Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Domestic intrusion: Brown's budget deficit for this fiscal year will overshoot by at least £10bn.
This is part of the cost that foot and mouth wreaked on the British economy. What comes around, comes around.
This is part of the cost that foot and mouth wreaked on the British economy. What comes around, comes around.
Stalling for Time
Reports from the IGC confirmed that the countries were unwilling to extend qualified majority voting or hand the power of confirming the EU budget to the European Parliament.
The European Presidency, bestowed on Italy, has proposed a clumsy solution to the objections of the smaller countries over the removal of presiding rotation.
All member states accept that the current six-month rotation must go. It will be replaced with a system where each of the "sectoral" ministerial councils -- dealing with agriculture, transport or environment, for example -- gets its own rotating "team presidency." Most popular options are said to range from three-five countries per team, running the given council for 18-24 months.
Frattini said last night "practically everyone" had agreed with the general principle. "Now, there is a fairly general consensus on the rotation issue. Many feel that the principles should be enshrined in the [constitutional] treaty. And that these principles must be very firmly held. There should be equal access, parity of access to the presidency, there should be equal rotation, which should be basically equal rotation among all member states, big and small, old, and new. There should also be some consideration of the geographical balance in each team presidency, and it should be a system which would make the whole procedure functional," Frattini said.
This confusing and bureaucratic structure is indicative of the compromises that will be necessary if the IGC wishes to draft a revised constitution. They are aiming for an ambitious timetable in which this will be completed:
But gradually, national positions have emerged and the Italian presidency is now proposing to release an overall, comprehensive draft text of the constitution by late November. Foreign ministers will then meet 27-28 November in the Italian city of Naples, where most of the text -- in theory, at least -- should be approved. On 12-13 December, an EU summit is to put the finishing touches on the final document.
The other outstanding issues (extension of qualified majority voting, foreign and security policy and Spanish/Polish opposition to the demographic component of QMV) remain unresolved.
If anyone wants to pick up a free copy of the draft constitution, there's one in this month's issue of Prospect.
(28th October 2003, 22.43)
Reports from the IGC confirmed that the countries were unwilling to extend qualified majority voting or hand the power of confirming the EU budget to the European Parliament.
The European Presidency, bestowed on Italy, has proposed a clumsy solution to the objections of the smaller countries over the removal of presiding rotation.
All member states accept that the current six-month rotation must go. It will be replaced with a system where each of the "sectoral" ministerial councils -- dealing with agriculture, transport or environment, for example -- gets its own rotating "team presidency." Most popular options are said to range from three-five countries per team, running the given council for 18-24 months.
Frattini said last night "practically everyone" had agreed with the general principle. "Now, there is a fairly general consensus on the rotation issue. Many feel that the principles should be enshrined in the [constitutional] treaty. And that these principles must be very firmly held. There should be equal access, parity of access to the presidency, there should be equal rotation, which should be basically equal rotation among all member states, big and small, old, and new. There should also be some consideration of the geographical balance in each team presidency, and it should be a system which would make the whole procedure functional," Frattini said.
This confusing and bureaucratic structure is indicative of the compromises that will be necessary if the IGC wishes to draft a revised constitution. They are aiming for an ambitious timetable in which this will be completed:
But gradually, national positions have emerged and the Italian presidency is now proposing to release an overall, comprehensive draft text of the constitution by late November. Foreign ministers will then meet 27-28 November in the Italian city of Naples, where most of the text -- in theory, at least -- should be approved. On 12-13 December, an EU summit is to put the finishing touches on the final document.
The other outstanding issues (extension of qualified majority voting, foreign and security policy and Spanish/Polish opposition to the demographic component of QMV) remain unresolved.
If anyone wants to pick up a free copy of the draft constitution, there's one in this month's issue of Prospect.
(28th October 2003, 22.43)
The European Council finally agreed on an EU wide framework for energy taxation, one more step on the road to a carbon tax. The usual policies included support for emissions, exemptions for public transport and renewable energy production and the exemptions for air transport fuel will remain so long as existing international arrangements remain in place.
The reason for the directive was to reduce "distortions in competition".
reduce the distortions in competition that currently exist between energy products - only mineral oils have been subject to EU tax legislation up to now and not coal, natural gas or electricity;
The reason for the directive was to reduce "distortions in competition".
reduce the distortions in competition that currently exist between energy products - only mineral oils have been subject to EU tax legislation up to now and not coal, natural gas or electricity;
Monday, October 27, 2003
Referendum for Scotland
The SNP have called for a referendum in Scotland on the European Constitution. They would campaign in support of the draft except for the right to veto EU control over fishing to protect Scottish waters. After the mess of the common fisheries policy, I can't blame them and it's a step in the right direction.
If the nationalists consider that a Eurosceptic tinge might garner votes, this might prove interesting in the devolved assemblies. Labour's response was Arrogant, Righteous, Slanderous and in Error:
A Labour Party spokeswoman said the SNP move was another example of the Nationalists’ obsession with constitutional matters.
She added: "It seems to be part of a pattern of the SNP becoming more Eurosceptic and it perhaps has more to do with them trying to shore up their vote from the right."
Might be one approach - non binding referenda in the regions, whether funded by devolved assemblies or on a private basis. Souter's approach on Clause 28 was one example of this.
(27th October 2003, 20.24)
The SNP have called for a referendum in Scotland on the European Constitution. They would campaign in support of the draft except for the right to veto EU control over fishing to protect Scottish waters. After the mess of the common fisheries policy, I can't blame them and it's a step in the right direction.
