The recent revelations of the existence and extent of the use of torture in interrogations by the CIA in the New York Times this week has confirmed what we secretly expected from the Bush administration. The main exposé article lists some of the atrocities the CIA has visited upon its detainees:
“They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.”
Any one of us could have written today’s editorial in the New York Times:
“Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.
The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.”
It is a shame that the American media did not expose this program until now, as it was initiated in Bush’s first term. Nevertheless, this, with Iraq, confirms the Bush administration as probably the worst America has ever had. If Bush had any credibility or morals, he would apologise to the American people for so comprehensively discarding the values of his country in office. He will try to recycle the old excuses – 9/11 gave us a new war with new rules – with no grasp of the magnitude of his errors.
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Thursday, 27 September 2007
Martyrdom in Myanmar
The clergy-led popular protests against the ruling Burmese military junta has provoked the reaction we all dreaded, and privately expected: a military crackdown.
"Burmese security forces raided two Buddhist monasteries this morning, beating up and hauling away more than 70 monks after a day of violent confrontation, sources said.
The security forces used firepower for the first time yesterday against street protests that have brewed over the past month into the biggest demonstrations against Burma's military rulers since 1988.
At least one man was killed and others wounded in chaotic clashes in Rangoon.
A monk at the Ngwe Kyar Yan monastery, pointing to bloodstains on the concrete floor, said a number of monks were beaten and at least 70 of its 150 monks taken away in vehicles."
Brown has recommended the UN Security Council deal with the situation, and that sanctions be imposed on Burma. The experience of the UN sanctions on Iraq between the two Gulf wars have shown us that sanctions only empower the offending government by its control of increasingly limited supplies and necessities.
Instead, the first thing Britain and the other UNSC states should do is stop selling arms to Burma. A threat of humanitarian intervention if an increase in humanitarian aid is not properly delivered to the people (as happened in Iraq) would put pressure on the government. In addition, we should ramp up our political and financial support of pro-democracy movements inside Burma.
Sanctions are not the way forward to aiding the Saffron Revolution, as its campaign must now change from aiming for survival instead of victory. Sanctions only hurt the people themselves, while empowering the government. We need some fresh thinking on non-military humanitarian intervention, as the strategic cultures of Britain and the US, judging by Brown's prescriptions, are still focused on oscillations between military intervention and sanctions. What happened to soft power?
"Burmese security forces raided two Buddhist monasteries this morning, beating up and hauling away more than 70 monks after a day of violent confrontation, sources said.
The security forces used firepower for the first time yesterday against street protests that have brewed over the past month into the biggest demonstrations against Burma's military rulers since 1988.
At least one man was killed and others wounded in chaotic clashes in Rangoon.
A monk at the Ngwe Kyar Yan monastery, pointing to bloodstains on the concrete floor, said a number of monks were beaten and at least 70 of its 150 monks taken away in vehicles."
Brown has recommended the UN Security Council deal with the situation, and that sanctions be imposed on Burma. The experience of the UN sanctions on Iraq between the two Gulf wars have shown us that sanctions only empower the offending government by its control of increasingly limited supplies and necessities.
Instead, the first thing Britain and the other UNSC states should do is stop selling arms to Burma. A threat of humanitarian intervention if an increase in humanitarian aid is not properly delivered to the people (as happened in Iraq) would put pressure on the government. In addition, we should ramp up our political and financial support of pro-democracy movements inside Burma.
Sanctions are not the way forward to aiding the Saffron Revolution, as its campaign must now change from aiming for survival instead of victory. Sanctions only hurt the people themselves, while empowering the government. We need some fresh thinking on non-military humanitarian intervention, as the strategic cultures of Britain and the US, judging by Brown's prescriptions, are still focused on oscillations between military intervention and sanctions. What happened to soft power?
Friday, 21 September 2007
Marine Energy
The Economist looks at British investment in wave power energy facilities:
British sea power
Sep 20th 2007
"The British have always looked to the sea to protect them from the earth's dangers. The ocean is a handy deterrent to foreign armies, but it is useful for other things too. In the midst of the energy crisis of the 1970s, there was much talk that marine energy would let its possessors break free of OPEC. With the arrival of North Sea oil, marine energy was forgotten. But 35 years later, with North Sea oil in decline, climate change a big issue and wind farms facing lengthy planning delays, sea power is back on the agenda.
On September 17th the government announced that planning permission had been given for Wave Hub, a £28m project off the north Cornish coast that will provide a sea-floor “socket” allowing wave-power generators to get their electricity back to shore. The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA), a quango which will part-fund the project, has high hopes. Four firms are planning to connect their machines, forming what officials hope will be the world's biggest wave farm, with 30 machines supplying up to 20 megawatts of power. An existing wave-power project in the Orkney islands is set to expand, and officials are studying a multi-billion-pound private-sector plan to harness the tides near the mouth of the river Severn.
