From Across the Pond

Burma's leaders

It is now over a week since the Cyclone hit Burma, and if the news reports are at all accurate, Burma's leadership would rather their people die than have them helped by Westerners. This is, of course, no surprise.

I heard on Sky News that the Thai foreign minister is blaming President Bush for making the Burmese generals defensive. Well, on one level I can accept that may be the case, but that is still no excuse. Like Zimbabwe, the general's oppresive regime is facilitated by its neighbours, including Thailand. Of course, another of those neighbours is China. And the day the Chinese leaders actually care for human life will be the day hell freezes over and pigs begin to fly. Of course, it is easy to criticise America. But America is the one offering aid and expertise in numbers that no one else can match.

Indonesia was initially reluctant following the Boxing Day Tsunami a few years ago. But they relented, to the great benefit of their people. That is the lesson the Burmese leaders need to heed.

Skeleton in the Closet

Usually when we use this phrase we mean it figuratively - just as Rev Wright has been a rather noisy skeleton in Obama's closet. Unfortunately, between the news this week from Austria of a man who imprisoned his own daughter in a cellar for 24 years, where he forced her to bear him seven children, one of whom died, and three of whom had never seen daylight until this week; and the slow and still worse discoveries coming to light from Jersey; and of course remembering that other girl who a couple of years back escaped after being imprisoned for eight years, makes me wonder just what other skeletons are lurking in our collective closets. To this list it makes sense to add the abuse scandal that the Catholic Church has been involved in too.

It is amazing how easy it is for people to look the other way. Amazing, but it should not be surprising.

Personal opinion on Kosovo's independence

I suspect like many people of around my own age the wars in the former Yugoslavia formed the major foreign affairs backdrop during the period of my life when I became aware of international politics, along with the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War. Back in the mid-90s it was quite plain in my mind that, although crimes were committed by all sides in the Croatian and Bosnian wars, the chief culprit and worst offender were Serbs, both within Croatia and Bosnia, and without in the guise of Slobodan Milosevic and Serbia. Thus, when the conflict in Kosovo rose to the fore in 1999 there was no doubt that the Serbs were the 'bad guys'.

Following the overthrow of Milosevic in 2000 I developed a very detailed interest in affairs in the region, and became very knnowledgeable in what was going on - I followed the conflict in the Presevo valley and in Macedonia very closely, and the politics surrounding Milosevic's arrest and later extradition to The Hague. I not only followed the news - getting English translations of some local news sites - I also read a number of books on the history behind the area. This very detailed knowledge and interest lasted until towards the end of 2002. During this time my initial opinions underwent considerable refinement and revision.

Apart from anything else I came to regard the actions of the Kosovars following the NATO bombing to demonstrate that they were morally no better than their Serb opponents. Also it was fairly clear to me at the time that the UN and NATO had drafted its resolutions specifically to deny the chance of independence. Instead of working to create a situation where Kosovo would be an autonomous part of Serbia, I had the impression this entire issue was largely ignored for several years. Likewise I came to view the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague and the pursuit of war criminals to be very unhelpful.

Mostly I started to develop a sense that, no matter what horrors they inflict on other peoples, those worst affected by a dictator are almost invariably their own people. For all the misery and suffering Milosevic has brought to Croatians, Bosniaks, and Kosovars, the group that has suffered most and longest are his own Serbs. I see the independence of Kosovo as the latest result and wound inflicted by Milosevic on his own people.

Despite that I am a subscriber to the idea of self-determination. For that reason I support Kosovan independence, even if I am not enthusiastic about it. The lack of enthusiasm is caused by the ham-fisted way the West has dealt with the region. The Great Powers have a very poor record at bringing lasting peace to the Balkans, and I would not be surprised if our latest interventions do not end up being just as fallible as our previous ones. 

As an aside, my belief in self-determination means that I would support the creation of an independent Basque-land or Catalonia, or an independent Scotland, should the majority of the people within those regions with it. Equally, should the Serbian-dominated north-west of Kosovo now wish to secede from this nascent state I would support their right to do so as well. I think trying to pretend that Kosovo does not set a precedent is both unjust and frankly stupid. But we shall see what happens.

Some interesting Kosovo links

Just a couple of links I have found interesting today on the issue of Kosovo's independence.

Firstly, Stephen Bainbridge has this post on Russia's possible reactions to Kosovo.

Secondly, via Stephen Bainbridge, there is this page of posts by Anthony Arend.

Good reading.