If the nationalists consider that a Eurosceptic tinge might garner votes, this might prove interesting in the devolved assemblies. Labour's response was Arrogant, Righteous, Slanderous and in Error:
A Labour Party spokeswoman said the SNP move was another example of the Nationalists’ obsession with constitutional matters.
She added: "It seems to be part of a pattern of the SNP becoming more Eurosceptic and it perhaps has more to do with them trying to shore up their vote from the right."
Might be one approach - non binding referenda in the regions, whether funded by devolved assemblies or on a private basis. Souter's approach on Clause 28 was one example of this.
(27th October 2003, 20.24)
Constitutional Developments
The Assembly of the Western European Union, noting the disunity over defence in the intergovernmental conference, proposed on the 21st October 2003, that a mutual defence clause reinforcing NATO's role, should form an optional annexe to the Constitution allowing each member state to sign. New Europe favouring the variable geometry model?
The Council of Foreign Ministers, meeting today, proved unwilling to sanction the extension of the European Parliament's powers, as set out in the draft Constitution. Further detail can be found on EuObserver, which states from a report sourced in the FT that finance ministers wish to keep their authority over budgetary matters and the Growth and Stability Pact. This is further evidence that the intergovernmental model is preferred by the Member States, especially when it comes to crucial policies that impact upon fiscal, defence or foreign policy. The integrationist model, based upon supranational European institutions, like the Parliament and the Commission, will not be realised.
(27th October 2003, 20.17)
The Assembly of the Western European Union, noting the disunity over defence in the intergovernmental conference, proposed on the 21st October 2003, that a mutual defence clause reinforcing NATO's role, should form an optional annexe to the Constitution allowing each member state to sign. New Europe favouring the variable geometry model?
The Council of Foreign Ministers, meeting today, proved unwilling to sanction the extension of the European Parliament's powers, as set out in the draft Constitution. Further detail can be found on EuObserver, which states from a report sourced in the FT that finance ministers wish to keep their authority over budgetary matters and the Growth and Stability Pact. This is further evidence that the intergovernmental model is preferred by the Member States, especially when it comes to crucial policies that impact upon fiscal, defence or foreign policy. The integrationist model, based upon supranational European institutions, like the Parliament and the Commission, will not be realised.
(27th October 2003, 20.17)
Sunday, October 26, 2003
The Pact
The European Union's Growth and Stability Pact has proved that, if reality undermines laws, laws give way. Both France and Germany, struggling with economic stagnation and reform programmes, have proved unwilling to apply a Bruning scourge to their electorates. The European Commission has discovered that EU law cannot be applied to the larger countries and that, therefore, its enshrined role as guardian of the 'European interest' is limited by their national interests.
This is more evidence that power within the EU is shared between the institutions located in Brussels and the capitals of the Big Five, especially Berlin and Paris. This also explains why the smaller countries wish to combine and obtain a voice within this intergovernmental/institutional mix. However, this fusion of nation-states and supranational institutions is inherently unstable: it is subjected to an ideology of integration that hopes to acquire more powers at the supranational level and undermined by the centripetal demands of Member States that take unilateral action in order to safeguard their own interests. The integrationist dynamic is accompanied by a history of ossified compromises that are gradually eroding the productive elements of the European economy.
Economic, social or political reform at the European level does not exist. These programmes are carried out within individual countries and if, EU law proves an obstacle, it is circumvented. Perhaps economic stagnation has demonstrated the limits of the European project and we have seen the high tide of integration in practice as politicians and poliymakers act at a national level to reform their economies, although it may take a lot longer for the political wave to recede and unravel.
(26th October 2003, 12.57)
The European Union's Growth and Stability Pact has proved that, if reality undermines laws, laws give way. Both France and Germany, struggling with economic stagnation and reform programmes, have proved unwilling to apply a Bruning scourge to their electorates. The European Commission has discovered that EU law cannot be applied to the larger countries and that, therefore, its enshrined role as guardian of the 'European interest' is limited by their national interests.
This is more evidence that power within the EU is shared between the institutions located in Brussels and the capitals of the Big Five, especially Berlin and Paris. This also explains why the smaller countries wish to combine and obtain a voice within this intergovernmental/institutional mix. However, this fusion of nation-states and supranational institutions is inherently unstable: it is subjected to an ideology of integration that hopes to acquire more powers at the supranational level and undermined by the centripetal demands of Member States that take unilateral action in order to safeguard their own interests. The integrationist dynamic is accompanied by a history of ossified compromises that are gradually eroding the productive elements of the European economy.
Economic, social or political reform at the European level does not exist. These programmes are carried out within individual countries and if, EU law proves an obstacle, it is circumvented. Perhaps economic stagnation has demonstrated the limits of the European project and we have seen the high tide of integration in practice as politicians and poliymakers act at a national level to reform their economies, although it may take a lot longer for the political wave to recede and unravel.
(26th October 2003, 12.57)
Friday, October 24, 2003
The problem with obtaining leaked documents is that you cannot assess their full impact upon the policy of a particular country or institution. The Telegraph produced a memorandum from the German Army setting out the structure of a proposed European Army, accountable to a European government, financed by subventions from the European Parliament and integrating the existing nuclear capabilities of existing EU Member States. The problem with such cloud castles is that they never detail how we would get from here to there.
