Big Sticks and Small Carrots

I recently asked a four year old if he knew where milk came from. “The supermarket” he told me. I couldn’t disagree.

Like many Westerners (vegetarians, farmers and assorted others aside), I’m more than a little hypocritical when it comes to the food I eat. I’m probably too squeamish to kill an animal but I’ll normally eat what’s provided without really thinking much about how it got there.

But that handy “two for one” offer on chicken breasts at your supermarkets does come at a price. In truth, most members of western society are not best placed to question the morality of other cultures when it comes to the treatment of animals.

And yet, I see one particular criticism time and again. Here’s one from a “harl” commenting on a post by Roy Hattersley on CiF.

Even, as I write this, thousands of sheep in Saudi Arabia are having their throats slit. SLOWLY, very slowly, as the religion dictates. I doubt very much the slaughters will feel a smidgen of empathy for the doomed animals. For this is Islam, and the suffering of others is to be enjoyed.

Perhaps “harl” is a vegan or something but I think it’s more likely that s/he’s a rabid Islamophobe. And, as I said, this sort of thing is pretty common.

Now, the whole idea of slitting an animal’s throat and draining its blood, as required under Muslim tradition, is not something I want to think about. But is it morally worse than breeding chickens to be so fat that their legs can’t support them? I doubt it. Cutting an animal’s throat causes it to become unconscious quickly due to lack of blood to the brain; the animal suffers for only a short time. Broiler chickens, on the other hand, are miserable for the whole of their short lives.

We all know what they say about people in glass houses.

But the strangest thing about this relatively recent outburst of faux outrage over the process of Dhabiĥa is that so many of the Islamophobes are apparently unaware that the Jewish tradition requires almost exactly the same slaughtering process.

Please excuse me while I resort to a textbook manoeuvre:

Even, as I write this, thousands of sheep in Israel are having their throats slit. SLOWLY, very slowly, as the religion dictates. I doubt very much the slaughters will feel a smidgen of empathy for the doomed animals. For this is Judaism, and the suffering of others is to be enjoyed.

Yuck. A comment like that is clearly anti-Semitic and I doubt it’d last long on the boards of CiF before being removed. Harl’s comment however, has been there since yesterday morning.

For all that free speech is hugely important, political discourse has always been conducted within certain boundaries of acceptability as defined by society. The above is a troubling illustration of the way that the standards of acceptability have changed with regard to the open display of Islamophobic views. The pros and cons of this could be debated in a reasonably healthy way if this change in standards applied across the board but it does not. It is criticisms of Muslims specifically which have become acceptable; there has not been a wider relaxation in attitudes towards aggressive criticisms of other cultures or communities. In fact, it can be argued (and many do) that the opposite has occurred. It’s political correctness gone mad, I tell’s you…

Not for Muslims though.

One further point. It should be noted that it is perfectly possible to object to this method of slaughtering animals without being Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic (or even hypocritical). But a consistently applied set of beliefs regarding the ethical treatment of animals is clearly not what is driving the current spate of criticism directed towards those who eat halal meats.

Tags: News, Politics, Islamophobia

I’ve been tagged with the “7 best things” meme. Thanks. Sort of. And seven? This could be a stretch but I’ll give it a go.

What are the seven best things you did this past year?

• Attending the Green Gym. Despite the fact that Aberdeen and its surroundings are full of green spaces, I’ve always been a city boy. The Green Gym has helped teach me how to look at nature and the environment in a different light. Recommended.
• Not stopped blogging. I’m notoriously easily distracted by the next thing but having blogged for this long, I think I’m in it for long haul.
• Being included in this book. The whole self-deprecating thing can be tiresome but given the number of excellent bloggers out there, it sort of feels like my inclusion must have been because of a mistake somewhere along the line. But I’m certainly not complaining.
• Not saying “Bah! Humbug!” as much as I normally do at this time of year. I’m a Christmas grump (nothing to do with my atheism but probably a bit to do with my antipathy towards modern consumer culture) but I’m working on it. For the kids, like.
• Continuing my quest to randomly smile at people working in shops (and other public service industries) and generally attempting to treat them like human beings.
• Spreading the idea that people should randomly smile at people working in shops (and other public service industries) and generally attempt to treat them like human beings. Give it a go.
• Reading The Stranger by Camus. It’s one of those books I’ve always meant to read and I finally got round to it this year. Well orth the time it took to read. Bush reportedly read it this summer and that, as much as anything, was the spur. It’d be very interesting to know what the man who said “One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures” made of it.

I know I’m supposed to pass this on to seven others but I’m not going to. It’s not that I’m opposed to the spreading of memes; I’m just a natural grump. Bah! (but not Humbug!)

