is reminiscent of another triumph of foreign policy which produced the following parliamentary resolution (voted down by New Labour):-
Iraq — Weapons of Mass Destruction Inquiry - 4 Jun 2003 - Division No. 217
This House
* recalls the Prime Minister's assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction capable of being used at 45 minutes' notice;
* further recalls the Government's contention that these weapons posed an imminent danger to the United Kingdom and its forces;
* notes that to date no such weapons have been found; and
* calls for an independent inquiry into the handling of the intelligence received, its assessment and the decisions made by ministers based upon it.
Analysis of Past Attacks
11 September 2001 - “911” Attack
American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
7 July 2005 London bombings
Bombers:-
Mohammad Sidique Khan – born in Leeds
Shehzad Tanweer – born in Bradford
Germaine Lindsay - born in Jamaica
Hasib Hussain – born in Leeds
21 July 2005 London bombings
Bombers:-
Yasin Hassan Omar: originally from Somalia and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers, in 1992. He was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2000.
Ramzi Mohammed: originally from Eritrea and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992. Also reported to be a Somali National.
Muktar Said Ibrahim: originally from Eritrea and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992
Manfo Kwaku Asiedu: Ghanian
Osman Hussain: born in Ethiopia, a naturalised British citizen.
29 June 2007 London car bombs
Bilal Abdullah
Kafeel Ahmed
30 June 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Attackers:-
Bilal Abdullah: British-born, of Iraqi descent
Kafeel Ahmed: Indian Muslim
Other Sources
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2009/08/where-do-the-terrorists-come-from/
Where do the terrorists come from? August 16, 2009 4:11pm by Jim Pickard
I was struck by Gordon Brown’s insistence today that: “Three-quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan and it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain a stable Afghanistan.”
I also noticed Labour MP Caroline Flint making the same point on morning TV.
But - I’m not a Foreign Office expert - I thought I’d read somewhere else that three-quarters of terrorist plots in Britain came from Pakistan per se.
Yes, here it is, back in the spring. From Mr Brown himself: “Three quarters of serious plots investigated in the UK were connected to Pakistan.”
In other words, they are not necessarily anywhere near where we are fighting. (Karachi, where I grew up, is 1,104 km from Peshawar in the mountains).
This seems seriously disingenuous.
The duty press officer at the Foreign Office wasn’t able to answer this one yesterday. Nor did Gordon Brown’s spokesman have the exact details of the stats this morning beyond saying that the UK faced a major threat from people on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
“I don’t think we can necessarily pinpoint exactly where each of these plots orginates…the point that we set out in April is that we need to tackle security in that border area.”
Um, where does the statistic come from then?
I’m told by one reporter who visited Pakistan on the PM’s jet earlier this year that the figure was then said to be closer to 60 per cent than 75 per cent, although I have no proof of this.
(By the way, worth pointing out that it only covers recent years - and so excludes Northern Ireland incidents.)
Now I stop to think about it, maybe most of the people on the list are UK citizens who happen to have relatives in Pakistan? If so, what relevance do they have to our battle in the “mountainous areas”? Do we actually know?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/mumbai-terror-attacks-india
Gordon Brown: 75% of UK terror plots originate in Pakistan
Gaby Hinsliff in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 December 2008
"Three quarters of the most serious plots investigated by the British authorities have links to al-Qaida in Pakistan. Our aim must be to work together to do everything in our power to cut off terrorism” [Gordon Brown] told a press conference in Islamabad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/6040956/Afghanistan-Our-fight-is-against-terror-and-tyranny---not-just-the-Taliban.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6052127
Afghanistan: Our fight is against terror and tyranny - not just the Taliban
"Up to 90 per cent of the recent Islamist terror plots against Britain have originated from the lawless terrain that straddles Afghanistan's southern border with Pakistan."
Gordon Brown said 75%.
Can anyone substantiate these numbers?
Else, they could be as reliable as Bliar's (sic) "45 minutes" scare story.
3. Milly Molly Mandy on Afghanistan: Today, today 21st August 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8213000/8213516.stm
David Miliband interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme 21/8/09
Where are the real facts claimed by Milly?
DM “The security of Britain depends, to a considerable extent, on the degree to which terrorism is suppressed in the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. ....”