The document is of some concern and provides yet more evidence of the integrationist ambitions amongst the defence staffs of Germany and the other chocolate starfish. Even Blair or New Labour are unwilling to cross that red line at the moment.
What the events of the last two weeks demonstrate is that Blair is unable to function within the world of diplomacy. His injudicious recognition of Franco-German defence ambitions in Berlin did not produce a softening of their opposition to Iraq; it only strengthened their determination to create an independent European defence force, knowing that Blair would provide support as part of his wider campaign to maintain an 'intergovernmental constitution'.
The document is of some concern and provides yet more evidence of the integrationist ambitions amongst the defence staffs of Germany and the other chocolate starfish. Even Blair or New Labour are unwilling to cross that red line at the moment.
What the events of the last two weeks demonstrate is that Blair is unable to function within the world of diplomacy. His injudicious recognition of Franco-German defence ambitions in Berlin did not produce a softening of their opposition to Iraq; it only strengthened their determination to create an independent European defence force, knowing that Blair would provide support as part of his wider campaign to maintain an 'intergovernmental constitution'.
The Ministry of Defence has announced its decision to fund a new satellite communications system through the British based Paradigm consortium, for the sum of £2.5bn. The system, known as Skynet 5, will involve two new military satellites that will replace the Skynet 4 satellites in use at the moment. At least one will be launched in 2005.
The project was outsourced to EADS, who will provide the communication services as well as the satellites. There must be a question mark about whether such military communications should be managed by a multinational that has close links to the French and German defence establishments. The MOD would cite the use of 'Chinese walls' in EADS but this contract compromises the security of British defence.
The project was outsourced to EADS, who will provide the communication services as well as the satellites. There must be a question mark about whether such military communications should be managed by a multinational that has close links to the French and German defence establishments. The MOD would cite the use of 'Chinese walls' in EADS but this contract compromises the security of British defence.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
There was an explanation for British officers in Burundi. In smaller theatres, the First World is moving to a model of 'peacekeeping by proxy', funding troops from the region to support peace processes.
Client troops to disarm troublesome rebels who are bad for business. However, one of the rebel groups gets the Guinness record for longest name: "the Conseil national pour la defense de la democratie-Forces pour la defense de la democratie of Jean Bosco Ndayikengurukiye"
Client troops to disarm troublesome rebels who are bad for business. However, one of the rebel groups gets the Guinness record for longest name: "the Conseil national pour la defense de la democratie-Forces pour la defense de la democratie of Jean Bosco Ndayikengurukiye"
Wobbling
Britain was issuing contradictory and worrying statements on the establishment of an EU military planning capability over the last few days. The public support that Blair gave to this project convinced the United States that they could not rely upon the useful strategy of allowing Great Britain to defend their interests. The dispute was escalated through judicious public statements that reminded certain offshore islands of their client status; and put continentals on notice that their plan was viewed as a futile distraction.
The intervention of the United States is not an early bid to prevent the rise of an alternative power to thenmselves. Lord Robertson's disparaging reference to "paper armies" is a better guide to US thought in this matter. The superpower does not wish to see NATO degraded as the alliance is auseful tool for deploying support troops, especially now that it engages in out of area exercises.
We probably ought to be grateful that the US leash is curbing Blair's appetite for European integration. One wonders if the pressure applied led to increased stress levels this weekend.
Britain was issuing contradictory and worrying statements on the establishment of an EU military planning capability over the last few days. The public support that Blair gave to this project convinced the United States that they could not rely upon the useful strategy of allowing Great Britain to defend their interests. The dispute was escalated through judicious public statements that reminded certain offshore islands of their client status; and put continentals on notice that their plan was viewed as a futile distraction.
The intervention of the United States is not an early bid to prevent the rise of an alternative power to thenmselves. Lord Robertson's disparaging reference to "paper armies" is a better guide to US thought in this matter. The superpower does not wish to see NATO degraded as the alliance is auseful tool for deploying support troops, especially now that it engages in out of area exercises.
We probably ought to be grateful that the US leash is curbing Blair's appetite for European integration. One wonders if the pressure applied led to increased stress levels this weekend.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Will Hutton...?
You can add your own sentence here for wish fulfilllment. However, he did write another sermon on why we should support Europe in the starry eyed manner that we have become accustomed to reading. Hutton could never descend to mixing criticism with scepticism, leading to the odd marriage of analysis and panting fervour that the Observer printed last Sunday.
Starry eyed idealism:
The European Union is a success. Its 25 members are discussing proposals for a new, carefully crafted constitution that will make it at once more governable and more democratic - a pipedream even 18 months ago. Its new currency reaches new highs against the dollar. It is about to take over peacekeeping in Bosnia from Nato. It is a fast-developing, positive and progressive force.
Yet it does not live up to its ideals because errant national leaders have this flaw: they stand up for the interests of their nations - presumably the purpose for which they were elected. Hutton almost sounds like a Eurosceptic in his recognition that the EU and the 'rule of law' are distant cousins.
But the crisis has not passed; it has deepened. Europe is weaker. EU processes are revealed as a sham. There is plainly one rule for the big states and another for the small, as EU Commissioner Fritz Bolkenstein said bitterly last week;
A conservative would view this development as a natural consequence of the difference in power between the smaller and the larger countries in Europe. There is not an awful lot that you can do about it. However, Hutton has to fall back upon his idealism in order to counter the forces of nationalism. (He demonstrates his Europhilia by linking, without any historical explanation, the volkisch nationalism of Germany and the institutionalism of the UK - in the figurehead of IDS). His final argument for the EU is that nations must band together because they can, and that when they do so, the results are jolly good.
