Zimbabwe is beyond the edge of the precipice, sliding rapidly down into its depths. The despot who calls himself President has succeeded in finally killing democracy, with the successful use of violence and intimidation causing the leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, to withdraw from a Presidential run-off which should never have occurred in the first place. Tsvangirai's decision is understandable and probably unavoidable - he has demonstrated his moral superiority over Mugabe by placing the needs and lives of those he represents first - but is the final nail in the coffin for democracy in the country. There is no way in future that Mugabe will be disposed of at the ballot box, as he has confirmed that violence will succeed. Therefore, we must step beyond the hope of electoral success and strongly support a concerted effort to remove him from his position.
There will be a collective shiver down liberal spines at the mention of regime change, especially given the debacle of Iraq. However, Zimbabwe descent into hell is a crime against humanity which, I believe, we are obliged to answer. The economy is destroyed, the fabric of the country is threadbare and the population is being murdered - the opposition MDC have described it as genocide and we must listen carefully to that description. To our eternal shame, we in the West stood by and allowed the massacre of Rwanda to occur, wringing our hands at the horror and fretting over what to do. Never again should have been the one lesson that we took from it, however we are standing by and allowing other countries to slip towards repetition. Zimbabwe's crisis is a disaster for its people, but also threatens to destablise the entire region. A country that should be able to provide food for the entire continent is instead starving, its people fleeing and the having to return, driven off by racist violence in South Africa. For countries such as South Africa, the influx of poverty stricken refugees adds additional strain to systems which are struggling and appear unjust to its citizens. Fear of the other and allocating blame to those different from oneself - these are sadly constants throughout human history, repeated around the world in every different culture.
What then are we to do? Well, the problem that we find ourselves in is that we are the former colonial power. We fret about looking like we are trying to take over again, and Mugabe plays cleverly upon this. He blames us for everything he doesn't like, alleging our influence in the affairs of the opposition. This has meant that we have wisely taken a step back from direct involvement. The Government has been at the forefront of world efforts to criticise Mugabe's administration, and has tried to push neighbouring countries, South Africa in particular, to take the lead - it should be commended for all of this. However, the neighbouring states have thus far failed in their task. Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, has been negligent in taking a firmer line with Mugabe, and in fact has helped to protect his regime from some of the international pressure. In a misguided attempt at solidarity (admittedly partly shaped by the remaining regard for Mugabe as a freedom fighter which many Africans still possess) he has not fulfilled the leadership role which is his responsibility, and now the failure of this is threatening to destabilise his own country.
It appears clear to me that the time is now upon us for direct military intervention into Zimbabwe, to remove Mugabe, preferably to the Hague for trial. The use of soft power, through diplomacy and dialogue has sadly failed, and it now falls upon the international community to provide Mugabe with an ultimatimum backed up with the sanction of military force. This must be an international mission, led by the neighbouring countries but supported to the hilt by the UK. Our colonial legacy in Zimbabwe does not mean that we must remain uninvolved - rather it insists that we must be invovled in resolving the mistakes of the past and ensuring a better future for the people of Zimbabwe. Mugabe has already promised civil war to keep the MDC out, and retains the support of the military to back him up in this promise. Intervention on behalf of the international community would therefore not be a provocation to new actions, rather it presents our last opportunity to intervene before the final strands of cohesion in the country collapse. This military intervention must be backed up with guaranteed economic aid, a clear strategy for post intervention reconciliation and recovery and the leadership of other African nations as a demonstration that this is not some sort of neocolonial strategy, but rather a reflection of the international community's response to the collapse of democracy and the destabilisation of an entire region.
Sadly, this will not happen, certainly not before it is too late. The drive for such action must come from the neighbouring countries, especially South Africa, and their actions thus far have made this incredibly unlikely. Our own legitimacy in leading humanitarian interventions has been damaged by Iraq and has not yet recovered, whilst the US, even more tarnished in reputation, have very little interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe. South Africa's mistaken solidarity with a failed freedom fighter diminish the status of African nations, and cast doubt upon its desire to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Zimbabwe's self-destruction drags down the continent, reflecting a failure in democracy and governance all too common in the post-colonial independent states.
Military intervention must come, and military intervention will come. The choice for the international community is whether this will be on our terms or in response to the final collapse of Zimbabwe.
