WESTERN HYPOCRISY WHEN DEFINING INTERNATIONAL RULES

The hypocrisy in international relations, although nothing new, still manages to bewilder and irritate me in equal measures. Are these hypocrites so blind, so indoctrinated, that they don't see the nonsense that spews from their mouths? Or are they very much aware of the double standards that form the basis of their rhetoric but hope the public won't pick up on it? There have been some great recent examples of such hypocrisy.

A few weeks back French and American political and social commentators were lining up to take a shot at Britain's perceived “crisis of democracy” over parliaments no vote to military strikes in Syria. Apparently international law must be respected at all times, and any violators must be severely punished. Except, what they actually mean is that certain people and countries must respect international rules, where others need not concern themselves with such things. It's telling when you see big political figures such as US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry replace the more objective term “international law” with the subjective “international norms”. But, as big violators of the former, what choice do countries like the US have but to change the terminology they use to deflect from the reality of their foreign policy.

Politicians and political commentators, particularly from the US and Israel, but Britain too, have been quick to dismiss the newly elected Iranian president's pledged willingness to discuss a settlement over the nuclear issue. Here the hypocrisy is as acute as ever. Often reference to Iran's violation of a UN resolution is quoted in the same conversation that mentions Israel's security; yet rarely are Israel's constant abuses of international law and disregard for UN resolutions mentioned. In that region, India, Pakistan, and even more relevant, Israel, are all allowed to stockpile nuclear weapons, whilst the international community headed by the US refuse Iran that same right.

Another recent example of the use of double standards in international relations was the grounding of the plane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales. Spain, France, Italy and Portugal, at the insistence of Washington, all denied his plane access to airspace over their respective countries, forcing him to land in Vienna. Whistle blower and to most outside the US, hero Edward Snowden, responsible for the recent NSA leaks, was suspected of being on-board. The fact that this turned out to be incorrect is irrelevant. What is disturbing is that the US and it's allies feel they have the right to force a plane carrying a democratically elected president to land in order for them to search that plane. Can you imagine, and I mean really try to envisage, a group of Latin American countries trying to force Air Force One, with president on-board, to land at a place of their choosing so they can carry out a thorough search. We all know what consequences would likely follow – the US would severely punish the perpetrators, and quite possibly, militarily.

Hypocrisy seems to be a key theme that runs through the foreign polices of some Western powers. Is there any wonder then that countries like Iran or North Korea are reluctant to engage with such countries? Countries that criticise them for their human rights record yet at the same time cosy up to Saudi Arabia, probably one of the worst abusers of human rights out there. What are the rest of the world seeing when they look at the US or Britain? - Aggressive, untrustworthy, and extremely hypocritical countries – and it's really not that hard to understand why they have such a perception!  

North Korea - Aggressive or Misunderstood?

There's disconcerting sounds coming out of North Korea right now. It's hopefully all bravado but Kim Jong-un, like his farther before him, strikes me as a megalomaniac. A megalomaniac who is now bored and wants to play armies. Of course any attack of sizeable proportion against the South, and any attack whatsoever against the US, would be suicide and I'm sure that he and his cohorts realise this. Still, it's worrying times for the region.

However, we must be careful when judging Kim Jong-un and North Korea, as our Western-centric perspective, often formed from biased media reporting, can sometimes hamper our ability to see the world as they do. Clearly there is a repressive regime in place and for the average citizen life is hard due to a lack of some of life's more basic necessities such as food and water, as well as healthcare, eduction and jobs. But, they are also faced with some external worries: they live next door to their well armed enemy neighbour; and they also live close to some state of the art army and naval bases that happen to belong to the US, probably the most aggressive country in the world, with a track record of militarily intervening in countries both overtly and covertly. When you start looking at it from this perspective, you start to see that North Korea probably feels insecure and vulnerable, singled out for sanctions and bullied by the international community, with very few friends in the world. It's quite common for someone who perceives injustice in the way they are treated by others to lash out, and this might well help to explain North Korea's behaviour, at least in part. That's not to excuse their behaviour, but it would be helpful going forward if this was taken into account when dealing with this rouge state.   

