The Bewilderness

European Constitution: Blair's Bias

Mick Hume, "Marxist libertarian", asks a strong and increasingly important question:

And Gordon Brown’s people have let it be known that there will be no referendum on his watch because it would be “unwinnable”. What if they thought the same about elections?

The answer is that they would do, if the election were to result in a Parliament detrimental to the 'European class'. One can await the regulation of politics to bar opinions and organisations which threaten this consensus.

In practice, the Times reports that there are four red lines: justice, common law and the Charter of Fundamental rights, foreign policy, and the welfare state. These red-lines have not been received well in Europe, where the French have sided with the 'constitutionalists' in many areas retaining a maximal form of the original Constitution. The question is how far Blair will fall back, or how strong his defences of these red lines will be. Now that the referendum has become a growing issue again, Blair is demob-happy and may well sign up to areas that Brown could never defend.

As a pol angling for the new European presidency, Blair's defence of British interests is touched by speculations on a personal future beyond Number 10.

Rushdie: The Self-Interest of Certain Ummah Declarations

The political reaction to Sir Salman Rushdie's knighthood in certain portions of the Islamic world was rather predictable. Iran was certain to oppose the gong as honouring an apostate, whose complex novels presented a Muslim world out of touch with their reformation.

Hardliners in Iran revived calls for his murder yesterday. Mehdi Kuchakzadeh, a Tehran MP, declared: “Rushdie died the moment the late Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] issued the fatwa.”

The other country that has reacted against the honour is Pakistan. The national assembly passed a resolution condemning the knighthood and politically motivated demonstrations burnt effigies of the Queen and Rushdie, shouting "Death to...[latest transgressor]." Here is another example of how Islamic sensitivities are stoked and inflamed by political constituencies, as particular politicians invoke the name of the wider ummah to justify extremism and violence.

Ijaz-ul-Haq, the Religious Affairs Minister, told the assembly in Islamabad that the award of the knighthood excused suicide bombing. “If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,” he said.

He later retracted his statement, explaining that he had intended to say that knighting Rushdie will foster extremism. “If someone blows himself up, he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West? We demand an apology by the British government. Their action has hurt the sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims."

Rushdie's knighthood becomes the latest symbol for certain regimes to cloak their justifications in Islamism and draw the sting fromnational opposition.

BBC: Snapshots of Deep Bias

The BBC has commissioned a new report that highlighted a liberal bias in the purchase of drama. The transparent debate surrounding this is to be welcomed:

The document singles out two examples of programming that flouted BBC impartiality. It criticises, but does not name, Lorraine Heggessey, the former Controller of BBC One, for agreeing to show an episode of The Vicar of Dibley this year that featured a one-minute clip of the Make Poverty History video. BBC rules state that the corporation must not endorse campaigns other than Children in Need and Comic Relief.

There is criticism of the decision to transmit programmes about the making of Live8, towards the end of 2005, because the documentary was made by Brook Lapping, a production company owned by Ten Alps, in which Geldof is shareholder and company director. This relationship was not highlighted in the programme.

All campaigns, even those such as Make Poverty History, which was endorsed by all political parties, should be subject to critical scrutiny, the report said.

This also requires a duplication of effort from their news production, and impartiality is treated as a rare commodity. The liberal consensus needs to be broken and a transparent audit of reporting on particular issues is necessary. Let them publish the report on Israel, especially given the wall-to-wall coverage of Palestine, when elections in Israel are not covered to the same extent.

Brown and the Political Faultline

Geoff Hoon repeated government policy on the referendum:

They endorsed comments made by Geoff Hoon, the Europe Minister, who said that the final judgment on whether it needed to be put to a referendum had to wait until the “outcome of negotiations”.

Mr Hoon, speaking yesterday on The World This Weekend on BBC Radio 4, said: “Clearly a judgment has got to be made in terms of what is in the final package. It is important not to judge the outcome of the negotiations, but equally we are trying to negotiate an amending treaty.”