Tags: Blog

It is often claimed that turnout at British general elections has been in continuous decline for many years. That isn’t actually a very good description of the facts . In 1959, turnout was 78.73%; in 1992 it was 77.72%. If that’s a continuous decline, it’s a very slow one. It was only in 2001 that turnout really plummeted (to 59.38%). A small rally back to 61.36% occurred in 2005 but the last two elections were notable for the unprecedented number of people who did not participate. The fall in turnout was a step change, not part of a smooth historic trend. It’d be easy to blame this exclusively on our great leader but other factors have obviously contributed to this decline in participation in our democracy.

This week and last, there’s been a lot of talk about public cynicism of politics and politicians, mostly due to the continuing “cash for peerages” saga. There are those who are not shills for Blair who argue that the media are partly responsible for this increasing cynicism. Steve Richards in yesterday’s Independent is one such person (via). He writes:

Do we want a healthy party-based democracy any longer in Britain? The bigger parties struggle for cash while smaller extreme parties flourish in local elections. Meanwhile, senior politicians are accused with casual complacency of being corrupt. No wonder the fanatics in the BNP and elsewhere rub their hands with glee. They must sense that their time has come.

Political leaders are partly culpable for the wildly uninformed cynicism that undermines democratic politics. As I have written many times, Tony Blair has made some colossal misjudgements as he sought to escape from the politics of the 1980s and lead a centreleft party with a doomed managerial pragmatism. But, boy, do we know about the errors. We hear about his culpability most hours of every day. The dangerously simplistic background assumption is that Blair and other wretched politicians alone undermine democracy. It is much more complicated than that.

In that, he’s got a point.

There is a sense in which the way the media has covered politics in recent years has contributed to public cynicism. The increasing competition in the media and the need to find stories for 24 hour news channels have had an effect. Editors and journalists are constantly on the lookout for sensational scandals to the extent that they appear to be willing to create them out of almost nothing.

They do this, of course, because scandals sell. In a way, it’s a reflection of the adage that people get the politicians they deserve. There is an issue here and it does need to be addressed.

But (of course there’s a but), the main blame for the widespread cynicism of politicians in today’s Britain must still be laid at the door of the current government.

Here’s an example. Margaret Beckett was on the Today programme yesterday (Tuesday). John Humphries asked her about Carne Ross’s evidence to the Butler inquiry. Ross told the Butler inquiry that:

At no time did HMG assess that Iraq’s WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.

Humphries asked Beckett if she agreed that “the effect of this is that what he is saying is that Mr Blair was lying”. Beckett starts out by trying to belittle Carne Ross as is now standard practice. “I don’t know how important he was..”

Well, he was important enough to have “read the available UK and US intelligence on Iraq every working day for the four and a half years of [his] posting”.

The interview then descended into farce.

Beckett: Mr Ross’ basic thesis is that in some way, there was an assertion that Saddam Hussain was a threat directly to the U.K. You and I are both speaking from memory now but I don’t recall that argument being one that was used. It…

Humphries: Sorry, Tony Blair didn’t tell us Saddam Hussain was a threat to the United Kingdom?

Beckett: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What was said throughout was that Saddam Hussain was a threat to his region and that he had the intention and the desire to be a threat much more widely…

Humphries: 45 minutes?

Beckett: John, you and I both know that was a statement that was made once and it was thought to be of such little relevance and perhaps people began to quickly think ‘I’m not sure about that’. It was never used once in all the debates or questions in the House…

Humphries: It didn’t need to be. It was on the public record.

Beckett: Oh come on. No-one thought it was relevant. Nobody thought it was actually a big sweeping statement.

Just to remind you, The Sun headline was “BRITS 45 mins FROM DOOM - Cyprus within missile range”. That link is well worth reading for a reminder of the way the government allowed friendly journalists to do their dirty work for them. Buff has admitted on the record that he always knew that those stories were exaggerated and Beckett now admits that the government were quickly unsure that the claim even had any basis in fact. And the government’s defence for allowing the public (the less cynical ones anyway) to continue to believe that Brits were 45 minutes from doom is that “no-one thought it was relevant”.

What can you possibly say to that? How could you possibly fail to be disgusted? The media can be blamed only in so far as they allowed themselves to be manipulated by a government which knew exactly what it was doing. The primary responsibility lies with the government and most people in the country know it. Many of those previously trusting people who believed that the government would not mislead them over something so serious feel badly let down and are far more cynical today as a result.

And yet the government refuses to accept that what they did was wrong. Blair refuses to do the decent thing as demanded by the long tradition of British democracy. When accountability is so visibly absent, is it any wonder that people are increasingly cynical of politicians? Yes, the media have played a part but this government stands head and shoulders above anyone else when it comes to damaging public confidence in the democratic process. As long as they continue to evade being held to account for misleading the British people on such a serious matter, any attempts at restoring confidence in British politics is doomed to failure.

And finally

Here are a couple or three points of order from Becket’s dross.