5 REASONS WHY THE IRAQ WAR WAS A MISTAKE

There are still people out there who continue to defend Tony Blair's decision to follow the US into war with Iraq. The reasons given for their pro-war stance are varied, but the most common tends to centre around the argument that the removal of Saddam has put an end to genocide and oppression, paving the way for democracy and freedom. This reasoning does not really paint an accurate picture of what life is like now for many Iraqis. Nor does it take into account the high price paid to remove Saddam. Here are 5 reasons why the war was a big mistake:

1. Legality of war 

Under international war, there are certain conditions that must be met before engaging in conflict with another country. These conditions were not met, a point that was not lost on the majority of the international community, and a reason why a subsequent vote in the UN favoured giving weapons inspectors more time to gather evidence, rather than using force. I recently read someone's argument for going to war which stated that we shouldn't let “legality” get in the way of doing what is morally right. There way be times when a quote such as this holds some validity, certainly in regards to some authoritarian regimes or to some archaic laws that are no longer relevant to the modern world. But, when it comes to international law, to ignore certain laws in order to justify acts of aggression only serves to encourage others to commit crimes if they deem it beneficial. How can we turn around and criticise a county who flaunts the law when we are also guilty of this.

2. The rationale for going to war was based on lies 

Many lies were bandied about during the build up to war, with Tony Blair and George Bush at the helms of their respective governments being the worst culprits. Many experts had doubts regarding the quality of the intelligence being cited as justification, Hans Blix being one example. But since then the information has been made public, making it quite clear that a mixture of lies and exaggerated truths were used to encourage public support for the war. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to Al-Qaeda. Did he possess WMDs? Was he a threat to us or our allies? Of course, we now all know that the answers to these questions are no. This therefore brings us on to the next point; what were the actual motives for war.

3. Immoral motives 

Since Iraq was not a threat, and Blair and Bush both stated at the beginning that regime change was not their objective, ruling out reasons based on humanitarian grounds and stability (or though this was later stated as an objective once the security threat could no longer be wheeled out as justification), then what on earth could have been driving our leaders to send our troops to invade a foreign land? Well, looking at who benefited most from the war, that is to say, mainly Western companies involved in oil, construction, security, as well as arms manufacturers and suppliers, then it's not hard to come to the conclusion that our motives were not born out of the highest of moral standards.

4. Death and suffering 

Civilian deaths related to the war are estimated to be anywhere between over 100,000 at the very conservative end, to over 600,000. Either way, the statistics are depressing and do not include long term injuries, both physical and mental. Then, added to that are the deaths and injuries that the coalition and Iraqi troops sustained. I know some feel little sympathy for Saddam's forces but they had the right, under international law, to resist foreign invaders. And whilst some troops were loyal to Saddam and/or Iraq, many fought out of fear for him. Can all this combined suffering we worth the removal of Saddam and his regime? As we know, the suffering continued long after regime change, and continues to this day.

5. The aftermath (the suffering continues) 

While some lives have undoubtedly improved post Saddam, like those of the Kurds in northern Iraq, many areas of the country are less stable and the quality of life has worsened when compared to Saddam's reign. Sectarian violence, unemployment, lack of education and access to healthcare are all common complaints, while woman's rights have also taken a step backwards.

As an outsider looking in, ask yourself, would you have preferred to live in Iraq pre or post regime change? I know in terms of my safety I would be better of picking the former. For Iraqis the answer to this question would depend on factors such as where they live or of what religion persuasion they are. What is clear is that for a great many number of Iraqis life has got much harder, and shows little sign of improvement any time soon.  

AM I AN ANTI-CAPITALIST? OR SHOULD A MORE ETHICAL CAPITALISM BE THE GOAL?

Am I an anti-capitalist? This is a question I've been asked on several occasions, and not just by others, I also ask myself this same question. The truth is, I don't think it matters if I am or not, capitalism is the system we've got and for the time being it's here to stay. What I want to see is a more ethical, fairer capitalism. Maybe by the very nature of capitalism there will always be winners and losers, but there must be a way, probably through some sort of regulation agreed on a global scale, to increase the amount of winners and address the issue of inequality by reducing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

A multinational company that makes huge profits while their workers on the factory floor don't make a living wage, inhibiting them to adequately feed their families or send their children to school, is quite frankly, sickening. Capitalism seems to encourage some of humankind's less admirable qualities such as greed and selfishness, therefore, is it not common sense to try and restrain those who see no problem in profiting at other people's expense?

There are clearly some areas, for example, such as water, electric, gas and other essentials, that should NEVER be privatised in order to protect the public from unethical practices that can have a devastating effect on people's lives. Even in Britain we are seeing utility companies making record profits whilst continually increasing their prices, consequently pushing more and more families deeper into poverty. Mass privatisation of state-owned assets is always a mistake, as we have seen time and time again. But where and when the private sector is in control, and there are some good arguments as to why they should always play a massive role locally and globally, then there should always be safeguards in place that affords the public some protection from those who are more inclined to do business in a less scrupulous manner.   

Iraq 10 Years On

10 years on from Iraq and still Blair is a free man. No trial, no charge, not even an arrest. The invasion of Iraq has probably got to be the biggest crime my country has committed since my birth. Certainly the most straight forward case of war crimes and breach of international law. How can we expect people across the world to obey the rule of law when we flaunt it so frivolously?

