Saddam Hussein: One Year On

Today marks the first anniversary of the execution of Saddam Hussein. Hussein died at 6am on December 30th 2006 on the gallows used by his regime to crackdown on dissenters. As I watched Saddam swing, his neck askew, I couldnt help but think that whilst his neck may be broken.. we had only strengthened his legacy further. His death was intended to close a brutal and dark chapter of Iraq’s history. So on the first anniversary, has the desired result been achieved… is Iraq pacified…has the death of Saddam closed a bloody chapter?

 

No matter how the politicians may try to jazz it up, it is inescapably clear Iraq is failed and the Hussein legacy is far from closed. The Iraqi “government” is nothing more than a puppet. When the British and Americans leave Iraq will undoubtedly slip back in to old ways. A leader far worse or on a par with Saddam Hussein will ultimately replace him. Arab nations are no strangers to oppressive and authoritarian regimes. In a curious way it is familiar to them and it is what they respond to. A western government has no right, cause or sense to attempt to impose our style of democracy on an Arab nation. Any attempt is bound to fail and ultimately the coalition imposed Iraqi government is unsustainable.

Whether the west wishes to acknowledge it or not the fact remains that Saddam Hussein was well-regarded in much of the world and his demise only strengthened support. Brazilians remembered that thousands of their countrymen were recruited by Saddam to build the advanced highway and bridge systems that once crisscrossed Iraq. Egyptians did not forget that a few million of their countrymen owned and worked land in Iraq prior to January 1991. Indians did not forget the reciprocal dealings with Iraq and how the Ba’athists gave support to Indian causes. The Lebanese remembered the dozens of Iraqi trucks that showed up daily at the Lebanese border during that country’s civil war. They were laden with food and clothing for any Lebanese person in need. The convoys’ recipients included all Lebanese, not a certain faction of those battling in the civil war.

 

Further to this most Palestinians display a picture of Saddam Hussein on their walls! To them and many others Saddam is a true Arab hero. Over the years, many nations have temporarily supported the Palestinian cause, only to withdraw aid once threatened by the U.S. Saddam Hussein, even during the embargo years, supported the Palestinians with no exception, while other Arab regimes did not want to get involved because they did not want to upset their puppeteers in Washington and Tel Aviv. More importantly Iraqis now look back at the Hussein era as a period of relative clam and prosperity and the grotesque actions of Hussein and his regime are being somewhat ignored. At the risk of raising yet more controversy it is my deeply held belief that the execution of Saddam Hussein was a capital mistake. Saddam Hussein met his end a martyr and the west unintentionally assisted this. Our indifference led the bloodstained legacy of Saddam Hussein to be glossed over and glorified due to the abhorrent manner of his death.

Leaders such as Saddam require an end such as his in order for their brand of politics to continue after their demise. Saddams legacy remains unfinished, whether the west wishes to see it or not. His support still grows as Iraq descends further in to chaos. Saddam Hussein will never return to power but a protégé of the Hussein legacy is likely to emerge. Although he may have died on the Baghdad gallows one year ago today his legacy still looms large over Iraq. As the situation in the Middle East deteriorates and the people suffer further hardship they begin to look more nostalgically to the legacy of the martyrs. Hussein is one of the martyrs and as we fail his legacy goes from strength to strength.

Forget Brown, Starbucks is the future…

     

I was sitting in Starbucks yesterday in Birmingham. Wistfully with my Fair Trade tea and cinnamon swirl, I was thinking about this great, American corporate goliath.

Coffee houses, of course, have a long history. The first one appeared in England in 1650. Less than a hundred years later London alone had 551 of them. They were a place where people could meet, gossip, read, write, think, and even do business. Gentlemen, because women were banned, could freely debate the issues of the day, leading the French novelist Antoine Prevost to comment that coffee houses were the “seats of English Liberty”. Their popularity coincided with the European enlightenment, and the aristocrats, philosophers, lawyers, politicians and artists of the age would meet in them.

I wondered if Starbucks coincides with a new enlightenment, and if it does, what kind?

Firstly there is something Puritan about the theme. There are no loud colours or loud music. Instead everything is cream and Nora Jones. In Starbucks they ask you not to smoke, not because it’s against the law, but because it might “damage the taste of the coffee”, which of course is the finest, richest, and most interesting coffee in the world, hand selected from 150,000 samples. There are a range of Fair Trade and organic products, so that you can eat healthily and responsibily.

This Puritanism rubs off on the customers. I overheard two women (they are now allowed in coffee houses) talk about breast feeding, quite openly, and how it’s more organic and natural than processed milk and therefore better. That the science is debtable doesn’t matter.

