The world holds its breath, while world leaders and diplomats discuss the situation in Burma. At what point does the world do anything? Obviously this is a domestic situation and there is a limit to what can be done, but if violence does break out - will the world act? I am sure that various intelligence, diplomatic and unclassifiable figures are working behind the scenes here, but on the surface it seems like we are simply reacting, waiting for something bad to happen and will wheel out some condemnations and sanctions that will make little difference to the insane generals who rule this country. For once a good old fashioned coup - a la Iran 53 - might be acceptable.
It's great that David Milliband makes statements on News24, but this will make little difference to the junta. The pressure needs to put on China first, as they understand that repression is simply unacceptable. It's great that Gordon Brown wrote a book on Aung San Suu Kyi but what will actually do, now this critical moment has arrived. Forget all the other foreign policy issues for the Brown rule, this will be the true test. It also seems astonishing that whilst the UN Security council meet, members countries retain investments there (i.e. French oil company Total), providing economic support to the regime. You either have an ethical CSR programme or you don't. You may oppose forced labour and be aware of local human rights issues, but that is contradicted by actual investment there, which inevitable feeds into the coffers of the corrupt regime.
Limited information is seeping through from Burma, but critically with various media available, any repression will not be kept in the dark. Whether the outcome resembles a Velvet revolution or another 1988 / Tianamen square massacre is unclear. Limited democratic reform could be the solution, if brokered by China. This would establish momentum for eventual democracy. But the tight grip and paranoid outlook of the junta makes compromise unlikely. Mind you, has there ever been a Buddhist revolution?
http://www.burmanet.org/news/
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/index.php
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
New wave foreign policy
Gordon Brown in his Treasury straight jacket made only a handful of comments on foreign policy during Blair's ten years, so it is not surprising that this trend continues. Brown obviously had to establish his position over the critical issues - Iraq, the Special Relationship, global poverty - early in his tenure, but the detail has rightly been left to the new Foreign Secretary. David Milliband's predecessors had declining influence over the Blair decade, from Robin Cook's ethical but underachieving first term effort, through Jack Straw's ultimate flattening by Blair's post 9/11 Iraq war juggernaut, to Margaret Beckett's complete awe then subservience with last year's Lebanon war marking the nadir for the Blair era FCO role. Milliband will seek to reassure the FCO staff that this tide is being reversed. But remember only three months ago, he was the Blairite candidate for the next leader and hence with a Blairite foreign policy.
Not unexpectedly, Milliband told Labour conference delegates that lessons had been learnt in the previous years, that multilateral diplomatic solutions were the priority, and that flawed military actions were the cause of current predicaments: "The lesson is that while there are military victories there is never a military solution. There's only military action that creates the space for economic and political life." Current crises in Darfur and Burma were touched on, plus Europe, although this is more political battle with the Murdoch press than a genuine foreign policy issue these days. In the "second wave" of New Labour foreign policy, "progress is possible. Britain has a vital role to play. And the prize is immense."
This is all optimistic stuff, but new crises will emerge and fault lines will develop. Britain can carve out a unique international position or fall into America's slipstream. Brown's frosty encounter with Bush this summer suggests a change, but the unpopularity of Blair's Middle East policy has left such a mark that a change of direction is inevitable. A refocus away from the Middle East is the most likely change ahead, Burma and Zimbabwe are two immediate concerns that will assist this shift. Blair's current role for the Quartet and the Iraq withdrawal, allows Britain to create some distance and unalientate millions of Muslims offended by recent actions. Recreating a positive image of Britain in the Islamic world is surely Milliband's priority. Britain's withdrawal from region also makes involvement in the most serious crisis on the horizon - Iran's nuclear programme - easier. With the end to a proxy war with Iran in Basra, Britain is less likely to be swept along in this crisis. As the diplomatic fulcrum, Britain can carve out a diplomatic role between Iran, America and Israel, improving its world standing immeasurably in the process. An optimistic vision, I admit. There remains a painful contradiction in Britain's foreign policy: the link between business interests and support for repressive regimes. Until we move beyond the BAEs, annual DSEI arms supermarkets and support for military regimes like Pakistan, our foreign policy will continue to be self-defeating.
Rapid global power shifts, climate change and the obvious unexpected crises, mean that the next ten years could look very different to the proceeding decade. India and China are superpowers in the making, but it does not take much for small events to create diplomatic crises - look at Russia-British relations since the Litvinenko murder. Climate change may well supersede all these international spats, when such a global issue arises, it makes diplomatic difference seem irrelevant. Foreign policy may well decline over the next decade and be replaced by International policy. Dramatic changes in environmental conditions could make the idea of an independent foreign policy self defeating and of minor importance.
Not unexpectedly, Milliband told Labour conference delegates that lessons had been learnt in the previous years, that multilateral diplomatic solutions were the priority, and that flawed military actions were the cause of current predicaments: "The lesson is that while there are military victories there is never a military solution. There's only military action that creates the space for economic and political life." Current crises in Darfur and Burma were touched on, plus Europe, although this is more political battle with the Murdoch press than a genuine foreign policy issue these days. In the "second wave" of New Labour foreign policy, "progress is possible. Britain has a vital role to play. And the prize is immense."