Marine energy, and especially wave power, is still an immature technology. Many designs concentrate on surviving the fury of ocean storms rather than maximising energy production. Nor is it cheap. Firms are coy about giving precise figures but the Carbon Trust, a government-funded green consultancy, reckoned the price a year ago was between 22p and 25p per kilowatt hour—around nine times the price of gas-fired electricity.
Boosters argue that technology and mass production will bring costs down. British officials seem to agree. Having noticed the success of the Danes in developing their wind-turbine industry, both the SWRDA and the Scottish Executive want to do the same for ocean power.
Geography is one advantage: rough seas and big tides make the British isles one of the best places in the world for sea power. The Carbon Trust believes that, in theory, sea power could provide 20% of the country's electricity. There is engineering expertise, notably in Aberdeen, where the offshore oil industry has been installing complex machinery in rough seas for decades. The International Energy Agency thinks that Britain is pursuing more marine-power designs (29) than any other country (America, with 13, is second). Scotland already boasts the European Marine Energy Centre, a research outfit, an advantage the West Country hopes to counteract by spending £15m on a similar organisation attached to the universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
The economics are more complicated. David Weaver, the chief executive of Oceanlinx, one of the firms planning to use the Wave Hub, argues that Britain's liberalised and transparent power markets make life easier for newcomers, although others argue that fluctuating power prices make planning tricky. Subsidies are more generous in countries such as Portugal, which is keen on building a marine-power sector of its own and offers extra cash to less mature technologies.
Not everyone is enthusiastic. When the Wave Hub was announced, Cornish surfers worried that it might make their tubes less gnarly. Others are more concerned about the price. Mr Edge reckons that the Danes spent around £1 billion creating their wind-turbine industry. Setting up a British marine-power sector will cost a similar amount, he says—a big jump from the £28m Wave Hub."
British sea power
Sep 20th 2007
"The British have always looked to the sea to protect them from the earth's dangers. The ocean is a handy deterrent to foreign armies, but it is useful for other things too. In the midst of the energy crisis of the 1970s, there was much talk that marine energy would let its possessors break free of OPEC. With the arrival of North Sea oil, marine energy was forgotten. But 35 years later, with North Sea oil in decline, climate change a big issue and wind farms facing lengthy planning delays, sea power is back on the agenda.
On September 17th the government announced that planning permission had been given for Wave Hub, a £28m project off the north Cornish coast that will provide a sea-floor “socket” allowing wave-power generators to get their electricity back to shore. The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA), a quango which will part-fund the project, has high hopes. Four firms are planning to connect their machines, forming what officials hope will be the world's biggest wave farm, with 30 machines supplying up to 20 megawatts of power. An existing wave-power project in the Orkney islands is set to expand, and officials are studying a multi-billion-pound private-sector plan to harness the tides near the mouth of the river Severn.
Marine energy, and especially wave power, is still an immature technology. Many designs concentrate on surviving the fury of ocean storms rather than maximising energy production. Nor is it cheap. Firms are coy about giving precise figures but the Carbon Trust, a government-funded green consultancy, reckoned the price a year ago was between 22p and 25p per kilowatt hour—around nine times the price of gas-fired electricity.
Boosters argue that technology and mass production will bring costs down. British officials seem to agree. Having noticed the success of the Danes in developing their wind-turbine industry, both the SWRDA and the Scottish Executive want to do the same for ocean power.
Geography is one advantage: rough seas and big tides make the British isles one of the best places in the world for sea power. The Carbon Trust believes that, in theory, sea power could provide 20% of the country's electricity. There is engineering expertise, notably in Aberdeen, where the offshore oil industry has been installing complex machinery in rough seas for decades. The International Energy Agency thinks that Britain is pursuing more marine-power designs (29) than any other country (America, with 13, is second). Scotland already boasts the European Marine Energy Centre, a research outfit, an advantage the West Country hopes to counteract by spending £15m on a similar organisation attached to the universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
The economics are more complicated. David Weaver, the chief executive of Oceanlinx, one of the firms planning to use the Wave Hub, argues that Britain's liberalised and transparent power markets make life easier for newcomers, although others argue that fluctuating power prices make planning tricky. Subsidies are more generous in countries such as Portugal, which is keen on building a marine-power sector of its own and offers extra cash to less mature technologies.