Starbuck’s Fair Trade products are popular because Fair Trade is a convenient and therefore convincing way that you can do your bit to bring Starbucks into more people’s lives. The economics is debtable, but again it doesn’t matter.

And why is that a large cinnamon Swirl seems more healthy for me in Starbucks than anywhere else?

This particular branch had a collection box for second-hand books, which was full to the top. There was also art, sponsored by Birmingham Council and painted by local artists. And there was a community board which displayed all the good work Starbucks is doing in LEDCs.

Starbucks makes it’s customers feel good by letting them share in this puritan, charitable work. It’s so smug, so middle class. And I’m just as bad.

Benazir Bhutto 1953 – 2007

Benazir Bhutto has died. Mrs Bhutto had just addressed a rally Rawalpindi when she was shot in the chest and neck by nothing more than a coward. After he had shot her he then detonated his suicide belt sealing Benazir Bhuttos fate. Whilst I may have political differences with Benazir Bhutto the manner of her death is utterly repugnant. This latest episode is just another reminder that Pakistan is in immense political turmoil and the West needs to do all it can to support the re birth of democracy in Pakistan. However I fear that with President Musharraf still in the Presidential Palace… this end cannot be achieved.  

Long to reign over us

Her Majesty the Queen has become the oldest monarch in British history surpassing her great great grandmother Queen Victoria who died on January 22nd 1901 aged 81 years, seven months and 29 days. This is just another milestone in the Queens long and eventful life and I’m sure there will be many more to come. Should the Queen still be alive, she will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in 2012 (aged 86) and she will become Britains longest serving monarch on 9th September 2015 (aged 89) Whether she reaches those milestones of course no-one knows… however I believe the vast majority of her subjects hope and believe that she will.

Comment: Fit as a Fidel?

For the first time Fidel Castro has hinted at the possibility of appointing a permanent, rather than acting, President of Cuba. In a letter to a Cuban newspaper Castro said “My elemental duty is not to cling to positions, or even less to obstruct the path of younger people, but to share experiences and ideas whose modest worth comes from the exceptional era in which I lived” It does make one wonder where such attitudes were 20 or even 10 years ago?! Currently Castro’s brother Raul is acting President of Cuba after his older brother was felled by a serious gastro-intestinal illness in August 2006. Castro’s incapacitation does makes one wonder what life will be like after his death… how will the Cuban people adapt? Will 50 years of supressed political activism erupt with chaotic consequences? Or will Cuba move from one dictatorship to another. Will the new President be a protege of the Castro revolution who will continue along the same path laid by Fidel some 50 years before or will he be someone to bring about democracy? Fidel Castro has ruled Cuba with an iron fist for 49 years, with his grip on power failing to loosen even in the clutches of a major, potentially fatal, illness. For now at least Cuba goes on as normal with the focus quietly focused on life after Fidel. The day when, in the words of George W Bush, “The good lord takes Fidel Castro away” draws closer…. so too does the day of succession.

Diary…

       

My housemates frequently moan about my music taste. In my defence most of my music is pretty conventional. How much more mainstream can you get than Maroon 5 or Keane? These usual suspects feature on my playlist, as they do on most people’s, unless you’re my housemate Pete, who prefers electronica.

However, I also have a miscellaneous playlist. It includes the likes of Sister Sledge, The Pointer Sisters, Barry White, and others. They are though, according to my housemates, a bit gay, or in the case of The Village People, quite a lot gay.

But hang on a minute. I work in a bar, and it is not Keane or Maroon 5 who make people who probably shouldn’t, get up and wiggle their bottoms. ‘Gay anthems’, however, do. And anyone who professes to hate them is lying. Or maybe I am just a big puff.

Incidentally, I recently bought a big poster of James Dean. The photo was shot between takes on the set of his last film ‘Giant’. He was killed shortly after in a car crash and never lived to see the film released. The upshot, however, is that he never aged. He remained the guy in the photo taken in 1955, at the peak of his fame.

For most famous people this is the time to die, and for good measure it’s better to get shot, or die in an expensive car crash. No really. Immortality is not easily achieved, and a tragic death is a good way to achieve it. JFK is the best example, now immortalised. Martin Luther King shared the same fate. Princess Diana too, although she should have died in a DB5 rather than a Merc. The best thing Hitler did, both for his own posterity and for the world, was to shoot himself. Churchill desperately wanted to participate in the D-DAY landings, nevermind the epic danger he would be in. Why let death get in the way of greatness? So, Mr Brown, you know what to do…

Let us not make the same mistake

It is great to be riding high in the polls once again, although I still think they are incredibly distorted, it has been an incredible 6 months in politics. I feel the polls will not settle down until March at least once the Lib Dems have elected their new leader and he has had time to bed himself in.