On Friday evening Danuta Hubner and Noelle Lenoir, the Polish and French Ministers for Europe, joined the German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok - chairman of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Committee - in making the case for European integration simply because it is better for nations to collaborate than not, and because citizens thus get a better purchase on events and more sovereignty.
No wonder they are losing the debate with this feeble nonsense. And, as a final reminder of how progressives view democracy when it is the wrong result, here is Hutton on the Swedes:
But then, neither do Gerhardt Schröder, Silvio Berlusconi or Jacques Chirac. These are times when national leaders feed their publics a populist diet of the sanctity of national sovereignty and suspicion of the foreign 'other' - and citizens are more suspicious than ever of appeals for Europe - witness the scale of Sweden's 'no' vote to the euro.
And I thought the Swedish leaders were in favour...
You can add your own sentence here for wish fulfilllment. However, he did write another sermon on why we should support Europe in the starry eyed manner that we have become accustomed to reading. Hutton could never descend to mixing criticism with scepticism, leading to the odd marriage of analysis and panting fervour that the Observer printed last Sunday.
Starry eyed idealism:
The European Union is a success. Its 25 members are discussing proposals for a new, carefully crafted constitution that will make it at once more governable and more democratic - a pipedream even 18 months ago. Its new currency reaches new highs against the dollar. It is about to take over peacekeeping in Bosnia from Nato. It is a fast-developing, positive and progressive force.
Yet it does not live up to its ideals because errant national leaders have this flaw: they stand up for the interests of their nations - presumably the purpose for which they were elected. Hutton almost sounds like a Eurosceptic in his recognition that the EU and the 'rule of law' are distant cousins.
But the crisis has not passed; it has deepened. Europe is weaker. EU processes are revealed as a sham. There is plainly one rule for the big states and another for the small, as EU Commissioner Fritz Bolkenstein said bitterly last week;
A conservative would view this development as a natural consequence of the difference in power between the smaller and the larger countries in Europe. There is not an awful lot that you can do about it. However, Hutton has to fall back upon his idealism in order to counter the forces of nationalism. (He demonstrates his Europhilia by linking, without any historical explanation, the volkisch nationalism of Germany and the institutionalism of the UK - in the figurehead of IDS). His final argument for the EU is that nations must band together because they can, and that when they do so, the results are jolly good.
On Friday evening Danuta Hubner and Noelle Lenoir, the Polish and French Ministers for Europe, joined the German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok - chairman of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Committee - in making the case for European integration simply because it is better for nations to collaborate than not, and because citizens thus get a better purchase on events and more sovereignty.
No wonder they are losing the debate with this feeble nonsense. And, as a final reminder of how progressives view democracy when it is the wrong result, here is Hutton on the Swedes:
But then, neither do Gerhardt Schröder, Silvio Berlusconi or Jacques Chirac. These are times when national leaders feed their publics a populist diet of the sanctity of national sovereignty and suspicion of the foreign 'other' - and citizens are more suspicious than ever of appeals for Europe - witness the scale of Sweden's 'no' vote to the euro.
And I thought the Swedish leaders were in favour...
Straw responded to a question from Joe Bossano, Gibraltar's Leader of the Opposition, guaranteeing the territory's right to self-determination at the Labour Conference. Such a pledge is not watertight until it is voiced in Parliament.
France and Germany appear to have convinced the Communist leadership in China that closer ties with the European Union would be beneficial. Following on from the recent agreement on Galileo, both sides appear to favour closer ties on economic and political grounds. They also wish to develop a closer military bond with the communists and make a profit.
France and Germany have been pushing hardest for closer ties with China, hoping to cash in on a lucrative market but also to develop a strategic alliance as a counterweight to American power after the diplomatic trauma of the Iraq war.
Last June, the French defence minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, proposed sharing sensitive military technology with Beijing. She called for a softening of the arms embargo imposed on the country after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.
Another reason to leave the European Union as it develops dreams of grandeur incommensurate with its present capabilities or forthcoming decline. However, the French or the Germans will have to overcome opposition from the 'ethical' smaller countries.
France and Germany have been pushing hardest for closer ties with China, hoping to cash in on a lucrative market but also to develop a strategic alliance as a counterweight to American power after the diplomatic trauma of the Iraq war.
Last June, the French defence minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, proposed sharing sensitive military technology with Beijing. She called for a softening of the arms embargo imposed on the country after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.
Another reason to leave the European Union as it develops dreams of grandeur incommensurate with its present capabilities or forthcoming decline. However, the French or the Germans will have to overcome opposition from the 'ethical' smaller countries.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Blair appears to be reinvigorating the European branch of his foreign policy. Now that the Bush administration can no longer take a tough line over issues of European defence, Blair appears to be supporting the development of an EU military force independent of NATO, according to a report in Der Spiegel.
However, as there is no official announcement, this may be an attempt to set the agenda and give the impression that the defence policy has gained new impetus. Treat with caution.
However, as there is no official announcement, this may be an attempt to set the agenda and give the impression that the defence policy has gained new impetus. Treat with caution.
As the Spanish and the Poles have proved intransigent in their demands, the institutional debates scheduled for the end of October have now been brought forward, by the Italian Presidency, to next weekend. These will focus on the role of the number of Commissioners and the role of the proposed Foreign Minister.