This is all optimistic stuff, but new crises will emerge and fault lines will develop. Britain can carve out a unique international position or fall into America's slipstream. Brown's frosty encounter with Bush this summer suggests a change, but the unpopularity of Blair's Middle East policy has left such a mark that a change of direction is inevitable. A refocus away from the Middle East is the most likely change ahead, Burma and Zimbabwe are two immediate concerns that will assist this shift. Blair's current role for the Quartet and the Iraq withdrawal, allows Britain to create some distance and unalientate millions of Muslims offended by recent actions. Recreating a positive image of Britain in the Islamic world is surely Milliband's priority. Britain's withdrawal from region also makes involvement in the most serious crisis on the horizon - Iran's nuclear programme - easier. With the end to a proxy war with Iran in Basra, Britain is less likely to be swept along in this crisis. As the diplomatic fulcrum, Britain can carve out a diplomatic role between Iran, America and Israel, improving its world standing immeasurably in the process. An optimistic vision, I admit. There remains a painful contradiction in Britain's foreign policy: the link between business interests and support for repressive regimes. Until we move beyond the BAEs, annual DSEI arms supermarkets and support for military regimes like Pakistan, our foreign policy will continue to be self-defeating.
Rapid global power shifts, climate change and the obvious unexpected crises, mean that the next ten years could look very different to the proceeding decade. India and China are superpowers in the making, but it does not take much for small events to create diplomatic crises - look at Russia-British relations since the Litvinenko murder. Climate change may well supersede all these international spats, when such a global issue arises, it makes diplomatic difference seem irrelevant. Foreign policy may well decline over the next decade and be replaced by International policy. Dramatic changes in environmental conditions could make the idea of an independent foreign policy self defeating and of minor importance.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Green Wars
A combination of David Cameron's political opportunism, rampant floods across Britain this summer and the boom of supposedly green corporate marketing campaigns by high street retailers, has thrown the issue of greenism to the political forefront. Never before has environmentalism been so prominent in public discourse, but like any other burning issue - in our polarised and sceptical society - naysayers, exploiters, bickerers and political opportunists seek to turn the issue to their advantage. First take the Conservatives, many will see their green agenda as refreshing and full of foresight, bringing in the rural intelligentsia and young urban neo-libs. Others - including Tory grandees descended from 19th century fat cat industrialists, a weary and inherently cynical right wing press, and a handful of Atlanticist CC deniers - tear the party in the opposite direction. The heralded Quality of Life report triggered more debate internally than with the public. If in power, their fragmented views would only worsen.
As political parties act with greater inefficacy, high street brands have attempted to fill the void. And surely they are acting for the greater good, surely they have ample profits to restructure their entire businesses for our new verdant age, and surely they are going to been universally green rather than simply recycling plastic carrier bags. It looks great and green has so far been underused in the marketeers colour scheme, but without actual clear planning and environmental know how, this supermarket sustainability will be unsustained. These contradictions were set out in an excellent article this week.
The final theatre of war in our ecogeddon is a civil war in which both sides will lose but is in political sphere with the most potential and sadly offers the only purist option. In November this year, Green party members will vote in a referendum to decide whether to reform their structure and elect a party leader. Or to maintain the existing non-hierarchical system, where power is horizontal, and two principal speakers front the party. To make progress in British politics and be electable, the Yes campaign argue it is necessary for the public to see a formal figure who can represent the Greens. Leaders can misrepresent, corrupt and erodes party participation, as Derek Wall current principal speaker and No or Green Empowerment voice says: "Conventional leadership with a single leader almost always comes with commitments to water down the message, to remove real debate and participation." Since the major political parties have jumped on the green bandwagon, the pressure on the Green party is more acute. The next election - whenever that is - will be make or break. But would have a leader make a difference? It would be superficial, yes, but could - with the right individual - break down perceptions of Greens and make the party more electable. Cliches of clause 4 aside, something radical does need to happen, as support for the Greens is levelling out with only slow election on election increases. There is real potential for expansion amongst the 18-35 demographic, and any fillip to that would help. Voters don't like divided parties and favour divided confused parties even less. The referendum could provide clarity internally and to the public, then again it could create more disharmony. Then then again, most voters could see it as irrelevant.
Amidst this debate and discord, groups across the country promote their own self-sufficiency. Festivals like Waveform are mostly hedonism, but with a dose of awareness. Government and institutions might continue the debate, but individuals are making real changes themselves.
As political parties act with greater inefficacy, high street brands have attempted to fill the void. And surely they are acting for the greater good, surely they have ample profits to restructure their entire businesses for our new verdant age, and surely they are going to been universally green rather than simply recycling plastic carrier bags. It looks great and green has so far been underused in the marketeers colour scheme, but without actual clear planning and environmental know how, this supermarket sustainability will be unsustained. These contradictions were set out in an excellent article this week.
The final theatre of war in our ecogeddon is a civil war in which both sides will lose but is in political sphere with the most potential and sadly offers the only purist option. In November this year, Green party members will vote in a referendum to decide whether to reform their structure and elect a party leader. Or to maintain the existing non-hierarchical system, where power is horizontal, and two principal speakers front the party. To make progress in British politics and be electable, the Yes campaign argue it is necessary for the public to see a formal figure who can represent the Greens. Leaders can misrepresent, corrupt and erodes party participation, as Derek Wall current principal speaker and No or Green Empowerment voice says: "Conventional leadership with a single leader almost always comes with commitments to water down the message, to remove real debate and participation." Since the major political parties have jumped on the green bandwagon, the pressure on the Green party is more acute. The next election - whenever that is - will be make or break. But would have a leader make a difference? It would be superficial, yes, but could - with the right individual - break down perceptions of Greens and make the party more electable. Cliches of clause 4 aside, something radical does need to happen, as support for the Greens is levelling out with only slow election on election increases. There is real potential for expansion amongst the 18-35 demographic, and any fillip to that would help. Voters don't like divided parties and favour divided confused parties even less. The referendum could provide clarity internally and to the public, then again it could create more disharmony. Then then again, most voters could see it as irrelevant.
Amidst this debate and discord, groups across the country promote their own self-sufficiency. Festivals like Waveform are mostly hedonism, but with a dose of awareness. Government and institutions might continue the debate, but individuals are making real changes themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)