 Therefore a crucial message to all Conservatives is let us not get to arrogant, I was at the City Branch party with Michael Gove MP on Thursday night, and there was a lot of chitter chatter, ‘if we had had the election . . . just imagine’. Quite frankly I do not want to imagine if we had have won, we simply were not ready to form a Government, fortunately we did not implode and Cameron stood up to Brown and the latter blinked first.

 We now have a fantastic opportunity to really prepare ourselves for Government in 2010, with a range of policies. At the Conference, a prominent journalist said to me, it just doesn’t feel like the Labour in the mid 1990s, they knew they were ready for Government it just doesn’t feel like it here. The mood I have to say is now very different amongst the party. For the record I have always said since Cameron has been elected over two years ago now, the next election will result in a hung parliament, that has not changed at any point through this year, and I still believe that will be the case now.

 The crucial issue though is not to become arrogant, that is what Labour did during their conference and the Brown ‘bounce’.

On Wednesday, I was pointed to article written by local Birmingham MP Sion Simon, I have simply never read something quite so arrogant in my life, I would love to know how Mr. Simon now feels about this article . . .

The end of the age of the Nuke?

Last night over cocktails and canapes an interesting topic was raised by an elderly Thatcherite gentleman who’s name escapes me. Now I can almost feel the scoffs at the mention of elderly, tory and Thatcherite. One could be forgiven for assuming the conversation would be along the lines of… Cameron is a crook, Immigrants are parasites, Europe is a bureaucratic bog and Norman Tebbit should be Prime Minister. Sorry to disappoint you but the conversation was far more insightful and far more relevant to 2007 than even I could have envisaged.

After a bit of courtesy Thatcherite ”Cameron bashing” we moved on to the Iran and the Nuclear issue. I should quickly point out that that was a joke and we were suprisingly approving and positive in our Cameron banter. Back to Iran. We were both in agreement that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… puts the “mad” in Ahmadinejad. Neither of us have any time for him. There are many reasons for this but if I was to pick the most important 2 stand out; 1) His outrageous and barbaric wish to “wipe Israel off the map” and 2) His equally dilluded and outrageous assertion that “there are no homosexuals in Iran… and that it is a purely Western phenomenon”. Both show a clear dillusion and some what scary lack of reality. For those 2 comments alone he should be treated with a degree of hostility and indifference.

In regards to the Nuclear issue however we found a great deal of common ground. I think many rationally thinking people will agree that Iran has no intention of persuing a nuclear weapon and indeed their nuclear enrichment programme is peaceful. If one looks at the situation the idea of Iran aquiring a nuclear weapon is distrubing and distasteful but no more than a pipe dream. As soon as Ahmadinejad attempted to push the nuclear button Iran, not Israel, would be wiped off the map. As another Tory who shall remain nameless said “Iran and Israel  at war is like pitting America and Cambodia against one another in terms of military capability” It is my deeply held view that whilst Iran might like to see the destruction of Israel it recognises it will never happen, due to the overwhelming force behind Israel, but the regime must talk tough to appease the hardliners that plague Iran and the wider Middle East.

I do not seek to hide my displeasure or indeed disguist at the current Iranian regime nor my desire to see the continuation and defence of Israel. However that is not to say that I do not want open and constructive dialogue with the majority peaceful and passive Iranian people. So how does this all relate to Cameron? Well it was our shared belief that Cameron could feesibly call a press conference, particularly in light of the latest report to come out regarding Irans nuclear programme, and express Conservative opposition to a strike on Iran without real concrete evidence of ill intention. This clear and concrete evidence was lacking in the Iraq debarcle. Gordon Brown could not, cannot and will not do this. Therefore it presnts the opposition with a clear and effective way of scoring “political points” at a particularly volatile time for Brown.

 Where we disagreed however was in the gentlemans desire to see complete unilatteral nuclear diarmourment. Now whilst I agree in principle that the world should rid itself of the scourge of nuclear weapons I do not believe that that can be easily achieved. He believed Britain should disarm its Nukes in order to serve as an example to the world who in theory would follow suit. I do not hold to this view. I believe a nuclear deterrant is vital whilst other powers retain theirs. To be frank the nuclear weapon whilst inteded to secure national security has actually served the opposite purpose and has increased national insecurity. No country will give up its Nukes until everyone else does first. Therefore the desire for unilatteral disarmourment and the refusal to make the first step makes the aims and means for disarmourment irreconcilable.