And what legacy have we left Iraq? Some argue that although the motives may have been dubious, we have removed a tyrant and installed democracy, leaving the country in a better state than before the invasion. I cannot see this. I see a corrupt government using the banner of democracy to hide their wealth accumulation. I see constant sectarian violence terrorising the innocent and vulnerable. I see a lack of eduction and jobs. Saddam Hussein was a vicious dictator, few would disagree, I certainly wouldn't. But, are the normal citizens of Iraq generally better off now than before the invasion? With the exception of the Kurds, the evidence seems to suggest, NO.

It was wrong and immoral to attack and invade Iraq, and the mess we left the country in is a crime in its self. I do not feel good about belonging to a country that has committed such terrible acts. To see Blair, among others, on trial at The Hague, would go some way to addressing the injustices the Iraqi people have endured. It would also send a clear message to the international community and discourage any further abuses. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen.

It looks quite a distinct possibility that Iran may be the next victim. Iran is constantly vilified in the media, and it's true that the regime there is brutal and oppressive, but they show no physical aggression towards their neighbours or beyond, they are not a threat to world peace, not like we, the US and Israel are. Hopefully, with much of the British population feeling let down by are exploits in Iraq, public opinion against any involvement in such an act will be strong enough to dissuade the government in participating. I'm sure the streets will see unprecedented numbers of protesters if the people are ignored.      

Drug Test For Every Employee

There is a school of thought at the moment that as part of the fight against drugs, every single employee should be drug tested at their place of work. This proposition seems to have gained at least some popular support, although as far as I can tell no politician is pushing for this yet. Leaving aside any possible breach of human rights and invasion of privacy, which is not to be taken lightly, this seems to me to be an ill-considered proposal which would have deeply damaging social implications.

Of course, the idea is that employees who take drugs will reconsider doing so, due to the possibility of loosing their job through being tested positive at work. This may well be the case for some occasional drug takers, but what happens to those, for example, who are regular cannabis smokers and who are not willing to forgo one of their pleasures? Estimates of adult cannabis usage in the UK put the figures anywhere between 6% - 9% of the population. Even if we take a very conservative estimate, that's well over 3 million cannabis users of working age. That's potentially 3 million people, many of whom are good and productive workers, now unemployed and claiming benefits. And the perverse thing is that takers of harder drugs, such as ecstasy and cocaine, have a better chance of keeping their jobs as their drugs of choice take a much shorter period of time to work their way out of the body.

What a scandal this would lead to if passed in law. Employers would loose many of their best workers, those who lost their job would find it extremely difficult to find new employment, and the drain on our already very tight public funds would be immense. I'm not condoning anyone going into work under the influence of any drug, including alcohol, but as long as an employee is doing their job to a satisfactory level, is it really of any concern to the employer what they do outside of work? 

Mali and the War On Terrorism

Jihadists, Islamic extremists, Islamic fundamentalists, or whatever label you want to apply to them, are again headline news due to increased activity, this time in northern Mali where French troops, with the help of Malian troops, have been given the unenvious task of liberating towns from Al-Qaeda occupation. As each town falls to French forces we learn of the brutality handed out by these terrorists to the native populations, particularly the black residents, where torture and murder seems to have been used not just to keep order, but in a self-righteous sadistic manner synonymous with Al-Qaeda.

Whether or not you think European involvement is the correct course of action, there is little doubting the possible threat to peace these terrorists could cause, not just to the region but, the world as a whole. Having said that, as always happens, the only thought is how to eliminate the threat and there is no discussion on why this threat exists in the first place. Why is it that these Islamic extremist groups seem to have an endless pool of enthusiastic recruits that are frothing at the mouth at the thought of carrying out such despicable acts, particularly in regards to the West and their supporters? Why is there so much hate and resentment aimed at the West? The main stream media finds the answer to these questions too uncomfortable so chooses not to ask them.

Mali, like many other African and Middle Eastern countries, all have two relevant common characteristics: They are oil producers and they have mass poverty. Then there is a third factor that comes into play: Many of them have corrupt governments that allow Western multinationals to make ridiculously large profits from their oil reserves. How must this look to the native populations? Often living in dire poverty, lacking food, water, housing, employment, eduction, and probably most importantly – hope, it's enough to turn anyone bitter. They have practically nothing, yet through stealing their natural resources Western multinationals turn over huge profits. It's not hard to see the link between terrorism, poverty and the theft of resources.