Showing posts with label World politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World politics. Show all posts
Monday, June 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The UN Security Council
I think Gordon Brown has had a successful trip to India and China, and the resulting trade deals and links will be beneficial to our economy in the turbulent times ahead. One issue I was particularly pleased to see raised was Gordon's support for India taking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Cold War of the Mind
The tension and mistrust between the UK and Russia is continuing to build. Over recent years, Russia has started to move back into the position that it considers right for itself - regional heavyweight with a view to regaining its superpower status, cemented by bullying tactics against smaller neighbours. Russian behaviour towards Georgia and the Ukraine is threatening to destabilise these nations in their recent political progress, whilst Russian involvement in the Middle East is adding to the mess of the region. None of which is hugely surprising considering the dictatorial tendencies of Time's Man of the Year, Vladimir Putin.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
Friday, November 09, 2007
The (brief!) geopolitical case for the Union
In a time when the Union is under frequent attack from expected, and in the case of Cameron and his Tories, unexpected sources, I think it is important that we examine all of the aspects that make the Union an important and beneficial set-up to the nations involved. Obviously the economic issues have been receiving the most coverage so far, however I would like to jot down a few ideas about what I feel are the geopolitical responsibilities of the Union, and why we would be abrogating our responsibility if we were to break it apart.
As the United Kingdom, we possess a role on the world stage which far outweighs our geographic size. This is rooted in several causes - the historical legacy of our Empire which spanned the globe; the power of economy which outperforms many 'bigger' nations; the global power of the English language and others. Possibly even more crucially, we are seen in many quarters as the birthplace and spiritual home of modern democracy - the US and France may have taken particular paths, but it Westminster that is called the Mother of Parliaments. Our tradition of liberal democracy (as so impressively laid out in Gordon Brown's recent speech, which I will return to at another date) is one that has acted as the underpinning of much liberal thought across the world, and continues to provide an ideal for nations to aspire to - including our own!
It is true that our global reputation has been damaged by the war in Iraq, and respect for our causes dimished by our association with the most unpopular US President there has probably ever been. However, Iraq is only part of the story, and our history and future is bigger than that intervention. To argue, as Alex Salmond frequently does, that Iraq is a justification for splitting from the Union is ridiculous - that is the path to anarchy, whereby anytime a section of the population does not agree to something the Government does, they split away and follow their own path. In reality, Iraq must be the impetus for us as a nation to refind our role on the world stage, and work to restore the faith of the world in us.
For as the UK, we have a unique and important role to play. This goes beyond our traditional role as the link between Europe and the US, although this is a crucial role. Our role also involves the historical link of the Commonwealth, whereby our future is intrinsically linked to that of nations who we are tied to, and with whom we are striving for the Common Good. Our interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, along with generally the intervention in Afghanistan, are ones that are supported in world opinion, as is the pressure that we are putting to bear on Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Our traditional approach, of using diplomatic pressure to seek to influence nations, backed up by a willingness to intervene with military force if required, is one that strikes a happy balance between the gung-ho US and the laissez-faire approach of say the French.
We also have an important role to play, by example, support and pressure, in the spread of liberal democracy. I know that many of my colleagues in the Party will shudder at that thought, as it has become widely associated with the neocon movement behind the war in Iraq, however, I don't think that there is anything illiberal in the spreading of democracy. If we can restore our place as a respected international player, then we can provide an inspiration to nations struggling to find their way to peaceful democracy and a model for them to aim for.
All of this will not happen as independent nations I'm afraid. I think that were the UK to be disbanded, only England would really retain any lingering influence, and that would be minimal and short-lived, especially if it was up against an independent Salmond-led Scotland which was focussed on doing everything it could to prove its difference. From a Scottish point of view, our proud history of standing against oppression around the world would sadly be lost if Salmond had his way and we followed the Irish path of neutrality. It is not enough in this interconnected world that we live in for a nation to sit back and claim no responsibility for what is happening around it - it is simply the abdication of responsibility. Salmond claims to be so keen on what is happening on the global stage, yet without the opportunity provided by the UK's Permanent Seat on the Security Council his role and influence would be virtually nil.
And I believe that this is the point - we have a responsibility to continue to play a role on the world stage, as a democratic nation holding out the example that different countries and peoples can live together in peace and co-operation. The UK, despite the problems and things we would like to change, is a living example of solidarity in a common cause, something that is all too rare in the world. We are hated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk precisely because we represent the world they don't want to see - free, liberal and pluralist, respecting the rights of all and willing to take a stand against injustice and oppression. We have made many mistakes in our history as a United Kingdom, but we have also been a shining light and a vessel for changing the world for the better. At a time when the world is confronted by threats, it is important that we continue to bear this responsibility and to struggle for those who cannot struggle for themselves.
As the United Kingdom, we possess a role on the world stage which far outweighs our geographic size. This is rooted in several causes - the historical legacy of our Empire which spanned the globe; the power of economy which outperforms many 'bigger' nations; the global power of the English language and others. Possibly even more crucially, we are seen in many quarters as the birthplace and spiritual home of modern democracy - the US and France may have taken particular paths, but it Westminster that is called the Mother of Parliaments. Our tradition of liberal democracy (as so impressively laid out in Gordon Brown's recent speech, which I will return to at another date) is one that has acted as the underpinning of much liberal thought across the world, and continues to provide an ideal for nations to aspire to - including our own!