JH “ ...How can we justify the British military presence there, except on the basis, which is now the justification for it that it will keep the streets of Britain safer, which of course many people dispute anyway”
DM “I don't think many people do dispute that. I mean it's a fact ....”
JH ” Oh, but surely the do. They point out that, for instance, the London bombers had no connection whatsoever with Afghanistan. It was a home grown plot”
DM “Well, hang on. They certainly did have – there are very significant links to what I call the badlands between the border country between Afghanistan....
JH “But it's pretty tenuous isn't it?”
DH “No, it's not tenuous John ....
JH “A significant link. What does a link mean?”
DM “..... When we say that over 70% of the terrorist plots that are pursued in Britain have links to the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan, we're talking about ungoverned space that is used for training, that is used for planning, and that in its ultimate form was used for planning 911 but which is also used for training, yes, British citizens, who go to Afghanistan or Pakistan for training. That is a deadly practice and its very important that I'm able to explain to British people on programmes like this that we don't say, in a flip manner, that this a security challenge of the highest order. It's based on real fact about murder that's being
done to British citizen both in Britain and around the world from this place.”
3a email to David Miliband 21st August 2009
Dear Mr Miliband
From your interview on the Today programme with John Humphrys this morning:-
as above-
The facts currently in the public domain on the origin of terrorist attacks are listed below.
I request that you provide evidence supporting the "real fact" to which you allude.
11 September 2001 - “911” Attack
7 July 2005 London bombings
21 July 2005 London bombings
29 June 2007 London car bombs
30 June 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Names as listed in in Section 2 above
An answer of sorts was eventually provided - See 7.below
4. International Terrorism: FBI Names 24th August 2009 updated 26/7/10
Not much mention of Afghanistan here
URL http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm
WANTED as at 24/8/09
Rank Name Place of Birth Citizenship
1 Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
2 Adam Yahiye Gadahn United States American
3 Daniel Andreas San Diego Berkeley, California American
4 Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah Egypt Egyptian
5 Ayman al-Zawahiri Egypt Egyptian
6 Ali Atwa Lebanon Lebanese
7 Anas al-Liby Libya Libyan
8 Fazul Abdullah Mohammed Moroni, Comoros Islands Comoros, Kenyan
9 Hasan Izz-al-Din Lebanon Lebanese
10 Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali Egypt Egyptian
11 Jaber a. Albaneh Yemen Yemeni
12 Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan Kenya Kenyan
13 Abdul Rahman Yasin Bloomington, Indiana American
14 Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam Kenya Kenyan
15 Ahmad Ibrahim al-Mughassil Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
16 Ali Saed bin Ali el-Hoorie Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
17 Saif al-Adel Egypt Egyptian
18 Ibrahim Salih Mohammed al-Yacoub Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
19 Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah Gaza Palestinian
20 Abd al Aziz Awda Gaza Palestinian
21 Isnilon Totoni Hapilon Philippines Philippine
22 Mohammed Ali Hamadei Lebanon Lebanese
23 Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi Yemen Yemeni
24 Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
WANTED as at 26/7/10 - new names
Name Place of Birth Citizenship
Fahd Al-Quso Aden, Yemen Yemini
Husayn Al-Umari Jaffa, Palestine Unknown
Wadoud Muhammad Hafiz Al-Turki Baghdad, Iraq Iraqi, poss. Palestinian
Abdul Rahman Yasin Bloomington, Indiana US
Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim Lebanon Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Muhammad Abdullah Khalil Hussain Ar-Rahayyal Lebanon Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Muhammad Ahmed Al-Munawar Kuwait Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub Tarut, Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
Adnan G. El Shukrijumah Saudi Arabia Guyanese
URL http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/terrorismsi.htm
SEEKING INFORMATION as at 24/8/09
Name Place of Birth Citizenship
1 Mas Selamat bin Kastari Singapore Singaporean
2 Noordin Mohammad Top Malaysia
3 Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan Kenya
4 Amer El-Maati Kuwait
5 Adnan G. El Shukrijumah Saudi Arabia
6 Faker Ben Abdelazziz Boussora Tunisia
7 Abderraouf Jdey Tunisia
SEEKING INFORMATION as at 26/7/10 - new name
Abdullah Al-Rimi Ta'iz, Yemen Yemeni
5. David Cameron on Afghanistan today 6th September 2009
www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/Why_we_are_in_Afghanistan.aspx
“We need to make it clear to the British people why we’re in Afghanistan. It’s simple – to stop terrorism here in Britain. We must help the Afghans to stop their country from once again hosting the world’s most dangerous terrorists. So we need to train and equip the Afghan army to root out terrorists, and to support them until they can do this for themselves. “
My Response on the Blue Blog (yet again!)