Not everyone is enthusiastic. When the Wave Hub was announced, Cornish surfers worried that it might make their tubes less gnarly. Others are more concerned about the price. Mr Edge reckons that the Danes spent around £1 billion creating their wind-turbine industry. Setting up a British marine-power sector will cost a similar amount, he says—a big jump from the £28m Wave Hub."
More Ethical Divestment
Jim Mather, the Enterprise Minister, today announces he is to move his £350,000 of shares into a blind trust to avoid a conflict of interest. This is what he should have done upon assuming his ministerial position, not nearly 5 months later and then only under media pressure. Donald Dewar moved all his shares into a blind trust upon being first elected to government as Scottish Secretary, preventing him from these accusations of a conflict of interest. I find it amazing neither Mr Mather nor Mr Stevenson thought their failure to do so would matter.
Indeed, Mr Mather sums it up best himself:
"The reality is that for those of us who hold portfolios that are as wide-ranging as enterprise, energy and tourism, it is very hard to hold shares in anything that doesn't impinge upon our work."
Still wonder why the Herald isn’t covering this at all…
Indeed, Mr Mather sums it up best himself:
"The reality is that for those of us who hold portfolios that are as wide-ranging as enterprise, energy and tourism, it is very hard to hold shares in anything that doesn't impinge upon our work."
Still wonder why the Herald isn’t covering this at all…
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Ethical Divestment
Well, what a day. My tipoff to the Scotsman and the Herald two days ago about Stewart Stevenson's possession of £30,000 of shares in ScottishPower is today's front headline of the Scotsman. Stevenson decided to sell the shares last night, after insisting there was no conflict between his role in shaping energy policy and his financial interests in a major energy company which had just won a £200m contract from his ministry in the Scottish Government.
I wonder why only the Scotsman decided to run with this story, as I informed both the Scotsman and Herald news desks of the conflict of interest at the same time. The Scottish Government is still clearly on its honeymoon with the Herald. I would have thought any reporter would leap on a conflict of interest story, whether it be regarding a councillor, MSP, MEP or MP.
In Stevenson's announcement, he says he is to also sell shares in another energy company called Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE). These shares were not disclosed on his register of interests as of yesterday.
I wonder why only the Scotsman decided to run with this story, as I informed both the Scotsman and Herald news desks of the conflict of interest at the same time. The Scottish Government is still clearly on its honeymoon with the Herald. I would have thought any reporter would leap on a conflict of interest story, whether it be regarding a councillor, MSP, MEP or MP.
In Stevenson's announcement, he says he is to also sell shares in another energy company called Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE). These shares were not disclosed on his register of interests as of yesterday.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
Clarity in Brussels, Confusion in Bute House
EU Commissioner Joe Borg:
"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate but if, for one moment, we were to assume that Scotland gained independence and therefore is eligible as a new member state for the European Union, I would see that, legally speaking, the continuation of the membership would remain with the rest of the UK - less Scotland. And, therefore, Scotland, as a newly independent state, would have to apply for membership."
Spokesman for Alex Salmond:
"The reality is very clear, and was expressed by the late Robin Cook, when foreign secretary, in his statement that an independent Scotland would remain a member of the EU: 'It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all comers and Scotland would be a member'.
"When we have recently welcomed Romania and Bulgaria into full EU membership, how could it be otherwise for resource-rich Scotland?"
Jim Mather MSP:
"We are an incumbent member state - what about England having to re-apply?"
Out of these three individuals, who is the most qualified to state the EU position on the accession of an independent Scotland?
Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU upon leaving the UK, as the UK as a political entity belongs to the EU and Scotland is no longer part of that political entity. England won't have to reapply because England is still in the UK, which answers Mr Mather's question.
The spokesman for Alex Salmond is a bit more nuanced - he states that it is likely that Scotland would gain EU membership, but, again, obfuscates the fact that there is an application process involved. We will not become a separate member of the EU the day after independence, as one SNP poster promised.
Leaving the UK also means leaving the EU. This exposes Scotland to all the high external tariffs on trade with the EU (by far Scotland's biggest trading partner) that continue to restrict economic growth in Africa. These tariffs will severely damage the Scottish economy at a time when we need economic stability most. This will also be a time when the economic unviability of the SNP's economic plan for Scotland (high public expenditure - no bad thing - but with insufficiently low taxes to cover public spending)becomes clear. In addition, we will lose the EU agricultural and other grants that the Scottish economy needs - Scottish farmers have received £115m in EU grants over the last 5 years.
If we can take the EU's treatment of the 10 new member states and Turkey as custom, Scotland will have to negotiate to enter the EU, which can take months or years, but probably months in Scotland's case. As part of the application process, our democratic credentials and financial health will be assessed. I have no doubt we would pass the democracy test with flying colours, but I am less certain about the financial health test for the reasons above.