If we want to reduce terrorism we have three options, along side the use of force. One, stop profiting from other countries resources, which I think we can all agree is unlikely to happen. Two, eradicate or reduce poverty in those countries. Three, continue to exploit their resources but use a fair amount of the profit to fight poverty in their respective countries by funding housing, education, infrastructure etc. If we ignore these options, and I'm sure we will, global terrorism will not go away.    

The World: 50 Years Down the Line

I'm sure that even people with the most positive of dispositions find it hard to look beyond the near future with any real optimism. Maybe humans by nature tend not to think that far ahead anyway, preferring to focus on the here and now instead, which is understandable. Western governments and multinationals are certainly very limited in their long term planning, with the latter prioritising short term profit above everything else. Attitudes in the East, particularly China, seem to be much more adept at long term planning, sometimes thinking many generations ahead. But, it is this general lack of consideration for the future that further exacerbates the problems that the planet faces and will continue to face with increasing urgency.

It is problems that we are already confronted with which in my reckoning will, without urgent attention, cause untold suffering to the world, barely leaving any corners untouched. In fact, these particular problems are already having a devastating affect on some peoples lives. Over-population, diminishing natural resources, and climate change. These three issues are not unrelated to each other, they work in combination, one fuelling the other. Neither are these issues foreign or obscure, they are well known to everyone, certainly throughout the developed world, maybe to a lesser extent in the developing world where poverty reduction seems more relevant.

To many the world is already over-populated, with many of people's basic needs such as food and water not being met. Whether you think that this is a population problem or just bad management of the earth's resources, it's hard to deny that if the current population growth trends continue, we will certainly be unable to provide for massive parts of the world's population, with increased famine being just one of the awful consequences we will be confronted with. We have limited natural resources, whether that be oil, gas, minerals or fish stocks, we all know this. Yet we continue to largely ignore this fact, choosing to up our consumption of such resources, while limiting our investment in greener renewable alternatives. Through increased Co2 levels, animal agriculture, deforestation, as well as many other factors, we are affecting climate change which is upsetting the natural balance of the planet.

It is the combination of these three ever-growing problems, over-population, dwindling natural resources, and climate change, together with what seems to be mankind's short-sightedness and thirst for confrontation and conflict, that will bring about such terrifying consequences: major natural disasters and large scale war.

Extreme weather patterns due to a warming in the earth's temperature and a rise in sea levels, are something we are already familiar with, but these are likely to increase in volume and severity in the future. With droughts, hurricanes, and monsoons killing more and more people, as well as wildlife. There is also likely to be a rise in volcano eruptions and earthquakes. The world, simply put, will become much less hospitable, making survival an uphill battle.

Probably more worrying, at least in terms of the immediate destruction it can cause, is a world that turns to war in pursuit of the world's dwindling resources. This is not simply paranoia or an over-the-top prediction of an apocalyptic end to the world. The history of humankind is littered with war and violence, even our more recent history is no exception, with advanced modern countries showing the same disregard for human life and lust for destruction. The most striking of differences the technologically driven modern world has compared with the past is the array and destructiveness of its weapons, not least nuclear weapons which have now become prolific.

Some argue that nuclear weapons, which now several countries possess, have brought about a certain amount of stability. I believe there is some truth in this, after all, one country tends not to attack another country if they are able to respond with a nuclear threat. But given that the worlds growing population, who have a propensity for war, is running out of resources, it's doesn't take much of a leap to argue that nations may engage in war over these resources. I would like to be optimistic about our future here on earth, but the logical part of my brain tells me there will be wars, continuous, brutal and probably nuclear world wars. Unless we get are shit together, the world in 50 years time will be no picnic!  

A Shattered Faith in the Liberal Democrats and UK Politics

Today was the final nail in the coffin, the Liberal Democrats will no longer get my support. It was looking more and more unlikely that they would receive my vote in the next election, but this most recent attack aimed at the poorer and more disadvantaged echelons of society in the form of benefit cuts, is the final straw. My hope that the Liberal Democrats would somehow restrain the Conservatives and their elitist policies did not pan out, showing no conviction in protecting what are supposed to be the party's core values. While the disadvantaged, who can not be held accountable for the financial mess we are in, are attacked and demonised, the Liberal Democrats seem to either actively support Conservative policies or fall into a state of inertia.

We can expect more of the same over the next couple of years, inequality and poverty will continue to increase, bringing with it all manner of social ills and unrest. The Coalition will continue to blame the economy and financial deficit for the crimes they commit against their own people. Labour will of course be loud in opposition, and maybe it's true that if they were in government the cuts would be less harsh, but what else can they offer? They have to take a fair chunk of the blame for this financial mess which has allowed the Conservatives to act which such cruelty. Labour's record on human rights and civil liberties are probably worse than that of the Conservatives, and their aggressive foreign policy is abhorrent, thus to me, they are no alternative.