Beckett: “I don’t recall that argument being one that was used.”

Blair makes the case for war in March ‘03: “3 kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city. Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for.

11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.
[…]
If this House now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?”

Ross said the assessment was that Iraq posed no threat to the U.K. or its interests. Sophistry aside, Blair deliberately presented Saddam as a threat to British interests.

Beckett: What was said throughout was that Saddam Hussain was a threat to his region.

Evidence given by Carne Ross: There was moreover no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours.

Even her new improved defence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Beckett: “It was never used once in all the debates or questions in the House.”

Blair (in the House): The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes…

No doubt Beckett thinks she was being entirely honest because this was statement by the Prime Minister, not a debate or question. In reality, she’s a mendacious, deceitful sophist who’ll say anything at all to try to cloud the issue of her patron’s dishonesty. No wonder Blair promoted her.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair, Media

Last week, I felt the need to take things easy and basically stay off the interwebs; I just needed a bit of a break. I should be back up to something like half speed this week and full speed in the new year.

There’s plenty to talk about but I can’t resist highlighting Martin Kettle’s extraordinary defence of Blair from Saturday’s Gran, not least because I’m certain that it reflects Blair’s own justification for his behaviour. Most of this has been pointed out in the comments to the post already - I found the mostly calm way that Kettle’s “arguments were systematically demolished to be source of optimism for the future - but I still feel the need to join in.

Kettle, you see, thinks the problem is with us, not Blair. If you’ve not read this, make sure you’re not drinking anything before you continue.

The issues of the week exemplify what’s wrong. Yes, it is embarrassing that a serving prime minister should be questioned in Downing Street as part of a criminal investigation into political donations. And yes, part of the issue lies in the way Blair leads his party and his government. But the fundamental failing is not his. As a country and culture we have not worked out an open and fair system of financing necessary political life in a rapidly changing world. We wish for the end, but persistently ignore the means. Yet with a general election to fight in 2005, the parties had to act. The rest of us can afford to hold our noses. The parties needed big money in the bank. In that sense, Blair is a victim of our collective failure, not the perpetrator of his own individual one.

I did warn you. Don’t blame me if your monitor is now dripping with coffee.

I don’t know exactly how close Kettle is to Blair, he does occasionally criticise our dear leader, but this could just as easily have been said by the man himself. “We have not worked out an open and fair system of financing necessary political life in a rapidly changing world.” You can just about hear him say it. The “argument” could be picked apart - for example, Kettle’s claim that the parties needed big money in the bank is clearly untrue - but the underlying principle is one of personal responsibility. Or rather the lack of it.

And it’s an irony indeed that the Blair government, the one which said “we need to be clear that the breach of an Asbo is not the failure of the Asbo, but the failure of the individual to abide by its conditions” (hat tip - redpesto in a comment to a previous post), would consider such a defence of their own actions. When their systems fail, individuals are personally responsible. When they fail, society is to blame. The idea that a teenager who breeches an ASBO is a “victim of our collective failure” is no go area. Blair, however, the man who promised to be “purer than pure”, is exclusively able to use such a defence after deliberately flouting the laws he himself introduced as part of his campaign to clean up politics. He alone is allowed to be “a victim of our collective failure”. It is risible in the extreme.

Kettle also takes on the quashing of the investigation into BAE Systems and the House of Saud.

Yes, it is humiliating that a multi-million pound corruption investigation should be pulled in the interests of keeping onside with the Saudis. Lord Goldsmith’s announcement that the rule of law at home has to be sacrificed to our failing foreign policy entanglements will haunt him - though he also says, and it can’t be merely ignored, that he thinks a prosecution would fail. The whole saga underlines that close relations with the House of Saud come at a price - which others remain happy to pay - that is neither politically perverse nor materially trivial. Oil supplies matter. Middle Eastern peace, stability and security matter, even though, Lord knows, we get these things badly wrong. Defence contracts and jobs matter too. It is too easy to brush aside the complex web of practical issues as if they are of no account. Ministers do not have that luxury.

Kettle doesn’t dwell on the fact that part of the price of support for the House of Saud is exactly that it played a large part in provoking the terrorist threat which we now apparently need their help to deal with. Bin Laden’s main gripe has always been with the House of Saud; more than any other reason, it is U.S. and U.K. support for that corrupt regime which originally put us in the firing line.

Terrorists should not be allowed to dictate our foreign policy, of course. (That is, though, exactly what Blair has allowed to happen. It’s called the war on terror.) We should not refuse to support the Saudis simply because bin Laden doesn’t like them. The fact remains however that our support for this regime, a regime which routinely uses torture, a regime which imposes a strict religious code on its citizens (but not on the ruling family), a regime whose citizens cannot be said to be free in any meaningful way, destroys any credibility that the rhetoric of the “war” on terror might have had. Bin Laden is wrong about almost everything but when he calls our government hypocritical, he’s right on the button.