Plus ca change...
Winston Churchill 1897 quote as above
More
We will always be "the stranger".
Better equipment is not the answer; consider the Russian experience.
Train the Afghan army by all means - but do it in Pakistan, or India, or Sandhurst.
Stifle the supply chain into Afghanistan and its funding via the opium trade - is it not cheaper to buy the entire crop than suffer the consequences of the alternative?
I (and others) have asked Brown/Miliband/Straw to justify their contention that the threat of terrorism "on streets of Britain" is linked to Afghanistan/Pak.
6. Afghanistan Adventure 216/830 17th September 2009
From The Times September 18, 2009
General David Petraeus: allied failure ‘would intoxicate terrorists’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6839321.ece
The Generals say;-
“no quick fixes” = a 40 year commitment?
"NATO had yet to find the right formula for success" - what constitutes success?
Lessons of history.
This is Britain's 4th Afghan adventure.
The Russians failed despite huge amounts men and materiel.
Why will it be different this time?
Of course, we have yet to deploy the most valuable (costly) weapons in our armoury: Eurofighters, nuclear submarines, Trident missiles...
Think of the difference their use would make.
Meanwhile...
"Italy wants to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible, Silvio Berlusconi said yesterday after a suicide bomber killed six Italian soldiers in one of the worst attacks suffered by a Nato contingent in Kabul."
7. Correspondence with Government via FCO 18th September 2009
On 21/08/2009, Richard Tebboth
Dear Mr Miliband
From your interview on the Today programme with John Humphrys this morning:-
…
The facts currently in the public domain on the origin of terrorist attacks are listed below.
I request that you provide evidence supporting the "real fact" to which you allude.
From JB@fco.gov.uk
to richard.tebboth@gmail.com date 18 September 2009 15:11
subject RE: Afghanistan Aberrations
Dear Mr Tebboth,
Thank you for your email to the Foreign Secretary dated 21 August 2009. As an officer with responsibility for Afghanistan, I have been asked to reply.
There is no question that Afghanistan under the Taliban was a safe haven for terrorists to use as a base from which to plan and implement attacks against the international community. Our involvement in Afghanistan is as vital to ensuring our security in 2009 as it was in 2001, and it is focused on an enduring aim as expressed by the Prime Minister in a statement to the House of Commons in December 2007: “denying Al Qaida a base from which to launch attacks on the world.”
Your email raises your concern about the nationalities of those involved in terrorist attacks and whether they had links to Afghanistan. Regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators, the majority of significant attack plots against the UK have links to Al Qaeda and/or other militant groups in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the UK-based networks linked to them. This has been illustrated in a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent years; for example, the trial relating to the plot, disrupted in January 2007, to kidnap and murder a British soldier. Furthermore, the conflict in Afghanistan remains ideologically significant for Al Qaeda and the draw of Afghanistan for extremists worldwide is significant in providing Al Qaeda in Pakistan with recruits and finances.
Your email includes a transcript of an interview which raises the issue of ‘home grown’ terrorism. With regards to British nationals, our strategy for preventing terrorism includes working with the Afghan and Pakistani governments as well as building resilience in UK communities. The police and security services work hard to disrupt those who wish to travel to undertake terrorist activity abroad. Where they have evidence or intelligence that individuals wish to travel abroad to commit terrorist acts, the police will act to disrupt this travel using a range of powers available to them.
The UK also recognises that extremists across the world continue to use the presence of Western forces in Afghanistan to radicalise vulnerable individuals. We are, therefore, not complacent about the importance of engaging with Muslims in Britain and elsewhere to explain the UK’s role in Afghanistan. We have implemented a programme of outreach to Muslim communities around the UK by Ministers and senior officials to engage on a variety of foreign policy issues which are of most concern to those communities, including Afghanistan. We are also committed to engaging with the general public more widely in the UK and international community to explain our foreign policy goals.
From RT to JB
Dear JB
Thank you for your email.