So what voting alternatives have we got for the next election? I'm sure UKIP and the BNP will continue to pick up votes, these more extreme parties seem to do well when society as a whole is suffering, but lets hope not. Now that my faith in the Liberal Democrats has been shattered, it is only the Green Party that I see as a viable alternative. Their policies and values are very appealing, but it is their lack of experience and political savvy where I have doubts. Having said that, it's not as if they are going to find themselves in government by the next election. A gradual rise in popularity would seem more likely, allowing them to pick seats up here and there, gaining experience and influence as they go. My faith in British politics is at an all time low, it's hard to see any other than the three current mainstream parties dominating for the foreseeable future. No wonder pessimism is taking hold.  

Israel and Mainstream Media Bias

Recently the world's media focused once again on Israel and the Palestinians, and once again the debate over who's right and who's wrong got mainstream attention. Unfortunately much of the mainstream media was biased, as is the norm, essentially providing a pro-Israeli narrative when ever possible. Several years ago, before I took up an interest in this conflict and when my knowledge was much more limited, the only information I received on this issue was through such media outlets as the BBC and other daily tabloid newspapers. Through their distorted reporting I formed the opinion that the Israelis were the victims in all this, the target of unprovoked Arab aggression, with the Palestinians leading the terrorist fight to expel all Jews from the region. I couldn't really be blamed for my naive views at that time, how was I to know the reality of this decades old conflict without deviating from the mainstream media and digging a little deeper.

Of course there is biased reporting on the behalf of the Palestinian cause and both sides have committed terrible acts, but there are clear facts that show that one side is dominated and oppressed by the other. UN reports and repeated resolutions condemning Israeli violations of international law are one clear indicator of what's really happening on the ground. Human rights groups are another great source of information as they are less concerned with the political situation and focus solely on the human suffering whether Israeli or Palestinian. When looking to sources other than the mainstream media and when you take the standard British political stance with a pinch of salt, you soon become horrified and angry at not only the suffering that the Palestinians endure, but also at the way many Western governments and media conglomerates show bias towards, and therefore support for, Israeli abuses of international law. The reason why they show such unwavering support is also another interesting and disturbing topic, one which I won't go into now.

On a positive note looking forward, the British public seem to be following their European counterparts in starting to understand the reality of life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation and oppression. The reasons for this I can not easily explain, but I expect it has something to so with the way individual activists and organisations use ever-evolving social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as the increasing amount of alternative news and information websites, allowing the general public to access broader, diverse and more up-to-date news. Although the spread of information in this manner is not always accurate and verifiable, it allows alternative ideas to be spread, often igniting the interest of the receiver which then prompts them to delve further into the subject using more credible sources. People are no longer restricted to just a few news media outlets who provide propaganda for the political and business elite, they are now often exposed to a wide range of views that contradict the status quo which I think will only help to spread social equality throughout Israel, and indeed the world.  

MEP Ashley Fox Backs Apartheid Regime

I recently emailed MEP Ashley Fox regarding the vote on the EU-Israel Protocol on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). The vote takes place on October 23^rd 2012 and if implemented would essentially mean better trade conditions between the EU and Israel. I asked Ashley Fox to show support for Palestinian human rights by voting against this agreement.

Below is his response:

Thank you for your e-mail. Please allow me to be absolutely clear on what is happening.

The European Union is discussing a protocol to an already existing agreement between the EU and Israel. I believe that refusing consent to this Protocol would cause economic damage to both the EU and Israel at this time of international financial crisis. It would also affect the EU's ability to project positive political influence within Israel for promoting lasting peace in the region. I support EU trade agreements with both the Palestinian and Israeli Authorities and will continue to do so.

I believe than an eventual progression from the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords towards a two state solution will lead to final and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on implementation of the Road Map with land for peace swaps. This would create a peaceful and sovereign Palestinian State, with Israel enjoying secure and recognised borders. Each country should enjoy normal relations and capacity for trade with its neighbours.

I support the PA led by President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad as the legitimate government of the Palestinians. Any sovereign future Palestinian state would have to be able to reign in terrorist groups such as Hamas, which has to date refused to uphold the Oslo Peace Accords.

The Association Agreement with Israel (signed in 1995 and in force from 2000) does not include either the occupied territories, or goods originating in these territories. Indeed, goods originating from the Israeli occupied territories are not entitled to preferential tariff treatment under Community law.

I believe that Palestine should be governed by the Palestinian people. I have sought assurances from the European Commission that any free trade agreement with Israel includes safeguards to prevent the economic exploitation of the West Bank and Gaza territories.