Kettle does warn that “defence contracts and jobs matter”. On that same issue, after the announcement, a Labour MP whose name I can’t quite remember, toured the studios giving it plenty on the danger of risking British jobs over this and congratulating the government for taking the right decision. I call this the “gas chamber defence”.

Boss: Good news Number Two! We’ve just been given a big contract to build shower chambers in detention centres. The factory won’t have to close after all.

Number Two: That’s great news!

Boss: It is. Have a look at these plans. There’s going to be lots of work there. We might even need to take on more employees.

Number Two: Excellent… er, hang on. Why do they want gas pipes installed instead of water pipes?

Boss: What? Oh, I don’t know.

Number Two: But Boss, these chambers look like they’re for killing people, not cleaning them.

Boss: Look, this is about jobs. OK, these might not be shower chambers but if we don’t take the contract, someone else will.

Number Two: But Boss, I’m not sure that this is right…

Boss: For goodness sake, pull yourself together man. Would you rather be unemployed? Would you rather the contract went to the French?

Number Two: No Boss.

Boss: Good man. Now, go see how many gas pipe fitters we’ve got on the payroll.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting a direct equivalence here. The point is that when it comes to ethical considerations, the defence that it keeps people in work is a poor one. And I think it’s safe to say that there are ethical considerations when it comes to selling extremely powerful weapons to corrupt non-democratic regimes.

It may surprise you to know that I do have some understanding of the need for pragmatism in foreign policy matters (it’d certainly surprise Kettle if he knew I existed). As a student of International Relations, I spent some considerable time studying Realism, Machiavelli, Morgenthau and the like. It is sad but true to say that the underlying assumptions of realism, that nation states in an anarchic international system act aggressively and without ethics to defend what they perceive to be their national interest, remain valid to a large extent. It is less true in countries with a strong democratic tradition and post-war Europe demonstrates that there are other, less bloody ways for nations to interact. (This, by the way, is the reason why, despite its innumerable faults, I support our membership of the E.U. Those who do not may wish to consider what came before and ask themselves if it was better of worse.) Nevertheless, it would be naive to believe that Realism is not a defining feature of early 21st Century International Relations.

The question for democratic states then is, how do we react to this state of affairs? A complete abandonment of Realism is simply not possible. Given that hostile or potentially hostile countries still exist, it would be foolish to disband our armed forces completely and withdraw from mutual defence arrangements. If we did, sadly, there’s a very real chance that another country would take advantage of that situation to promote their own national interest.

So what should we do? My own view is probably close to that held by Robin Cook when he talked of an “ethical dimension” to foreign policy. We should not abandon defence of the national interest but should act within ethical constraints to the greatest possible extent. Does that mean we shouldn’t have any form of arms industry or military capability? No, it does not. Does it mean we need to be the world’s fourth largest exporter of military equipment in order to maintain one of the largest arms industries in the world? No, it does not. Cosy euphemisms aside, the country we live in is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of the machinery of death. This simply is not necessary.

While accepting that much of the interaction between nation states still operates under an anarchic system where power counts above all else, we should attempt to promote international frameworks, laws and cooperative agreements which seek to lessen this state of affairs. The rule of law, domestically and internationally, should be supported at every opportunity. And, as the title of this blog suggests, carrots, rewards for those nations who join us in this endeavour and who adhere to basic standards of care for their citizens, should be given precedence over sticks, not the other way round as is now the case. Political violence, war, should be discouraged as a means of pursuing policy goals except as an absolute last resort.

I accept that none of this is easy and there will always been difficult and controversial decisions to be made. For example, is it better to cooperate with China, despite the government’s refusal to grant political freedoms to its citizens, in the hope that engagement will stimulate change? It’s a tough call and there are many more just like it.

One thing is for certain though. If the approach I’ve described above is the one attempted by the Blair government, they have failed.

Kettle, unsurprisingly, did not mention the evidence given to the Butler Inquiry by Carne Ross which was also released on Thursday. That’s the news the powers that be really don’t want you to think about. By launching a war of choice based on a “determination to present available evidence in a different light”, our government has given a new legitimacy to political violence as a means to pursue policy goals. The U.K. went to war out of choice, not as an absolute last resort; other governments cannot fail to have taken notice. And when these other government decide to start their own wars in “defence” of their own national interest, what legitimacy will our protests then have?

That will be the legacy of the Blair government. Rather than working to promote an international system in which cooperation between nations is rewarded and political violence is considered illegitimate in all but the most serious circumstances, the opposite has occurred. The system is now more anarchic, international laws and frameworks are less respected, and military power has been reinforced as the legitimate arbiter of disputes between nations. It is hard to imagine how this can possibly lead to anything other than a more unstable, violent world.

Tags: News, Politics, Sleaze, Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair