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!  

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.