I believe that to effectively isolate Israel will only exacerbate the problems in the region. Trade allows the flow of goods and with them ideas. It allows us to influence Israel in ways that would not be possible if we stopped trading with them. Indeed, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso visited Palestine in July this year to show that support.

Israel has behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation. The only way to change this behaviour is through trade and 'soft' influence. Forcing Israel into an isolated corner has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. I will continue to support free trade agreements, with proper safeguards, with both Palestine and Israel.

Yours sincerely,

Ashley Fox

Unsatisfied with his response which showed either a lack of compassion or a large amount of ignorance, I replied:

Dear Mr Fox

Thank you for replying to my email regarding the ACAA agreement. However, I feel I must reply in response to some of the points you have made as they are inaccurate.

1.) “refusing consent to this Protocol would cause economic damage to both the EU and Israel”.

Although refusing consent may cause some minor adverse effects to the economy of the EU, any negative consequences to the Israeli economy can only be a positive outcome, as this would highlight two important points: Firstly, that we are unwilling to improve trade conditions with an apartheid regime that consistently breaks international law through the abuse of human rights and the occupation of Palestinian land. Secondly, as trade with Europe and probably the world will be hampered, Israel's economy, and therefore it's people, will suffer as a consequence, possibly causing them pause for thought regrading their harmful policies.

2.)  “the EU's ability to project positive political influence within Israel”.

Israel currently enjoys brilliant trade relations with countries such as ourselves and the US. This has only helped to enable Israel to implement and maintain its system of oppression. If we improve Israel's trade prospects what kind of message would that really send? Can't you see that by doing this we will be condoning their despicable policies and actions?

3.)  “Any sovereign future Palestinian state would have to be able to reign in terrorist groups such as Hamas, which has to date refused to uphold the Oslo Peace Accords.”

Hamas have committed some abhorrent crimes, I would not question this. But so have Israel and on a much larger scale. Israel is a terrorist state; anyone who has an interest in this issue and is without bias, knows this. Assassinations, indiscriminate killings and sometimes the intended killing of civilians, torture, the demolition of civilian structures ( houses in particular), detention without trial (including children), these are all done systematically and on a regular basis by the state of Israel. Therefore, do you not agree that if Hamas has to be reigned in, so does Israel?

As far as upholding the Oslo Peace Accords, why are you not also referring to Israel's continued illegal settlement building, as well as the crimes just mentioned above?

4.)  “The Association Agreement with Israel does not include either the occupied territories , or goods originating in these territories.”

This may be true but many illegal Israeli settlement goods are sold throughout Britain, many through the big supermarket chains. Like I said, we already have good trade relations with Israel, and so far we have not used this as a lever to affect change. Why is this? You state that “to isolate Israel will only exacerbate the problems in the region”, but how much worse can it get for the Palestinians? Didn't boycotts and sanctions help to bring apartheid in South Africa to an end?

5.)  “Israel has behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation.”

I think you would do better to turn this sentence around – Palestinians have behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation. Israel is a prosperous country, many of the population have access to good healthcare, education and jobs. This is not true of Palestine, where the majority of the population live in poverty with very little hope for a better future. Even the most basic and essential supplies sent to them by the international community are often stopped from reaching them by the Israel. It is this lack of hope and desperation that sometimes leads Palestinians to commit horrific acts of violence.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would very much appreciate a reply to the points I have set out. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

I now await his response, fully aware that he will go ahead and vote yes to this agreement anyway. It will be interesting to see how he justifies voting yes when answering the questions I put to him.  

American Presidential Elections 2012 – The Lesser of Two Evils

As per usual, elections in the most powerful and influential country in the world has more to do with personality than policy. To become president you must be wholesome, an all American guy who's Christian faith is unshakable and the basis on which all decisions must be made whilst in office. Oh, and you need money, and lots of it. It's really all about voting for the lesser evil, that's all you can hope for. Obama gave the world hope for change, unfortunately he fell short on most issues, including on his promise to close Guantanamo Bay. To be fair he was always up against it, the US system of governance is set up in such a way that it's virtually impossible to change the way big business and certain powerful individuals and groups dominate, at the detriment not only to Americans but the world as a whole.

Obama may not have been the ray of hope we were looking for, but next to Mitt Romney and the destructive and uncaring policies of the Republican Party, he's heaven sent, here to save us from the devil himself. If the American public is crazy enough to vote Romney in, and judging by their track record it's a real possibility, the world will becomes that little bit more unstable. I truly believe this. You can add him to the list of moral-less trigger happy war lords such as Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jnr. All dreadful people who have done dreadful things, without a hint of remorse for their total lack of respect for human life.