Once the EU and Scotland agree that Scotland can join, we may have to face a 10 year wait until we actually join, as the 10 new member states and Turkey are currently facing. That's 10 years of high external tariffs and no financial support from the EU, which will have a deeply negative impact on Scottish growth and financial stability.
The saddening thing is that Salmond and the SNP leadership, deep down, know all this is true. Yet they are promising the Scottish people things they can't deliver, such as joining the EU overnight. I'm going to believe that Jim Mather is deliberately distorting the reality of an independent Scotland and the EU, as it is too astounding to consider that he genuinely believes that England, remaining in Britain, will somehow not remain in the EU if Scotland leaves.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1497442007
"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate but if, for one moment, we were to assume that Scotland gained independence and therefore is eligible as a new member state for the European Union, I would see that, legally speaking, the continuation of the membership would remain with the rest of the UK - less Scotland. And, therefore, Scotland, as a newly independent state, would have to apply for membership."
Spokesman for Alex Salmond:
"The reality is very clear, and was expressed by the late Robin Cook, when foreign secretary, in his statement that an independent Scotland would remain a member of the EU: 'It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all comers and Scotland would be a member'.
"When we have recently welcomed Romania and Bulgaria into full EU membership, how could it be otherwise for resource-rich Scotland?"
Jim Mather MSP:
"We are an incumbent member state - what about England having to re-apply?"
Out of these three individuals, who is the most qualified to state the EU position on the accession of an independent Scotland?
Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU upon leaving the UK, as the UK as a political entity belongs to the EU and Scotland is no longer part of that political entity. England won't have to reapply because England is still in the UK, which answers Mr Mather's question.
The spokesman for Alex Salmond is a bit more nuanced - he states that it is likely that Scotland would gain EU membership, but, again, obfuscates the fact that there is an application process involved. We will not become a separate member of the EU the day after independence, as one SNP poster promised.
Leaving the UK also means leaving the EU. This exposes Scotland to all the high external tariffs on trade with the EU (by far Scotland's biggest trading partner) that continue to restrict economic growth in Africa. These tariffs will severely damage the Scottish economy at a time when we need economic stability most. This will also be a time when the economic unviability of the SNP's economic plan for Scotland (high public expenditure - no bad thing - but with insufficiently low taxes to cover public spending)becomes clear. In addition, we will lose the EU agricultural and other grants that the Scottish economy needs - Scottish farmers have received £115m in EU grants over the last 5 years.
If we can take the EU's treatment of the 10 new member states and Turkey as custom, Scotland will have to negotiate to enter the EU, which can take months or years, but probably months in Scotland's case. As part of the application process, our democratic credentials and financial health will be assessed. I have no doubt we would pass the democracy test with flying colours, but I am less certain about the financial health test for the reasons above.
Once the EU and Scotland agree that Scotland can join, we may have to face a 10 year wait until we actually join, as the 10 new member states and Turkey are currently facing. That's 10 years of high external tariffs and no financial support from the EU, which will have a deeply negative impact on Scottish growth and financial stability.
The saddening thing is that Salmond and the SNP leadership, deep down, know all this is true. Yet they are promising the Scottish people things they can't deliver, such as joining the EU overnight. I'm going to believe that Jim Mather is deliberately distorting the reality of an independent Scotland and the EU, as it is too astounding to consider that he genuinely believes that England, remaining in Britain, will somehow not remain in the EU if Scotland leaves.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1497442007
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Tory Report: Quality of Life Better under Labour
The recent "Blueprint for a Green Economy" report unveiled by the Tories (but where are the policies?) agrees that the quality of life in Britain both under Callaghan and Blair was better than under Thatcher and Major.
"Blueprint for a Green Economy,'' a report commissioned by Conservative leader David Cameron, suggests that alongside gross domestic product, the standard scale of a country's success, the U.K. should use a gauge called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare.
A graph in the report shows the measure reaching a record in 1976 under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, whose three-year tenure was marked by rampant inflation and labor strife. It falls to a 30-year low under Margaret Thatcher, who championed wealth creation as Conservative prime minister in the 1980s, before rising again under Labour's Tony Blair."
Here's the link.
"Blueprint for a Green Economy,'' a report commissioned by Conservative leader David Cameron, suggests that alongside gross domestic product, the standard scale of a country's success, the U.K. should use a gauge called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare.
A graph in the report shows the measure reaching a record in 1976 under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, whose three-year tenure was marked by rampant inflation and labor strife. It falls to a 30-year low under Margaret Thatcher, who championed wealth creation as Conservative prime minister in the 1980s, before rising again under Labour's Tony Blair."
Here's the link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