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Quite Amusing
Sinn Fein has a sense of irony. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, where a convicted criminal was retained by the army and relocated to Northern Ireland, Pat Doherty's comment shows that Sinn Fein cannot comment on domestic affairs unless they clean up the Augean stables in their own organisation.
Sinn Fein MP Pat Doherty has called for Craven to be removed from duties in the province.
"This decision again shows the contempt with which the British Army hold Ireland and Irish people," the West Tyrone MP said.
"We already know they are quite happy to have convicted murderers in their ranks and the decision to place a violent criminal on to our streets will come as no surprise.
"However, I am publicly calling on Paul Murphy to make a statement on this matter and for the British military to remove this criminal from our country".
No doubt he will be calling for the expulsion of all Sinn Fein members with a criminal record as they are unfit for public duty. Pot kettle etc. etc.
(11th October 2003, 9.53)
Sinn Fein has a sense of irony. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, where a convicted criminal was retained by the army and relocated to Northern Ireland, Pat Doherty's comment shows that Sinn Fein cannot comment on domestic affairs unless they clean up the Augean stables in their own organisation.
Sinn Fein MP Pat Doherty has called for Craven to be removed from duties in the province.
"This decision again shows the contempt with which the British Army hold Ireland and Irish people," the West Tyrone MP said.
"We already know they are quite happy to have convicted murderers in their ranks and the decision to place a violent criminal on to our streets will come as no surprise.
"However, I am publicly calling on Paul Murphy to make a statement on this matter and for the British military to remove this criminal from our country".
No doubt he will be calling for the expulsion of all Sinn Fein members with a criminal record as they are unfit for public duty. Pot kettle etc. etc.
(11th October 2003, 9.53)
New Peacekeeper Commitment?
A British military team were visiting Jaffna in Sri Lanka to assess the security situation. Was it a possible prelude to the deployment of international peacekeepers (including British soldiers) in order to allow Blair to bask in the glow of the Gladstonian sun?
Tamilnet also said that Sri Lankan tactics, based upon British counter-insurgency, methods failed. I don't see them celebrating their independence, do you?
(11th October 2003, 9.42).
A British military team were visiting Jaffna in Sri Lanka to assess the security situation. Was it a possible prelude to the deployment of international peacekeepers (including British soldiers) in order to allow Blair to bask in the glow of the Gladstonian sun?
Tamilnet also said that Sri Lankan tactics, based upon British counter-insurgency, methods failed. I don't see them celebrating their independence, do you?
(11th October 2003, 9.42).
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Our Finest Hour
If the Chagossians had been armed to the teeth, there is a distinct possibility that they would not have been deported from their strategic island, Diego Garcia. The FO considered their court case an irritating distraction as this terse statement from Bill Rammell revealed:
The Court has dismissed in their entirety the claims brought against the British Government and the BIOT Commissioner. We have always maintained that the proceedings were misconceived and in any case were not the way forward to find long term solutions to the Chagossian community's problems.
Their eviction from the Chagos archipelago under the 1971 Immigration Ordinance had already been declared "unlawful" in an earlier case. However, their claims for repatriation and compensation were dismissed in the High Court as "the claim of unlawful exile as a legal wrong was not arguable".
Now, this jugement appears to offend against a principle of justice. The Chagossians may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time for US/UK but they had been living in that archipelago before the West came along and it could be argued that the territory was their property, held on an individual basis or in common. Their homeland was expropriated and they were deported, which to any libertarian, would appear to be the worst action that a tyrannical government can authorise. (If my history is correct, only totalitarians are usually responsible for the coerced movement of whole peoples).
The original declaration of the Immigration Ordnance as unlawful indicated the eviction was based on royal prerogative and justified on the grounds of "for the peace order and good government" of the British Indian Ocean Territory. As Lord Gibbs noted,
69 The crucial question on the legality of the Ordinance is whether it can reasonably be described as "for the peace order and good government" of BIOT. In the case law cited, the interpretation of that expression most favourable to the Respondents is that they "connote, in British constitutional language, the widest law-making powers appropriate to the sovereign". (Ibralebbe 1964 AC 900 at p.923.) I am unable to accept that those words, even from such an authoritative source, compel this court of abandon the ordinary meaning of language, and instead to treat the expression "for the peace order and good government" as a mere formula conferring unfettered powers on the commissioner.
70 The Respondent's case has to be that the expression used in the enabling BIOT Order is wide enough to include a measure which could and did compel the detention of the citizens of that territory who enjoyed a public law right to live there; and the removal and permanent exclusion of such people from the territory without their consent. The public law rights of these people derived from their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. Their rights of citizenship attached particularly to BIOT.
71 Each of the words "peace", "order" and "good government" in relation to a territory necessarily carries with it the implication that citizens of the territory are there to take the benefits. Their detention, removal and exclusion from the territory are inconsistent with any or all of those words. To hold that the expression used in the Order could justify the provisions of the Ordinance would thus in my judgment be an affront to any reasonable approach to the construction of language. I conclude therefore that the Ordinance was unlawful.
Whilst repatriation is impossible, there is certainly a case for the British government to compensate the deported islanders.