As the elections start to build steam, the mud slinging will intensify, each concentrating on the others personality flaws, with policy a secondary issue at best. If Americans decide to ignore this charade and concentrate purely on policy, a little scratching at the surface will reveal what most people with even a partial interest in world politics will know: that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are there to serve their own interests, that of a small elite of extremely wealthy Americans who's only concern is in maintaining the status quo, with little or no concern in the well-being of their own people, and certainly not the well-being of other nations. Having said that, do the Democrats differ greatly in what they can offer Americans and the world? Well, in my opinion they do at least at times seem to show some humility to their own as well as to the world, but as I mentioned earlier, it's all about choosing the lesser of two evils. That's probably the kindest thing to be said of the Democratic Party.  

Political Party Donations

In the UK, although political parties and MPs do receive some public funding, the majority of their funding comes from private donations, whether it be from an individual, organisation or business. This is standard practice, an accepted norm in the political world, but which is in my opinion, inherently unhealthy for democracy and opens the door to dishonesty and corruption.

As it stands, donations are an essential part of any political party campaign, allowing them to get their message across to the public, as well as financing the day to day running of their party. Party campaign expenditures, among other things, include: transport, advertising, broadcasts, market research, party manifestos, and canvassing. None of this comes cheap, and if a party wants to be successful it is important that they are as visible to the public as their rivals, if not more so. Considering the amounts of monies that are involved, it would on the face of it seem like a good idea to allow private donations, saving tax payers millions of pounds in any given year. But when you dig a little deeper you soon find some worrying drawbacks to the current system of party funding.

Donations are not in any way supposed to influence or affect a politician's decision making when concerning policy. But how can we ever be sure of this. If for example, a politician or party receives regular or large donations from big business leaders, who's own wealth and the wealth of the companies they represent are directly or indirectly effected by polices which are passed through parliament, there is a huge conflict of interest. It creates an “I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch my back” culture which compromises the integrity of both politicians and business leaders alike. Anyone who has an interest in politics and/or economics will probably tell you that politicians are increasingly at the mercy of big business. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the United States, where the system appears to be less democratic than in the UK. In America it is usually the party who receives the most dollars who goes on to win the election, therefore placing even more pressure on politicians to do what is necessary to secure big donations. Of course there are many other reasons as to why democracy in the US is suffering, one being politicians having business interests of their own, but to discuss them here would be getting a little off the subject.

In the UK, the Conservatives have for a long time received large funding from people connected with the world of big business and finance, where the majority of the Labour Party's funding comes from the unions. I'm sure that both parties often make choices that are unpopular with their donors, but the I have no doubt that many politicians make decisions with their benefactor's interests niggling away at the back of their minds, well aware that losing these big financial contributions could have a detrimental effect on whichever party they represent. The ongoing Leveson inquiry, which among other things is examining the relationship between the media and politicians, has shown just how cosy and inappropriate the “I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch my back” relationship can be. Some politicians, who are understandably fearful of bad and unflattering press, have be socially involved with influential members of the tabloid press, including former editor of The Sun, Rebekah Brooks, and the Chairman and CEO of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch. The Leveson inquiry has exposed the dangers of such relationships. One example unearthed by the inquiry was of a text message regarding News Corporation's takeover bid of BSkyB. This was sent by Conservative MP Jeremy Hunt to Deputy Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation and son of Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch. The text congratulated him on “European clearance” for the takeover bid and went on to say “just Ofcom to go!”. Ofcom being the UK regulator and competition authority on communication industries. Hours after this text, Prime Minister David Cameron gave Jeremy Hunt responsibility for overseeing the takeover bid. Considering the magnitude of such a takeover and the effect it might have had on the media, and even the effect it might have had on politics with the possibility of skewed and biased reporting, putting Mr Hunt in charge was clearly a mistake. Cutting out any temptation and reward for politicians trying to please the media or their financial benefactor would make for a cleaner and better functioning democracy.

So what are the alternatives?

Well, caps on the amount that contributors can donate is one idea that might help to stem the unhealthy relationship between politicians and donors. The smaller a donation is from one source, the less important that one source becomes, therefore discouraging the need for an inappropriate relationship, and possibly even eliminating the need for a relationship altogether. Although this system would be an improvement, depending on how high the cap is set, some might argue that as long as there are private donations involved, corruption and immoral behaviour will continue.

The other option is to totally ban private donations, using tax payer's money to fund the running of political parties. Much deliberation would be needed before implementing a system like this. Which parties would receive funding and how much would they be allocated. And what about the smaller grass roots parties; would they receive public funding at all.