It is true that our global reputation has been damaged by the war in Iraq, and respect for our causes dimished by our association with the most unpopular US President there has probably ever been. However, Iraq is only part of the story, and our history and future is bigger than that intervention. To argue, as Alex Salmond frequently does, that Iraq is a justification for splitting from the Union is ridiculous - that is the path to anarchy, whereby anytime a section of the population does not agree to something the Government does, they split away and follow their own path. In reality, Iraq must be the impetus for us as a nation to refind our role on the world stage, and work to restore the faith of the world in us.
For as the UK, we have a unique and important role to play. This goes beyond our traditional role as the link between Europe and the US, although this is a crucial role. Our role also involves the historical link of the Commonwealth, whereby our future is intrinsically linked to that of nations who we are tied to, and with whom we are striving for the Common Good. Our interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, along with generally the intervention in Afghanistan, are ones that are supported in world opinion, as is the pressure that we are putting to bear on Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Our traditional approach, of using diplomatic pressure to seek to influence nations, backed up by a willingness to intervene with military force if required, is one that strikes a happy balance between the gung-ho US and the laissez-faire approach of say the French.
We also have an important role to play, by example, support and pressure, in the spread of liberal democracy. I know that many of my colleagues in the Party will shudder at that thought, as it has become widely associated with the neocon movement behind the war in Iraq, however, I don't think that there is anything illiberal in the spreading of democracy. If we can restore our place as a respected international player, then we can provide an inspiration to nations struggling to find their way to peaceful democracy and a model for them to aim for.
All of this will not happen as independent nations I'm afraid. I think that were the UK to be disbanded, only England would really retain any lingering influence, and that would be minimal and short-lived, especially if it was up against an independent Salmond-led Scotland which was focussed on doing everything it could to prove its difference. From a Scottish point of view, our proud history of standing against oppression around the world would sadly be lost if Salmond had his way and we followed the Irish path of neutrality. It is not enough in this interconnected world that we live in for a nation to sit back and claim no responsibility for what is happening around it - it is simply the abdication of responsibility. Salmond claims to be so keen on what is happening on the global stage, yet without the opportunity provided by the UK's Permanent Seat on the Security Council his role and influence would be virtually nil.
And I believe that this is the point - we have a responsibility to continue to play a role on the world stage, as a democratic nation holding out the example that different countries and peoples can live together in peace and co-operation. The UK, despite the problems and things we would like to change, is a living example of solidarity in a common cause, something that is all too rare in the world. We are hated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk precisely because we represent the world they don't want to see - free, liberal and pluralist, respecting the rights of all and willing to take a stand against injustice and oppression. We have made many mistakes in our history as a United Kingdom, but we have also been a shining light and a vessel for changing the world for the better. At a time when the world is confronted by threats, it is important that we continue to bear this responsibility and to struggle for those who cannot struggle for themselves.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Amazing Grace
I finally got round to watching Amazing Grace at the weekend, and I must admit I was incredibly moved by it.
Now, I'll hold my hands up and confess to being an idealist when it comes to politics. But what I saw in that film is what, to me, politics is all about. The vision to change the world, the dedication to overcome challenges and the commitment to doing what is right, even if it carries personal cost.
I get depressed when I hear the negativity that is felt towards politicians. At an event I was running last week, the audience (composed of very educated and motivated people) waxed lyrical about how all politicians are in it for themselves, concerned only with protecting their pensions rather than in making a difference to the world. When I disputed this assessment, I was greeted with looks of incredulity - how on earth could I be so naive as to think that there were any politicians in it for the greater good.
But I do believe that this is the motivating factor for involvement in politics, and I certainly know it is for me. For me, politics is a vocation. Now, I know that the religious terminology will grate for some readers, but I very much believe that there is a calling to politics. It is not just a job or a career with good pay and benefits, but rather is a chance to change the world to be a better place. Politicians are elected with different views of how they would like the world to be, and Parliament is where they are able to argue their views and put forward a direction for the country.
This type of vocational politics is one that can inspire the public and the next generation of activists. As a job, politics is not the ideal way to make money. It is intensive and demanding, and although the pay for MPs is very high, there are business jobs which are far better paying - just ask all those MPs who have moved on to be board members of big companies!
Politics is crucial to our lives - it impacts on everything that we do. I say this to groups when I am doing my outreach events, and at first many of them look at me as if I have two heads! However, when we discuss the impact that it has and the changes it can make, they change their views and get fired up at the possibilities that it presents.
William Wilberforce was a man who changed the world, even though the odds were stacked outrageously against him. He strived through years of failure, ridicule and personal attacks, and sacrificed his own personal ambition to the greater good of those who had no voice for themselves. This, to me, should be the mantra of all our elected representatives and indeed for our Party as a whole. Politics, and politicians, do matter - we need to make sure that the public is aware of this through the actions and motivations of those elected to represent them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)