(9th October 2003, 22.48)
If the Chagossians had been armed to the teeth, there is a distinct possibility that they would not have been deported from their strategic island, Diego Garcia. The FO considered their court case an irritating distraction as this terse statement from Bill Rammell revealed:
The Court has dismissed in their entirety the claims brought against the British Government and the BIOT Commissioner. We have always maintained that the proceedings were misconceived and in any case were not the way forward to find long term solutions to the Chagossian community's problems.
Their eviction from the Chagos archipelago under the 1971 Immigration Ordinance had already been declared "unlawful" in an earlier case. However, their claims for repatriation and compensation were dismissed in the High Court as "the claim of unlawful exile as a legal wrong was not arguable".
Now, this jugement appears to offend against a principle of justice. The Chagossians may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time for US/UK but they had been living in that archipelago before the West came along and it could be argued that the territory was their property, held on an individual basis or in common. Their homeland was expropriated and they were deported, which to any libertarian, would appear to be the worst action that a tyrannical government can authorise. (If my history is correct, only totalitarians are usually responsible for the coerced movement of whole peoples).
The original declaration of the Immigration Ordnance as unlawful indicated the eviction was based on royal prerogative and justified on the grounds of "for the peace order and good government" of the British Indian Ocean Territory. As Lord Gibbs noted,
69 The crucial question on the legality of the Ordinance is whether it can reasonably be described as "for the peace order and good government" of BIOT. In the case law cited, the interpretation of that expression most favourable to the Respondents is that they "connote, in British constitutional language, the widest law-making powers appropriate to the sovereign". (Ibralebbe 1964 AC 900 at p.923.) I am unable to accept that those words, even from such an authoritative source, compel this court of abandon the ordinary meaning of language, and instead to treat the expression "for the peace order and good government" as a mere formula conferring unfettered powers on the commissioner.
70 The Respondent's case has to be that the expression used in the enabling BIOT Order is wide enough to include a measure which could and did compel the detention of the citizens of that territory who enjoyed a public law right to live there; and the removal and permanent exclusion of such people from the territory without their consent. The public law rights of these people derived from their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. Their rights of citizenship attached particularly to BIOT.
71 Each of the words "peace", "order" and "good government" in relation to a territory necessarily carries with it the implication that citizens of the territory are there to take the benefits. Their detention, removal and exclusion from the territory are inconsistent with any or all of those words. To hold that the expression used in the Order could justify the provisions of the Ordinance would thus in my judgment be an affront to any reasonable approach to the construction of language. I conclude therefore that the Ordinance was unlawful.
Whilst repatriation is impossible, there is certainly a case for the British government to compensate the deported islanders.
(9th October 2003, 22.48)
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
One, Two, Three Strikes and You're Out
Can one describe the United States as a declining hegemon? Is the last superpower a hegemon or is that state still to be realised. One of the problems of analysing the United States in terms of the 'balance of power' applicable to the nineteenth century is that all great powers now, the United States most of all, are uniquely vulnerable compared to the industrialising Victorian empires. With our complex systems and economies dependent upon information flow, certain weapons of mass destruction can cause enormous political and economic damage, if set off in particular locations.
As recent blackouts have shown, countries are vulnerable to random events as well as a determined and implacable enemy. Crippling any country is not easy but it is feasible, and because of the extreme potential of weapons of mass destruction, you only need one strike to cause severe dislocation in the United States or Great Britain.
American power is impelled to protect its economic and political interests through engagement with the rest of the world. Its prosperity has become dependent upon the process of globalisation, just as Europe's wealth was after the second world war. The necessity of maintaining a global presence combined with the realisation that its enemies are far more powerful if they obtain certain weapons leads to the inexorable logic of empire.
In order to protect itself, the United States must police the world and ensure that all enemies remain cowed. However, the United States finds that certain states appear to be irrational players, motivated by ideologies immune to the bribery, bullying and blandishments that can usually obtain most diplomatic ends. Whilst willing to use a combination of soft and hard power, the United States understands that international law and interdependence have limited uses and will not provide the necessary protection. At best, they can provide a legitimating cloak for US ends.
However, extreme enemies have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of these tools and their institutions. The United States has already extended its lead in military technology and, given China's recorded ambitions in space, will turn its attention to the high frontier.
Space dominance ensures U.S. military superiority. "We're so dominant in space that I would pity a country that would come up against us," says Maj. Gen. Franklin J. "Judd" Blaisdell, director of Air Force space operations and integration. "The synergy with air, land and sea forces and our ability to control the battle space and seize the high ground is devastating." Thanks to space technology, the U.S. military is more powerful than ever, with what Blaisdell calls a combination of "speed, lethality, persistence, information dominance, precision and the battle space characterization, bombs on target, real-time battle management."
The weaponisation of space and the 'first mover advantage' it accords to any power will result in a hegemony. It is difficult to see any other power apart from the United States obtaining this crown. If this occurs, we will know what an American Empire is.
(8th October 2003, 19.07)
Can one describe the United States as a declining hegemon? Is the last superpower a hegemon or is that state still to be realised. One of the problems of analysing the United States in terms of the 'balance of power' applicable to the nineteenth century is that all great powers now, the United States most of all, are uniquely vulnerable compared to the industrialising Victorian empires. With our complex systems and economies dependent upon information flow, certain weapons of mass destruction can cause enormous political and economic damage, if set off in particular locations.
As recent blackouts have shown, countries are vulnerable to random events as well as a determined and implacable enemy. Crippling any country is not easy but it is feasible, and because of the extreme potential of weapons of mass destruction, you only need one strike to cause severe dislocation in the United States or Great Britain.
