The Future Now

Against Israeli Policy, Against anti-semitism

Jonathan Freedland has an excellent piece in today's Guardian about the double standards of those on the liberal/left in respect of the tendency of some to associate all Muslims with acts of terror, and all Jews with Israeli government policy in Gaza. 

Nobody should be subject to abuse, assault or attacks on their property because they share religious beliefs with others who commit atrocities. 

In Britain, there remains a nasty, simmering anti-semitism that seems to surface at regular intervals. It is a prejudice which appears to go beyond the fear/dislike of 'other' cultures that seems to underpin many people's attitudes to members of the Muslim community. 

Anti-semitism must not be tolerated.  But the absolute rejection of anti-semitism is perfectly compatible with condemning Israeli government policy in Gaza, which I do unreservedly.  I also condemn Hamas for firing rockets at civilian populations, although I do think the plight of the Palestinian people is as close as any population could get to having just cause for resort to military action against an oppressor.

No brave new world, yet

Depite all the talk of a new Bretton Woods, there is remarkably little reporting of the outcome of  this weekend's Washington summit in this morning’s press.  But then it was never likely that the Washington summit would make real progress towards addressing the underlying causes of the economic crisis.  There is little in the final communique to suggest that any real lessons have been learned.  Nobody is questioning the fundamental nature of the global economic arrangements that have brought us to this point, nor is anyone prepared to admit that the system of global finance, which is supposed to support the real economy, has morphed into monster that routinely undermines it.

There is a simple reason for this depressing lack of action:  Despite a string of bank failures, mounting unemployment, and general acceptance that the forthcoming recession will be long and deep, too few people in the countries that matter have yet to feel sufficient pain to force politicians into the kind of common-interest negotiating position that inspired the post-war economic consensus.

Obama plays hardball

On his tour of Europe and the Middle East Barack Obama has been making all the right noises as far as getting elected in November is concerned.  On Tuesday he went out of his way to make clear that "the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon".

Although he said he wished to see "a viable and peaceful Palestinian state",  he was at his most forthright when he said "I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat", thus aligning himself with a policy that even senior figures in the Bush administration now appear to be having second thoughts about.

Now, I didn't assume for one minute that Obama was a fundamentally different kind of politician; although in many ways he is a breath of fresh air.  You don't get almost to the top of the greasy pole of American politics without being hard as nails, and without being willing to sacrifice whatever principles you started out with in pursuit of electoral success.

But it would be good to know what Obama really thinks and feels about issues like the Middle East; and, assuming he is inclined towards a more balanced view on the Israel/Palestine question than is usual for senior (ie successful)  American politicians, whether he has a plan, post-election, to rekindle a peace process that is effectively dead in the water.

My bet is that, although a man of substance and intellect, like nearly all politicians today, Obama has no principled position on this issue (or indeed any other).  What he may have is a general sense that the long term interests of the United States are best served by a more collaborative and inclusive foreign policy than that practiced by the current administration, but you can be sure that the degree of inclusiveness will be determined by electoral realities. 

Obama will do and say whatever it takes to get elected, and in the process will commit himself to policies, and to relationships with vested interests, in the United States and elsewhere, that have little to do with genuine democracy.   That process has already begun.  Hawks in the Israeli administration will be breathing a sigh of relief.  Decent Israelis, who long for a just peace with the Palestinians, and, of course, the Palestinians themselves, would appear to have little to get excited about at the prospect of an Obama White House.

Behaviour as old as the hills

The always sound Martin Jacques has a very good piece at comment is free on power, the hypocrisy of the Western nations' stance on Iran's potential nuclear capability, and the bias of the International Criminal Court when it comes to policing war crimes.

A return to the old ways

Good to see Conor Foley back at comment is free with his opinions on the speech yesterday by David Miliband, Britain's Foreign Minister, who seemed to be saying that we should turn back the clock to a time when the world was run by an elite group of rich nations purely in their self interest.

Miliband's speech is a perfect example of the process of legitimisation through which dubious policies, like the invasion of Iraq, enacted without parliamentary consultation, and against the democratic will, are subject to a gradual process through which they are made to appear reasonable and proper.  The intention of this process, is, of course, to make it easier to get approval for similar interventions in the future.

It's surely no coincidence that Miliband's speech comes just at the point when the great experiment to create a global deregulated market economy is beginning to come apart at the seams.  That project, if the promises of its architects were to be believed, was to have created global prosperity and conditions in which perceptions of injustice within and between nations would diminish and democracy would flourish. 

It was never going to happen, and now the chickens are coming home to roost, Miliband and the unprincipled guardians of the Britain's Labour government, have no option but to push gently back in the direction of managing the world through quasi-imperial dictat.

At a time when the new Australia Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is sufficiently courageous to apologise publicly for the worst colonial excesses of his nation, and with the possbililty of an Obama White House within a year, how depressing that the Brits feel it necessary to ramp up the neo-con rhetoric.  Where is the vision, where are the values?

08:45 update: I've just read Simon Jenkins piece on this subject.  It's worth a read.