It is difficult to comment on the events in 2001; the relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not well understood; given bin Ladan's background one could probably construct a significant Saudi link.
Ii is my view that our efforts in Afghanistan are ineffectual in “denying Al Qaida a base from which to launch attacks on the world” but are too easily portrayed in the madrassah culture as being anti-moslem. They are also clearly proving disruptive within Pakistan.
"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbour. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger." - Winston Churchill 1897
We are "the stranger".
You say "the majority of significant attack plots against the UK have links to Al Qaeda and/or other militant groups in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the UK-based networks linked to them"; I would be grateful if you would direct me to the evidence supporting this claim.
This assertion has repeatedly be made by government ministers associated with numbers like 70% or 75%; this implies at least 10 such plots. There is little evidence in the public domain of any large number of plots; what evidence is available points to the few plots being almost exclusively "home-grown".
Returning to the military situation:-
This is Britain's 4th Afghan adventure; the previous three ended in ignominy.
The Russians failed despite the investment of huge amounts men and materiel.
Why will it be different this time?
JB has not replied as at 29/7/10
8. Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury 25th September 2009
On Wednesday 23rd September there was a "fringe meeting at the LibDem conference which was addressed by Lord Avebury and attended by inter alia the Afghan ambassador.
Dear Lord Avebury,
I was at the Muslim/Afhanistan meeting in Bournemouth on Wednesday and raised the question about the identity of the "insurgents"
To reiterate and expand the question:
"Insurgent implies outsider. Who are the insurgents?
Why do the Afghan population harbour them?
Are we not seen as the insurgents?
You argued the necessity for the continued presence of our armed forces but with the imperative that they only be applied military targets.
If we cannot identify the insurgents this is impossible.
Indeed, given the inevitable (and horribly euphemistic) "collateral damage" to the civilian population, our actions exacerbate matters.
Lessons of history: this is our 4th Afghan adventure; what makes it different this time?
Surely, our only rational and achievable objective should be to empower the local communities to resist insurgency whether labelled "Taleban" or "al Queda" or even "another ethnic group" by training the Afghan National Army and police force.
Bright idea?
To assist this process: there are significant numbers of Afghan young men seeking to get to the UK as refugees. We could allow them in on condition that they undergo military training and then return to Afghanistan to directly contribute to the establishment of the Rule of Law thereby removing their need to be refugees.
I would remind you of your own words from 4th December 2008:-
"My Lords, a few hours ago the Minister said that we invaded Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a haven for international terrorism. She did not remind your Lordships that that was also one of the excuses given for the invasion of Iraq, which, as President Mubarak said at the time, was likely to create 100 bin Ladens. He was probably out by a factor of 10, but that has happened. It has also involved us, as the noble Baroness said, in a £700 million contribution so far towards reconstruction, has placed huge burdens on our Armed Forces, and is an ingredient in the motivation of terrorists across the world."
I would also remind you of the words of another (then) Liberal:-
Winston Churchill 1897 quote as above.
9. Cameron’s War 29th June 2010
Comment on Times article
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2579794.ece
Afghanistan is the Prime Minister’s conflict and he needs to clarify his aims over commitment and exit strategy
It is reported that some 77% of the UK public are in favour of early withdrawal;
the available evidence supporting the contention that our presence is necessary to make the streets of Britain safe is minimal;
the cost in immediate "blood and treasure" is immense - as are the consequential costs of caring for the returning troops;
the lessons of history of Britain's previous three Afghan adventures - as well as those of the Russians - go unlearned;
there was a much trumpeted "success".in delivering a turbine to the Kajaki dam - it lies uninstalled;
opium production continues thereby funding the insurgency and causing further consequential damage to our society.
"Let's call the whole thing off".
Monday, 5 July 2010
Liam Fox as reported on Conservativehome
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/06/liam-fox-reaffirms-why-british-troops-remain-in-afghanistan-and-explains-that-their-return-is-depend.html#comments
Liam Fox reaffirms why British troops remain in Afghanistan and explains that their return is dependent on national security needs
My Comments
Times' readers are equally vociferous; where is the commitment to evidence-based policy - for Afghanistan and for Trident renewal?