American power is impelled to protect its economic and political interests through engagement with the rest of the world. Its prosperity has become dependent upon the process of globalisation, just as Europe's wealth was after the second world war. The necessity of maintaining a global presence combined with the realisation that its enemies are far more powerful if they obtain certain weapons leads to the inexorable logic of empire.
In order to protect itself, the United States must police the world and ensure that all enemies remain cowed. However, the United States finds that certain states appear to be irrational players, motivated by ideologies immune to the bribery, bullying and blandishments that can usually obtain most diplomatic ends. Whilst willing to use a combination of soft and hard power, the United States understands that international law and interdependence have limited uses and will not provide the necessary protection. At best, they can provide a legitimating cloak for US ends.
However, extreme enemies have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of these tools and their institutions. The United States has already extended its lead in military technology and, given China's recorded ambitions in space, will turn its attention to the high frontier.
Space dominance ensures U.S. military superiority. "We're so dominant in space that I would pity a country that would come up against us," says Maj. Gen. Franklin J. "Judd" Blaisdell, director of Air Force space operations and integration. "The synergy with air, land and sea forces and our ability to control the battle space and seize the high ground is devastating." Thanks to space technology, the U.S. military is more powerful than ever, with what Blaisdell calls a combination of "speed, lethality, persistence, information dominance, precision and the battle space characterization, bombs on target, real-time battle management."
The weaponisation of space and the 'first mover advantage' it accords to any power will result in a hegemony. It is difficult to see any other power apart from the United States obtaining this crown. If this occurs, we will know what an American Empire is.
(8th October 2003, 19.07)
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
In the Fast Lane
The intergovernmental conference has begun the negotiations on the draft of the European Consitution to a flurry of reports on disgruntled countries and a minor show of unity. The anti-EU anarchists were out in force, throwing toilet rolls at the police. Yet, the whole episode continues to strike the outside observer as slightly unreal.
The major faultlines proved not to be the smouldering trail of gunpowder that the 'dwarves' wield but the unwillingness of medium sized Member States to accept a decrease in their influence. Poland and Spain have proved vociferous in their defence of the Nice Treaty and are unwilling to accept the electoral system proposed in the Constitution that provides a major shift to the largest countries. Unlike their smaller brethren who had to band together to make their voices heard, the middling states have kept their powder dry in order to make their opposition clear to the naive politicians that pass for diplomats in Europe these days. They thought that silence equalled assent, one of the oldest tricks.
As the draft constitution could now face a referendum in up to twelve states, Britain faces a distinctly unusal possibility: as part of a European centralised state without sharing its currency, whilst less integrated affiliates remain outside of the constitutional settlement and in Euroland.
(7th October 2003, 22.07)
The intergovernmental conference has begun the negotiations on the draft of the European Consitution to a flurry of reports on disgruntled countries and a minor show of unity. The anti-EU anarchists were out in force, throwing toilet rolls at the police. Yet, the whole episode continues to strike the outside observer as slightly unreal.
The major faultlines proved not to be the smouldering trail of gunpowder that the 'dwarves' wield but the unwillingness of medium sized Member States to accept a decrease in their influence. Poland and Spain have proved vociferous in their defence of the Nice Treaty and are unwilling to accept the electoral system proposed in the Constitution that provides a major shift to the largest countries. Unlike their smaller brethren who had to band together to make their voices heard, the middling states have kept their powder dry in order to make their opposition clear to the naive politicians that pass for diplomats in Europe these days. They thought that silence equalled assent, one of the oldest tricks.
As the draft constitution could now face a referendum in up to twelve states, Britain faces a distinctly unusal possibility: as part of a European centralised state without sharing its currency, whilst less integrated affiliates remain outside of the constitutional settlement and in Euroland.
(7th October 2003, 22.07)
Making it our business
When Israel bombed Syrian territory it certainly makes the Mid East look that bit more dangerous, but was it right?
Well the point is surely that a fairly snug island off North Western Europe surely can't judge these things, which makes it sad that Blair has condemned this as an 'escalation'. However the fact is we do have troops not so far away and it therefore is a concern of ours. Now we don't have a load of people who think that by bringing about Israel (and a second holocaust) they can go to heaven without dying (although the new Bishop of Durham seems to be blazing a trail here) so we're going to be less worried about criticising Israel. Add in a bit of, ahem, unpleasantness between 1945 and 1948, it does trip off the tongue a bit easier from a Brit rather than a Yank politician.
Even given this, surely the Israelis must see a risk of increased Western interference? Empires mean that the metropolitan power cannot be as indulgent towards other countries. If Israel does things that mean that American spending and fatalities go up then soon enough the concerns of the Middle East start falling in the electoral calculation cauldron in the same way as Christian Zionist angst already has.
The long term Western presence in Iraq (if not in the short term) could be bad for Israel. And what's bad for any other country coul, given the innate fragility of any non-Muslim regime in that part of the world, be fatal for Israel.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Neither for nor against
America is a declining hegemon, and I don't believe it is in our national interest to be involved for or against her (on individual issues resulting from her long decline we may have to take stands, it's just the matter of strategy that we should worry about). We should not be her inseperable ally because she's declining and we should not be her sworn enemy because she is still a hegemon.
Most of my barbs are aimed at Blair and most points right who say that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the declension, because they are so popular. So let me show no favour the other way by warmly commending this work "Engagement" with the axis of evil a.k.a. the European common foreign policy by Helen Szamuely of the Bruges Group, rather pro-American but right in the presumption that always being agin America is if anything even worse than always being for the old belle.