Two consequences of Kosovo's independence

Now that a couple of days has passed since Kosovo's indepdence, the likely consequences are becoming apparent. At a meeting of the European Union foreign ministers it was agreed that Kosovo does not set a precedent. To that I have one thing to say: baloney. If it does not set a precedent then the Spain would have no problem recognising this new state, but they have refused to for good reason. If Spain recognises the right of a part of a nation to unilaterally declare its independence it loses all rights to its claims over Gibralter, not to mention its position over the question of the Basques and Catalans is considerably weakened. So Spain refuses, and will try to use this pronoucement from the EU as political cover.

I do not expect the Basques to become independent any time soon, but Spain is well aware that Kosovo's independence strengths the cause of separatism everywhere. It is a consequence that the United States and the United Kingdom have not been willing to address, and I believe it will become the greatest consequence from this decision. This BBC article states the situation quite well.

However, this will I think be a longer term affair, in the short term it is now the latest point of disagreement between Russia and the West. It is deeply unfashionable to talk to a renewed Cold War, but consider this - the first Cold War was initiated in disagreements over nation states in the wake of world war 2. There are more than a few similarities between now and then, and it does no good to blind ourselves to the possibility.

Thoughts on Kosovo's place in history

Yesterday, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. There was quite a good opinion piece in The Times today about it, which put this into something of a long-term historical perspective. On the whole though most of the commentary I have read only skirts over what led us to where we are, mostly just concentrating on the break-up of Yugoslavia. Considering how short most peoples memories are I suppose I should be happy that most of the commentary is able to go back 15-20 years, but in my opinion that is an all too short timeframe.

The independence of Kosovo is the latest echo in the collapse of the two Empires that dominated the Balkans from the 15th century to the early 20th century - namely the Ottoman Emire and the Empire of Austria (later Austro-Hungary), a process which began in the early nineteenth century when Serbia and Greece first broke away from the Ottoman Empire, became earnest after Ottoman defeat in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 and the following Congress of Berlin, and went into overdrive following the defeat of both Empires in the first world war. The two multi-national states that were born from the aftermath of that war, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, have now totally broken apart.

It is also a further sign of the decentralisation of Europe. One of the great historical movements of European history from the Middle Ages to the start of the twentieth century was the centralisation of power in fewer and fewer nations, as countries expanded over their geographical areas. Thus out of Castille and Aragon came Spain, England absorbed Scotland and Ireland, Germany and Italy unified under the strongest states, Poland was partitioned, and all in all everything become superficially more orderly. But even as the last great achievements of this period of centralisation were occurring (in Italy and Germany) there were signs that the same nationalism that led to those unifications were already beginning to tear other nations apart. Austria had become Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire had already lost control of Greece and Serbia, and more was to follow. The fall of the Russian Empire saw a brief independence of many of its parts, an independence supressed by a resurgent communist Russia, and then renewed again after communism collapsed. But even outside of this, Norway separated from Sweden, devolved governments now exist in parts of Spain and Britain, and Belgium as an idea is under tremendous strain from the competing needs of its two constituent parts.

This breaking down of nations is unlikely to stop in the near future. Indeed, the break away of Kosovo is likely to provide further impetus for it, as it does create a precedent. But that is a discussion for another day .

Telegraph article on US democracy

Via RealClearPolitics I came across this article by Janet Daley on the website of the The Daily Telegraph about watching the US election campaign from a British perspective. I agree almost entirely with the author's take on the BBC coverage of the campaign - which is one reason why I hardly ever listen to Radio 4 or BBC News on the telly anymore. For what it is worth Sky News I think does a somewhat better job, but that is hardly surprising.

I do not fully agree with everything in the article, in particular I find the almost breathless enthusiasm for US democracy rather masks what I consider to be some serious flaws (like gerrymandering). But on the whole a good discussion, with some interesting reflections on British democracy as well.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto

The assassination yesterday of Benazir Bhutto, one feels, brings Pakistan to a perilous place. And while I view Mrs Bhutto's death as a tragedy, I do not subscribe to the view this necessarily leads to disaster. Disaster is certainly a very possible outcome, but let us for a moment explore an alternative.

Mrs Bhutto was a populist candidate. She may well become a populist martyr. And martyrs, true martyrs, are far more difficult to kill in death than the flesh and blood they once were in life. Their ideas and hopes are sanctified in blood. It may well be that in murdering Ms Bhutto, those who did so may have made her far more potent than she ever could have been in life, tainted as she was by the spectre of corruption.