The day of the Nuke is in my view ending but no-one knows quite how to end it. North Korea, Iran and other rogue nations have seemingly stopped their pursuit of weapons as they know in this day and age it is not a viable deterrant. They could never dream to aspire to the levels of weaponary currently in the wests arsenal. Indeed even devloped western nations with nuclear arms do not wish to use them. Therefore the question will come what to do with the Nukes currently in service and how to stop any more being developed. Frankly I am stumped. Whilst there is a desire or at least token understanding for nuclear disarmourment… quite who will take the neccessary first step is debatable.

Diary…

        

The labour blog do a weekly diary. Having realised that we don’t, we now do.

Lord Carter of Coles was asked by Jack Straw to review the supply and demand of prison places. To solve over-crowding he proposed that there should be a much closer relationship between the length of sentencing and the number of prison places.

I agree that we should be reducing demand for prison places rather than increasing supply. And I also agree that this will require a more efficient use of the places we have. However, Patrick Carter’s recommendation is not the way to do it.

We should, and the government knows we should, start with slowing the ‘revolving door syndrome’, where two thirds of those imprisoned, find themselves back inside within three years of release.

We should start by funding rehabilitation, and particularly drug rehabilitation, given that 60% of inmates use hard drugs within 12 months prier to sentencing.

I don’t like the word shocking. It’s used so much you might think people walk round with their mouths affixed permanently open. But it is shocking that nothing is done about such a high re-offending rate, and such high drug use. It is shocking that Carter can seriously propose connecting sentencing with prison places.

Another thing that’s shocking, is that nobody in the Labour party questioned more than £660,000 worth of donations made over five years, by a builder, a secretary and a solicitor.

It’s astonishing that those who knew that the source was in fact David Abrahams, didn’t think that it might be illegal, and didn’t think to check, until, of course, reports started to surface in the press.

Hilary Benn refused a donation from one of Abraham’s proxies, Janet Kidd, but then accepted one from Abrahams in person. It has since surfaced that Benn was told by Baroness Jay that Janet Kidd was donating on behalf of Abrahams.

You could ask that if Baroness Jay felt the need to forewarn Benn, and Benn then felt the need to return the cheque to Janet Kidd, why was it beyond the comprehension of others to check the legality of the donations?

I’m of the view that it was not beyond their comprehension, and that they knew perfectly well the donations might be pushing the rules. Either that, or they were incompetent. And either way, it reflects poorly.

Culturalism vs Racism

The whole Sudanese episode and the issues around Islamophobia and offence got me thinking about my own beliefs. I am not racist, but I am also not one who embraces multiculturalism. There has to be a middle ground.

Those who extol the supremacy of whites or that black people are any less able than white people are in my opinion deluded. To judge someone by their race is purely illogical. To me race is not an issue. If a doctor is black white or purple I do not care, I just want them to be a good doctor. Most people in this country believe this in my opinion.

However there is a great fear amongst a large swathe of the population towards immigrants and especially Muslims, if it isn’t racism what is it?

I propose that it is culturalism, and I think I am a follower. I define this as a negative reaction to those cultures that are sufficiently different to ours to pose a threat to our liberal values. Therefore I stand against those who preach homophobia, those who preach racism those who wish to see intolerance.

It is not the colour of skin it is the mindset, I do no like how many Muslims in this country have not extreme views, but separatist views, many wish to see increased Islamic morality, increased censorship of opinions deemed offensive to Islam and many people see an increase in immigration as also threatening to our way of life. these are not extreme views, but they do threaten in some instances a core value of freedom of speach and of moral liberalim

We look back to the enlightenment to the source of our modern values of liberal democracy, those from other cultures perhaps do not base their morality in those values and therefore pose at the least an academic challenge which needs to be argued and won in favour of assimilation into western ideals. I am not against cultural pluralism, but against the threat posed by some cultures who live here who do not accept some of our fundamental ways of living.

I stand against some cultures; so the huge problem of gang culture affects mostly the black African community. Well I do not find them threatening and abhorrent because of their skin colour, but because of the culture they follow and extol. however the peers who went to the sudan this week represent fantastically how if cultural assmilation happens race is no problem. two muslim peers, they accept our cultura and values and still practice their faith a eprfect blend of intergration and freedom of expression. it isn’t their skin colour that’s significant, but the fact the have a different cultural and relgious heritage, but have integrated into our core belief system.

So many people from different cultures have assimilated fantastically, bringing with them a cultural diversity in this country, which is unique and and im proud of. However there is a line from where assimilation stops and separatism starts and that is what I stand against, communities wanting to separate themselves and follow a different cultural ideology which is at odds with a tolerant equal western liberalism.

This isn’t a thesis and isn’t well written, just my thoughts on the matter. Race is no longer the issue, cultural identity is and a protection of our system of beliefs.