The comments have been interpreted as a pitch from Gordon Brown to set out redlines in the forthcoming summit with a demand for an amending treaty. Both the Times and Telegraph have differing stories on the politics, but are willing to carry the hard line that the government prefers. Yet last time, they caved in on the rebate, leaving dangers of a defeated narrative.

Certainly, many Europhiles have argued against the referendum in the last few weeks. The defence of parliamentary government is a novel approach to this gutting. Yet, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are scared of a popular input, since that potential faultline may slip.

Government 2.0

One of the most interesting developments of Web 2.0 is its extension to government, both national, devolved and local. As the Guardian writes:

Imagine Government 2.0. Wisdom no longer flows from officialdom to the population, but is co-created with citizens. Civil servants contribute openly to Facebook groups on controversies of the day. Government websites have wiki areas where people can exchange tips about filing tax returns or claiming benefits. Databases of restaurant inspections, tide tables and postcodes are available for all to see and re-use in mashups of geography, time or events. Before launching a new online public service, the government checks to see whether a user community is already doing it better. In short, government learns to let go of the web.

This trades upon the current trends within the internet, and the widening of the conversation. A report explores that wider phenomenon: the loosening and undermining of the rigid boundaries between exising institutions and the seepage of information into the wider public domain. This porosity has affected companies before governments, with widespread implications for marketing and public information. Two positive developments are welcomed: governments may abandon enterprises where the private sector on the internet does it cheaper and more effectively. Secondly, this will extend the personalisation of services and undermine the monolithic provision that justifies state involvement.

At the moment, the government's attitude to the web is a mixture of aloofness and outright hostility. This should change, the report argues, partly because some of the most popular user-driven communities - MoneySavingExpert, for example - are closely linked to government policy. Others directly contribute to the public good: in Los Angeles, when the government started putting the results of food safety inspections online, the incidence of food-borne illnesses fell compared with that in neighbouring jurisdictions....

However, engaging with the new web will be a big cultural shock to a Whitehall establishment that has spent billions creating an official online presence and goes to great lengths to control it. The first challenge is cultural. Civil servants are wary of engaging in user-generated sites. Sometimes the willingness is there but the mechanisms lacking.

The first steps in the transfomation of the state by the new Economy is a clear roadmap. The current hierarchy of command and control, of databases and informational policing, will slip away as governments find that their methods do not work and that their consequences are detrimental in the long term. If budgetary restrainst are overcome, we may see new constellations of information restructuring the state: an increasingly important periphery that is utilised and perhaps eventually annexed by the private sector, with a core crisscrossed by the coming 'open source politics'.

Information, services and tax are all closely linked. This may herald the gradual reduction of state structures that technolibertarians anticipated back in the 1990s.

Iraq: Public assurances, Private doubts

A new documentary gives some insights into the policy decisions that exercised the British government during the preparations for the invasion of Iraq. The conclusions aired in interviews are that Tony Blair was aware of the lack of post-war planning undertaken by the Bush administration. This serves as a reminder of the US government's incompetence in executing the war, with Donald Rumsfeld taking much of the blame for the ensuing chaos.

Peter Mandelson says that the Prime Minister knew the preparations were inadequate but said he was powerless to do more.

'Obviously more attention should have been paid to what happened after, to the planning and what we would do once Saddam had been toppled,' Mandelson tells The Observer's chief political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley, who presents the documentary.

'But I remember him saying at the time: "Look, you know, I can't do everything. That's chiefly America's responsibility, not ours."' Mandelson then criticises his friend: 'Well, I'm afraid that, as we now see, wasn't good enough.'.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, also confirmed that George Bush gave Blair a chance to avoid participating in the invasion. This was declined by the Prime Minister alongside public assurances that he was satisfied with the preparations of the United States for the war.

The documentary sheds new light on the war, but is reported within the existing narrative: Blair misled and Bush was negligent in preparing for the war. Interviewed recollections will reinforce existing stories as the participants serve up their memories in line with the strong story. This tells us little or nothing why Blair thought the war was important enough to justify participation even at the risk of future disaster. It also reminds us of the private doubts that sat ill at ease with his hypocritical public assurances.