Is LF past his sell-by date?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana; 1905
Evidence for policy making:-
1. There is no effective central government in Afghanistan. This has not changed since Churchill's analysis of 1897!
2. The Kazai regime is corrupt.
3. Opium production continues unabated.
Conclusions:-
1. Deal with local tribal leaders; motivate them to deal with 'insurgents' whom they can identify far more readily than can 'coalition' [LibDemCon?] forces.
2. Disrupt the Taliban supply chain; Control opium production; by buying it at source and/or destroying it.
3. Invest in development not pay for war.
PS Why are we sending our men out on patrol to be targets for snipers and IEDs without an accompanying group of ANA soldiers?
Liam Fox reaffirms why British troops remain in Afghanistan and explains that their return is dependent on national security needs
My Comments
Times' readers are equally vociferous; where is the commitment to evidence-based policy - for Afghanistan and for Trident renewal?
Is LF past his sell-by date?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana; 1905
Evidence for policy making:-
1. There is no effective central government in Afghanistan. This has not changed since Churchill's analysis of 1897!
2. The Kazai regime is corrupt.
3. Opium production continues unabated.
Conclusions:-
1. Deal with local tribal leaders; motivate them to deal with 'insurgents' whom they can identify far more readily than can 'coalition' [LibDemCon?] forces.
2. Disrupt the Taliban supply chain; Control opium production; by buying it at source and/or destroying it.
3. Invest in development not pay for war.
PS Why are we sending our men out on patrol to be targets for snipers and IEDs without an accompanying group of ANA soldiers?
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Berlin
Work in Progress: Blog & City
The vuvuzalas (vuvuzalae?) tooted happily in sedate Frankfurt am Main last week, in extrovert Berlin the response to last night's result was tumultuous.
24 years since my last visit to Berlin.
Then there was a wall dividing two different systems of political and economic belief and practice.
Today there a few battered remains of that wall preserved as a monument.
This provides stimulus for profund thought.
If that physical wall can be torn down - largely by the spontaneous work of ordinary people - what will it take to remove those other walls in Belfast, Israel/Palestine ... ?
Such physical walls are the product of 'thought walls' of religious and racial bigotry.
The WWW together with mobile phone networks, digital video and photography means that facts and evidence cannot be suppressed.
We have seen the effects of this revolution in the UK political system with the exposure of malpractice on expenses of our publicly-funded representatives.
Timely, generally available facts and evidence must lead to increasing accountability. I fear that many of our politicians "just don't get it".
The vuvuzalas (vuvuzalae?) tooted happily in sedate Frankfurt am Main last week, in extrovert Berlin the response to last night's result was tumultuous.
24 years since my last visit to Berlin.
Then there was a wall dividing two different systems of political and economic belief and practice.
Today there a few battered remains of that wall preserved as a monument.
This provides stimulus for profund thought.
If that physical wall can be torn down - largely by the spontaneous work of ordinary people - what will it take to remove those other walls in Belfast, Israel/Palestine ... ?
Such physical walls are the product of 'thought walls' of religious and racial bigotry.
The WWW together with mobile phone networks, digital video and photography means that facts and evidence cannot be suppressed.
We have seen the effects of this revolution in the UK political system with the exposure of malpractice on expenses of our publicly-funded representatives.
Timely, generally available facts and evidence must lead to increasing accountability. I fear that many of our politicians "just don't get it".
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Terezin to Oświęcim
Work in progress: need comment on Wansee conference, Allied inaction
Terezin (Czech Republic) to Oświęcim (Republic of Poland):
In another time:-
Theresienstadt (Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of the Third Reich)
to
Auschwitz (General Government for the Occupied Polish Territories).
By road this is 340 miles/550 km with a predicted journey time of some 7 hours.
We are traveling on motorways in the air-conditioned comfort of a new Ford Mondeo with a peak speed 0f 130 km/h.
In 1942-45 the rail journey would have been less direct with a peak speed of perhaps 60 km/h. This implies a journey time of at least 24 hours.
The comparison of our journey with that endured by many thousands of men, women and children in railway cattle trucks in the cold of winter or the heat of summer could hardly be more profound.
Terezin is a garrison town cum fortress originally constructed in the late 18th century.
Gavrilo Princip who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 thereby precipitating 'The Great War' was incarcerated here in durance vile dying at the age of 24 from TB and malnourishment.