Is she by any chance related to George Szamuely, the expatriot Brit (of Hungarian origin) who wrote for antiwar.com?
Neo-conserealism
Ten months seems like an eternity ago. Weapons of mass destruction now seem like some very poor joke, and an analysis that talks seriously about Saddam's nuclear potential may seem fit to be ignored. This article by Adam Garfinkle in January is still interesting, more for what it doesn't discuss than for what it does.
The issue is nuclear proliferation and what to do about the "axis of evil". Iraq should be invaded because it could get nuclear weapons real soon now, North Korea should not because it already has them and Iran is a hard case. So let's look at the argument. Countries must not get nuclear bombs because more nuclear powers will be dangerous, but once they've got nuclear bombs respect and restraint is due because these countries are dangerous. Few would disagree with the second partof the argument, but it is the first part that is questionable. Dangerous to whom?
Sadly Mr Garfinkle does not seem to grasp the somewhat asymetric logic here, America will police all non-nuclear powers but will treat nuclear powers as sovereign states - is it really any wonder that so many want to get their hands on the bomb? I digress. Why are nuclear weapons dangerous to a power that merely minds its vital national interests? As long as its not a psychopathic neighbour then nuclear weapons are another coutry's problem. And Iraq is neither a neighbour nor a near neighbour to ourselves or America. Who cares about Iraq apart from its neighbours, and who cares about her neighbours?
Is the quest for global stability producing the exact opposite?
Vive La France!
I confess I rather like France. I like her arrogance, her elitism, her dirigism, her fondness for artists & intellectuals, her ideological politics, her ruthlessness, her deviousness, her fastidiousness about food, her pretentious films, her beautiful women, & her cultural & civic pride - everything about her, in fact, that neo-conservatives, libertarians, Anglo-Saxon supremacists, & other weirdos hate. I like the way she has kept her capital city beautiful, the way she does what she likes, the way she honours those whose achievements will be remembered when those of generals & presidents have crumbled to dust, the way she despises America, the Land of the Ephemeral. I even liked the hypocrisy with which she opposed Bush's crazy war, taking the moral high ground while all the while seeking to protect an odious regime for the sake of her own commercial interests - & the way she brilliantly pulled it off, running rings round the cowboys as Sherlock Holmes used to run rings round Scotland Yard. Why can't Britain be like that?
She's not all good, of course. Guillotining aristocrats is inverted snobbery at its worst. Liberty, equality, & fraternity are distasteful ideas even when they are only paid lip-service. Voluntarily surrendering your sovereignty in the hope of never having to surrender it involuntarily makes no sense even to an intellectual, even if it may save a few lives. Paper constitutions are a poor substitute for real ones, especially when they have to be continually replaced. Post-modernism & deconstruction, though certainly carried off with more elegance & panache in France than in the dismal groves of Anglo-Saxon academe, are ripe for post-modernisation & de-con-struction. Peasant farmers don't need to be taken that seriously. But any country that puts proper holidays above money-grubbing has to be doing something right.
What, after all, are the alternatives? To be like America? A warmongering Philistine bully who works her people ever harder to pay for ever more pointless wars & ever more flagrant subversion of the Constitution that is supposed to be the guiding principle of her being? Germany, guilt-ridden, hollowed-out vestige of a great nation? Japan, torn between corporatism & tradition, taking the most conformist features of both, hoping thereby to achieve wealth & retain character, failing in both? Russia, chaotic & sprawling, crippled by poverty, overrun by gangsters? China, gerontocratic tyranny? Or Britain, America's poodle & Europe's lapdog, so consumed by self-hatred she elects with a massive majority a government committed to eradicating everything distinctively British, so disfigured by egalitarian dogma she can no longer educate her children, so deluded by libertarian fantasies that her top businessmen get richer & richer as fewer & fewer things work?
Vive La France!
She's not all good, of course. Guillotining aristocrats is inverted snobbery at its worst. Liberty, equality, & fraternity are distasteful ideas even when they are only paid lip-service. Voluntarily surrendering your sovereignty in the hope of never having to surrender it involuntarily makes no sense even to an intellectual, even if it may save a few lives. Paper constitutions are a poor substitute for real ones, especially when they have to be continually replaced. Post-modernism & deconstruction, though certainly carried off with more elegance & panache in France than in the dismal groves of Anglo-Saxon academe, are ripe for post-modernisation & de-con-struction. Peasant farmers don't need to be taken that seriously. But any country that puts proper holidays above money-grubbing has to be doing something right.
What, after all, are the alternatives? To be like America? A warmongering Philistine bully who works her people ever harder to pay for ever more pointless wars & ever more flagrant subversion of the Constitution that is supposed to be the guiding principle of her being? Germany, guilt-ridden, hollowed-out vestige of a great nation? Japan, torn between corporatism & tradition, taking the most conformist features of both, hoping thereby to achieve wealth & retain character, failing in both? Russia, chaotic & sprawling, crippled by poverty, overrun by gangsters? China, gerontocratic tyranny? Or Britain, America's poodle & Europe's lapdog, so consumed by self-hatred she elects with a massive majority a government committed to eradicating everything distinctively British, so disfigured by egalitarian dogma she can no longer educate her children, so deluded by libertarian fantasies that her top businessmen get richer & richer as fewer & fewer things work?
Vive La France!