The continuing collapse of a once great culture

Edward Lucas of The Economist has a good piece in today's Guardian in which he concisely appraises the state of democarcy, society and the economy in Putin's Russia.

I'm glad he is able to find words to describe the magnitude of the catastrophe overtaking the Russian people because, quite frankly, I can't.  He begins,

Capitalism is amoral, verging on the immoral. What makes it tolerable is constraint and redress. Voters, consumers, shareholders, public officials, lawyers, legislators, journalists and pressure groups are counterweights to the ruthless and narrow pursuit of private profit. That doesn't work perfectly in the west, but it doesn't work at all in Vladimir Putin's Russia, where the fusion of political and economic power is complete.

He goes on to make the point that because the left has been targeting its ire on the Bush administration, and the global impact of its policies, it has taken its eye of the ball as far as Russia is concerned. 

At least the British government has taken a firm stand over the Litvinenko affair, but it will take a coordinated international effort to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the morally bankrupt regime in Moscow. 

It's very difficult to see a way forward.  A first step must be to ensure the next US administration is not encumbered by hawks for whom a strong and corrupt Russia provides a ready excuse for continuing with the outdated policies of the cold war.  Beyond that, let's hope large numbers of influential people get hold of Lucas's new book, which looks like an essential read.

America's choices

With the presidential primaries entering a crucial phase (super Tuesday is now less than a fortnight away), the New York Times has published it's endorsements.  And they're worth a read.

It's supporting Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, largely on the basis of her experience and the fact that she's demonstrated a willingness to learn from her mistakes.  And because the new President will need to hit the ground running, and Clinton would seem more able in that respect.

As it points out, there is little difference between Clinton and Obama on policy issues, both  ...

.... promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

If either of them make it to the White House and are able to make serious progress in respect of any of these aims, there will be much cause for celebration, both in the States and around the world.  Encouragingly Americans seem ready for change.

The Times doesn't mention the possibility of a dream ticket, with Obama as Clinton's running mate, but it does urge an end to the current feuding.  I don't think the recent spats between the two campaigns preclude such a partnership, assuming Mrs Clinton does take a clear lead.  It's inevitable when politics is driven by the media and voters are encouraged to make up their minds on the basis of candidates' gladiatorial qualities, that things will get nasty.

As for the Republicans: while unable to get too excited, the paper goes for John McCain as the best of a bad bunch.  McCain at least has some integrity, and while not the moderate he would make himself out to be, his would be a clear improvement on the Bush administration.

Rudolph Giuliani, who despite not having yet properly entered the campaign remains in contention, gets very short shrift.  Despite his initially positive record as Mayor of New York,

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

I didn't like him the first time I set eyes on him!

My prediction:  Clinton/Obama versus McCain/Huckabee, with a comfortable win for the Democrats, but no landslide.

Oxfam at Davos

Barbara Stocking, Chief Exec of Oxfam, has a brave piece at comment is free.  She defends the presence of Oxfam at the World Economic Forum in Davos, arguing that

For every selfish capitalist, there is an enlightened businessperson inspired by the challenge of global poverty and committed to changing the way they operate to help end it. They are important not solely because they care, but because many of them in are in positions of significant influence and can therefore do something about it.

It's a difficult one, for while Ms Stocking may have some very productive conversations with some of the attendees, and may well obtain support or sponsorship for some of Oxfam's initiatives and projects in the developing world, she is not likely to persuade anyone that the problems of the poor world are a direct consequence of the way in which the global economy is structured. 

And it is the structure of the economy that has enabled those who go to Davos to make their fortunes.  I'm not saying the poor are poor because the rich are rich, only that under the current system, the means by which the rich get rich necessarily reduce the life chances of those at the bottom, be they in rich countries or poor ones.

There is a rapidly growing band of African millionaires, but this has led to no change in the situation of most Africans, and nor will it.

When it comes to poverty alleviation, there are two options:  Allow a minority to exploit an unjust system, and then lobby for them to give a share of their wealth to reduce poverty, as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros have done very generously.  Or, arrange things so that the disadvantaged have a fair chance in life and can access the means to their own economic security.  This would permanently reduce the amount of suffering in the world, whereas charitable aid often amounts to little more than short-term sticking plaster.

Ms Stocking is in a difficult position.  If she spent her time attacking the means by which the wealthy get rich, she probably wouldn't be invited to Davos.  But it is to be hoped that organisations like Oxfam remember the true roots of poverty, and don't just settle for crumbs from the tables of the rich and powerful.

Change the world

Comment is free is running a series under the banner Change the world following last weekend's Fabian Society conference on the same theme.

I guess one shouldn't expect too much with the Miliband brothers so centrally involved, but there is little sign in the conference programme of any debate about the causal links between an economy which fails so many and the political reactions of players on both sides of the growing cultural divide, nor as yet in the pieces on CiF.  I shall be watching with interest, and will wade into the debate if time permits.

Weathering the storm

I have a new post over at Comment is Free just now.  It's about the dreadful floods affecting parts of Mozambique, where I lived for a while and to which I still feel an attachment.  The piece asks the simple question, if we can't manage to sort out our own society and economy so that the poor can be protected from floods, what hope is there for the people of Mozambique?