More respect and less contempt for the boys and girls

The Telegraph holds Blair to his word:

During an interview on British Forces radio last October, Mr Blair said: "If commanders on the ground want more equipment - armoured vehicles, for example, more helicopters - that will be provided. Whatever package they want, we will do."

Then in a later newspaper article Mr Blair later wrote that frontline commanders would get "I promise… whatever they need to complete their job."

So did the commanders:

For the last year commanders have been calling for more transport helicopters but, at a time when thousands more troops have deployed, there are still not enough. This forces the military to make dangerous road trips instead. ...

...But it is the helicopter situation that is becoming the biggest hindrance to success in Afghanistan. It is not just the insufficient number of eight Chinooks or 12 Apache attack helicopters but the crews are being called on to do so many tasks that they are running out of flying hours each month.

However it is the lack of spare parts for Apaches that is causing the most serious problems as the heat and fine dust wear down machines.

What is the response?

The MoD said it was spending £230 million on getting 14 more helicopters in two years time but it was satisfied that commanders currently had enough for operations. However, it was hinted that other Nato countries could do more.

Blair's promise was not fulfilled. Now, troops will continue to fight whilst a new and untested Prime Minister takes office. Blair took the opportunity to pose for photographers and television cameras with the troops. Brown has a reputation for channelling money to welfare and reducing money for the Armed Forces in a time of war. 

Brown may prove less willing to court popularity from visits to the military. It is encouraging that he treats the bombastic procurement of the Ministry of Defence with some scepticism. However, the Ministry requires reform, decent leadership and an ethos of respect for men under arms. The lack of these qualities has contributed to the wider neglect and contempt for the armed forces in our society and culture. Will Brown reverse that trend?

Germany:Unresisting Utopia, Atlanticist Alliance and Russian Dalliance

The strategic entanglements of this decade hasten towards darker waters. Even that pacifistic and masochistic grouping of German peace institutes have noticed this development. It gives them pause for concern:

Germany's security experts are convinced that the world is heading for a new and "more dangerous" atomic age as international conflicts take on further heat. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip, the unresolved nuclear conflict with Iran, surging military spending and ongoing proliferation are just a few things that have Germany's peace and security experts concerned. In their own melodramatic presentation, they call this the Atomic Age, although their remedies for non-proliferation do not appear part of the thinking statesman's policy suite:

"Relentlessly, the major nuclear powers modernize their arsenals and thus undermine the non-proliferation regime and egg on dictators to protect themselves from forced-upon regime changes with nuclear weapons. The Iraq war has supported that notion," Bruno Schoch of the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt said Thursday in Berlin at the official presentation of the Peace Report 2007, which looks at international conflicts around the world and is compiled by Germany's five peace research institutes.

The nuclear conflict with Iran, mentioned already in the past two peace reports, is far from resolved. As sanctions and rhetorical threats haven't managed to convince Tehran to give up its enrichment program, the international community should talk to Iran about "security guarantees, steps to a nuclear weapons-free zone and a multilateralization of its uranium enrichment program," the experts proposed.

They have tried diplomacy and other such ploys. Iran said "No" as they wish to possess nuclear weapons. Nor does the coded call for disarming Israel of its nuclear capability sit well with an aggressive country that has called for the eradication of the Middle east's only liberal democracy. This reliance upon rational actors in multinational arenas is a reactionary strategy harking back to a liberal internationalism that died out in the 1990s.

Their other policy puffs are no less suicidal:

"What (the German army) must or should do + and what not + remains in the dark," Schoch said. The report thus urged Germany to develop a set of criteria to be attached to further military missions. They should:

+ be in accordance with the U.N. charter.
+ have a peacekeeping-related background and not be motivated by "power, influence or alliance policy."
+ come only after diplomatic options have failed.
+ carry clear goals to be achieved in the foreign country.
+ be evaluated after their completion.
+ include an exit strategy.