The amount of public money that would be needed to fund a system like this might initially be seen as unacceptable, particularly in times of recession. But, the amounts need not match that of current private donations. In fact, they could be considerably less, forcing parties to concentrate more on policy and less on style. The drain on the public pot would be minimum. It gets a little more complicated when deciding which parties receive the funding and what happens to the parties who don't qualify. Maybe the answer to that is to fund the bigger, more popular parties, but allow smaller parties to receive private donations up to a capped amount.

With the right planning and a small amount (in the big scheme of things) of public money, a new and fairer political party funding system could be introduced. This would encourage a more honest and vibrant democracy that would benefit us all. The only losers would be those unscrupulous individuals and organisations who put their own interests first, to the detriment of society.  

American Veterans Denounce NATO Aggression

The sight of American ex-service men and woman loudly denouncing NATO aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, by hurling their war medals towards the location of the recent NATO summit, made an extremely powerful statement. The emotion was clear to see too, these brave veterans felt betrayed by their country and some seemed to be carrying a sense of shame and guilt for whatever role they played in the invasions. This anti-war protest, as moving as it was, must have made it very hard for NATO leaders to ignore. This show of unity between the protesters and veterans might well inspire other men and woman who have served in the forces or who are currently serving, to speak out about the immorality of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

There have always been very loud and strong movements speaking out against the illegal invasion of Iraq. In 2003 at least 750,000 people marched in protest in London alone. Since then, the number of citizens against the invasion and following occupation as increased exponentially. In the beginning, opposition against the war in Afghanistan was less obvious, possibly due to confusion regarding the ambiguity of mission objectives cited by politicians and war planners. There has been a distinct change in public opinion over the past few years leading to a huge drop in support for the war, with many calling for the withdrawal of troops. Whether troop withdrawal is the best way forward or not (many people have concerns over likely human rights abuses once foreign forces leave), the anti-war feeling seems to be here to stay, for the time being at least. With the increasing likelihood of an attack on Iran growing all the time, I just hope that the anti-war movement will become so large it simply cannot be ignored.

Austerity

When accessing the media these days there is one theme above any other that seems to haunt us. Austerity! We're bombarded with it. We all have to cut back, we're all in this together. Some have to take a pay cut or a cut in their pension, while others have lost their jobs. Services are being cut: healthcare, benefits, policing; every area of society is to be examined and cuts made where possible. We all have to take it on the chin and pull together as a society, the country's broke and so is Europe. Politicians love to talk about the need to come together and tackle the debt as a society, claiming that nearly everyone is negatively effected by the austerity measures. The problem is, most people see it for what it really is; an attack on the poor and most vulnerable in society.

People who had absolutely no hand in causing this mess are the ones who are truly suffering. But of course, this is nothing new. In times of recession it's usually the case that the poorer and more disadvantaged suffer, while the wealthier and elite segments of society have very little to worry themselves about, except the constant complaining and whining of the majority. It amazes me that instead of raising tax on the wealthy, we're cutting the safety nets from under the poor. I know all the economic arguments that are used to justify lower tax rates on big business. Governments often believe that by implementing high tax rates, they run the risk of discouraging businesses from setting up in their respective countries, especially when other countries can offer a lower rate of tax. I believe this to be a somewhat genuine concern, but it just reflects the general attitude of the worlds wealthy – money and short term gains over people. It does appear that governments are often at the mercy of big business, but they also seem unwilling to challenge the status quo. And why would they, many politicians benefit hugely from their relationships within the business world. Some make massive financial gains whilst still in government, while others are a little more cautious and cash in once their political career is over. That's not to say all politicians are selfish and corrupt. There are many that are trying to change the system from within but find it almost impossible to make any headway, accomplishing only small victories for fairness and equality.

There are signs that people are fighting back, with Francois Hollande and The Socialist Party winning the recent French presidential elections, and the anti-austerity politics of the Syriza party gaining popularity in Greece. Within the Euro-zone it is Greece who is suffering more than most. With massive unemployment and cuts to services such as healthcare, many Greeks have fallen below the poverty line, relying on handouts from NGOs and other charitable organisations. Is it at all surprising that the level of anger among large sections of Greek society is so high? To be told that the cuts will need to go deeper before a bailout can be agreed does not sound like something that would placate your average Greek citizen right now. There's much speculation surrounding the implications of a Greek government that wouldn't accept the bailout conditions that are being proposed, but whatever happens I sincerely hope the people are put first, and not the multinational corporations who are just foaming at the mouth at the thought of buying up state-owned assets on the cheap.

One positive to be taken out of the current climate of austerity – people are uniting and fighting for a fairer and more just system. People have become more aware of social issues and social justice; the more that the inequalities between the rich and poor become apparent, the angrier and more determined the people become. Lets just hope that this wave of discontent can be turned into an ocean of change for the better.