Renamed Theresienstadt following the German invasion of Czechoslavakia it became a 'concentration camp' predominantly for Czech Jews but also other parts of occupied Europe including the Channel Islands. Any deaths (although there were ens of thousands) here were incidental to the 'concentration' process; this was a transit point en route to the main 'extermination camps' in Poland - principally Auschwitz.
Oświęcim
Oświęcim is a small bustling town.
On its outskirts lie three more sombre places: the camps of Auschwitz.
Auschwitz I: the pilot plant.
Auschwitz II: the production plant.
Mm: the overflow plant.
Production line genocide: the raw material 1.5 million human beings - people like us;
the product: some labour, hair, gold & silver from teeth, carefully sorted personal possessions - spectacles, false limbs, children's clothes...
more ..
Terezin (Czech Republic) to Oświęcim (Republic of Poland):
In another time:-
Theresienstadt (Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of the Third Reich)
to
Auschwitz (General Government for the Occupied Polish Territories).
By road this is 340 miles/550 km with a predicted journey time of some 7 hours.
We are traveling on motorways in the air-conditioned comfort of a new Ford Mondeo with a peak speed 0f 130 km/h.
In 1942-45 the rail journey would have been less direct with a peak speed of perhaps 60 km/h. This implies a journey time of at least 24 hours.
The comparison of our journey with that endured by many thousands of men, women and children in railway cattle trucks in the cold of winter or the heat of summer could hardly be more profound.
Terezin is a garrison town cum fortress originally constructed in the late 18th century.
Gavrilo Princip who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 thereby precipitating 'The Great War' was incarcerated here in durance vile dying at the age of 24 from TB and malnourishment.
Renamed Theresienstadt following the German invasion of Czechoslavakia it became a 'concentration camp' predominantly for Czech Jews but also other parts of occupied Europe including the Channel Islands. Any deaths (although there were ens of thousands) here were incidental to the 'concentration' process; this was a transit point en route to the main 'extermination camps' in Poland - principally Auschwitz.
Oświęcim
Oświęcim is a small bustling town.
On its outskirts lie three more sombre places: the camps of Auschwitz.
Auschwitz I: the pilot plant.
Auschwitz II: the production plant.
Mm: the overflow plant.
Production line genocide: the raw material 1.5 million human beings - people like us;
the product: some labour, hair, gold & silver from teeth, carefully sorted personal possessions - spectacles, false limbs, children's clothes...
more ..
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Frankfurt am Main
A litle while since my last visit to Deutchland: still manicured and litter-free but there seems to be less discipline in observing pedestrian crossing lights.
The Germans appear to have welcomed on-shore windfarms. However, as eleswhere, there seem to be at as least as many at rest as turning.
The happy toot of the vuvuzela accompanied Germany´s victory over Ghana yesterday evening. I now have 3 of these `instruments´ directly imported from S. Africa as gifts for grandchildren to be `enjoyed´ by their parents.
Elsewhere to `Crystalise´ an issue: to lose one General "might be regarded as unfortunate..."; the FT this morning reports a succession of 5 US commanders in Afghanistan since 2003 - Barno, Eikenberry, McNeill, McKeiran, McChrystal.
Good luck David Petraeus! - at least he has a copy of "The Story of the Malakand Field Force", a source he referenced in his recent talk to the Henry Jackson Society in Parliament. Lessons yet to be learned?
The Germans appear to have welcomed on-shore windfarms. However, as eleswhere, there seem to be at as least as many at rest as turning.
The happy toot of the vuvuzela accompanied Germany´s victory over Ghana yesterday evening. I now have 3 of these `instruments´ directly imported from S. Africa as gifts for grandchildren to be `enjoyed´ by their parents.
Elsewhere to `Crystalise´ an issue: to lose one General "might be regarded as unfortunate..."; the FT this morning reports a succession of 5 US commanders in Afghanistan since 2003 - Barno, Eikenberry, McNeill, McKeiran, McChrystal.
Good luck David Petraeus! - at least he has a copy of "The Story of the Malakand Field Force", a source he referenced in his recent talk to the Henry Jackson Society in Parliament. Lessons yet to be learned?
Thursday, 20 May 2010
MPs' Independent Thought
See http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/david-cameron-has-won-1922-rule-change-by-168-to-118-votes.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e20134813b602d970c
Plus ca change...
When in that House M.P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!
Plus ca change...
When in that House M.P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)