If Germany does not act in terms of its national interests, those evil triumvirs of "power, influence and alliance policy [NATO]", then it will prove a sad, defenceless giant that still depends upon the United States for defence against resurgent states in the Middle East and a regressive Russia. However, the detrimental consequences of this utopian policy, and the loss of influence in multinational bodies would soon return Germany to the assessment and current bipolar implementation of its interests: Atlanticist alliances and Russian dalliances.

MOD and the Grim Reaper

The Register has kept tabs on the methods that the Ministry of Defence used to develop a British UAV industry that imports technology from Israel, relies on a joint venture with Thales and pays twice as much as the United States does for Reaper, their own drone. The article puts the cost succinctly:

Another way of looking at the comparison, then, is that the UK is paying Reaper prices for smaller, less capable machines. That's no surprise; Reapers are made on an established production line, whereas Britain is setting up new UK factories to build the Watchkeeper. The prime contractor, French-owned Thales UK, reckons that Blighty will benefit to the tune of 2,100 well-paid jobs (paid for, of course, by the other people who live in the UK).

When the defence industry is established with a regard for factories in vote sensitive constituencies, we can rest assured that the best decision was not taken up:

But it would probably have been a lot cheaper and quicker to just ask Elbit and/or the Americans to build a Watchkeeper-type platform, rather than setting up a competing UK drone industry with imported tech. The UK wouldn't have got any well-paid civilian jobs, but it would have saved money and time. With poorly-paid, poorly-equipped British troops fighting and dying at the moment, that might have been a good thing - especially as we've now had to import machinery from Israel anyway.

Still, in the bad old days, the brass hats and mandarins of Whitehall might have tried to cover all this up under the cloak of "operational necessity." At least they're letting us know what's going on this time

Brown's Constitutional Reform

Gordon Brown finds that the revival of the European Constitution will not play to the audiences. A few days ago, we were told that the PM to be was concerned that Blair would bump him into a treaty without any consultation, binding his freedom of manoevre.

Now, events have begun to crowd out this concern. The 'period of reflection' after the negative referenda witnessed two camps: the 'constitutionalists' who wanted all matters of substance to remain and the sceptics who preferred constitution-lite. From Markel's correspondence publicised today, the substantve negotiations favour the 'constitutionalists'.

Mrs Merkel, in a gesture to Britain, France and the Netherlands, said in the report that they could have a smaller “amending treaty” which would not be called a constitution. But she added that the rest regarded this as a “major concession” and insisted “on the need to preserve the substance of the innovations agreed” in the past.

She also appeared to accept that the controversial charter of fundamental rights, which Britain is trying to keep out of the treaty, would be “legally binding” even if it was left out, by having a “crossreference” in the body of the treaty.

If all the substantive parts of the Constitution, setting up a new state and extending the veto, Brown will start his reign with a dishonest decision: reneging on allowing a say from the people in favour of signing up to the latest Treaty. This will prove to be damaging, especially as Giscard D'Estaing does not mind writing in Le Monde:

The German Chancellor’s plan was revealed as Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President and author of the constitution, wrote in Le Monde that by making “cosmetic” changes to the constitution “public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly”. That would reinforce the idea among European citizens that Europe is a machinery “organised behind their backs by jurists and diplomats”.

He argued in Le Monde that “if governments agree on a simplified treaty preserving the essential institutional advances, they should not be afraid to say so and write so”. Efforts were underway to try to “conserve part of the innovations of the Constitutional Treaty and to camouflage them by breaking them up into several texts”.

He said: “The most innovative elements will be the object of simple amendments to the Maastricht and Nice treaties. The technical improvements would be regrouped into a bland and painless treaty. The sum of these texts will be presented to parliaments, which will vote on them separately. Thus public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them ‘directly’.”

Even the original railroader has sensed that his cold feet are telling him something, especially as politicians have probably been insufficiently grateful for his original rejection of popular participation.

The referendum was designed to park the Constitution. One can hear the BBC giving minimal airtime to this new development, as publicity will  fuel scepticism - does this only deserve one line on the Today programme? Brown faces a fundamental dilemma that will destroy his reputation for honesty or estrange his relations with Europe. Who does he value more: his people or his peers?