Her death has the potential to break Musharraf. While I think it extremely unlikely that he had a hand in her death, the perception that him or those loyal to him might have let it happen could bring him down. Their opposition might deflect attention also from something else, that whatever crimes of omission he and his supporters may or may not have committed the actual killers were the extremist Islamicists. Pakistan's fractured democrats have in them a common enemy, and in death perhaps they also now have a common martyr (it would be a canny move by Musharraf to honour his opponent now). So perhaps from this killing might come something new, not necessarily something grand or in-your-face (though I would not discount the possibility entirely), but a shift in thought. Bhutto was loved by many of Pakistan's disadvantaged. Extremism finds fertile ground among the same, but now they have struck against one of their idols. This might, I hope, be the false victory that costs them the war for Pakistan's heart, mind, and soul.

This is not to say that a civil war might not yet result, or some other calamity. Only to point out that in tragedies like this can have positive outcomes.

Tony Blair converts to Catholicism

Just before Christmas Tony Blair converted to Catholism. I have a few thoughts about this:

1) This was not really news. His wife is a Catholic and his children have been raised as Catholic, and he is known to have gone to mass regularly.

2) That this very politically aware Prime Minister felt unable to convert until his domestic political career was over says that he expected a great deal of negative press were he to convert in office, and that it would do great damage to his political career.

3) We know from the difficulties Ruth Kelly has sometimes encountered that people do use someone's Catholic faith to argue that they are unfit for office.

4) That, in this country, anti-Catholicism is still alive and well, and is an acceptable prejudice.

As someone has said, the monarch could marry a Hindu, Muslim, or a Jew, but is disallowed from marrying a Catholic. This country, way back in the nineteeth century, had a Jewish Prime Minister (Disraeli), but apparently the forces of anti-Catholicism in Britain are stronger than the forces of anti-Semitism, if maybe less remarked upon.

Of more minor points:

5) I hardly ever heard in all the coverage the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" as the Catholic Church has tended to be referred to in this country. I view this is an interesting, but relatively minor, development.

6) That the coverage was wall-to-wall. I know it was nearly Christmas, but one would think that more important things were happening elsewhere in the world. But I guess it was a story that the various news organisations knew would be easy to cover and have enough controversy to stand it.

7) That the level of historical ignorance even among senior political editors should be truly amazing. Unfortunately, past exposure means this is only expected.

Finally, I welcome Tony Blair to the Catholic communion. I just wish he had had the courage to make this step some years ago, and that he would display the same courage on this issue he has displayed on our involvement in Iraq.

Something wrong with immigration

There are two cases recently of people being given a reprieve from deportation by the Home Office, perhaps because of the Christmas season, which I think are good examples of where we are going wrong as a nation on the whole question of immigration. The two cases are of Al Bangura and the William family. From the information I know, both seem to raise different issues of the same problem.

Al Bangura is a player for Watford football club, which plays in the Championship division. He has been making a career as a sportsman in that club. He is starting to raise a family here, and by all accounts wishes to make his life in this nation. One of the major themes in the anti-immigration talk spouted by so many is that we will be swamped by wastrels who will sponge off the system. This is a clear example of a man who is not sponging off the system, who sounds like he would be a credit to our nation, be carelessly treated.

The William family are Pakistani converts to Christianity, who fled here due to the harrassment they were suffering. The local school especially came out in support of them. The dangers that converts from Islam (to any faith) undergo are well known by anyone with a even a most rudimentary knowledge of the reality of violence in today's Islam. It is a violence not restricted to a fundamentalist few, but widespread in Islamic society throughout the world. Also Pakistan is not precisely the most stable place on the planet now. Both these factors the incompetents and idiots - I won't subscribe malice to this action when incompetency and idiocy will do - are either unaware of or decided to ignore. This nation is meant to be a haven for those who are persecuted and oppressed, regardless of whether that presecution and oppression occurs at the hand of state or non-governmental actors. In particular this deportation just makes a mockery of the asylum system.

Why have we gotten to this state, when legitimate claimants are being shipped off? The paranoia whipped up by many outside groups, including I have to say the Conservative Party, is one reason. Indeed, given their much higher public role I hold the Tory Party to particular account in this case, but they are not alone.

The fear of illegal immigration, or efforts to tackle illegal immigration, basically fail to address the problem. For a very good reason, and it is the same reason why laws to restrict the legal use of guns or knives fail to correct criminal use of guns or knives. You are restricting the liberties of people who wish to follow the law, while doing nothing about those who already flout the law. The way to deal with illegal immigration is not to make the process of legal immigration and asylum even more complex, or to make that process more difficult. In these situations you only end up doing great harm to the very people whom you wish to immigrate to your country or are most in need of asylum. The way to deal with illegal immigration is through proper sanction against the illegal trade itself.

I hope in both the above cases the victims of our system emerge triumphant. But I know that many more cases, equally at fault, will go uncorrected. It is to our great shame as a nation that we close the doors on both those who wish to become part of the great idea that is the United Kingdom, and those vulnerable and in danger who need our protection.