Miliband: There's hope for him yet!

Ed Miliband, the current Leader of the Opposition in UK politics as leader of the Labour Party, has been a singularly uninspiring party leader. For much of this month has generally continued to be a particularly bland politician, who just about fulfils his role as Leader of the Opposition, and can only usually be relied on to state the obvious when it comes to national issues (the sort of man who, when asked about job cuts, is likely to say "this is going to result in more people out of work") without stating practical solutions. Moreover, he inspired greater ridicule than usual this month when an egg was thrown at him; while his bizarre, occasional inclusion of traditional Conservative attributes in his speeches (from adopting the slogan "One Nation", a phrase associated with the Conservatives since the premiership of Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century, to drawing parallels between himself and another 19th century Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Derby) suggests his a Conservative-wannabe. With all this in mind, it is probably unsurprising that, despite being midway through the controversial term of office of the Coalition Government, the Labour lead is relatively small in opinion polls, while polls on Miliband personally tend to show far less trust and respect for him than Prime Minister David Cameron.

However, during the Labour Party conference last week, Miliband at last seemed to offer a thought-provoking alternative to the current government's agenda; rather than his usual meandering around Westminster-seemingly without any trace of a developed political vision. Although there is far greater optimism about the economy in the UK now (making it more difficult for Labour to criticise the Government on this fundamental policy area), Miliband has not only centred on the ongoing issue of living standards, with many enduring lower salaries yet higher living costs; but has also offered a means to confronting these issues. He has highlighted the frustrating issue of key industries in the UK experiencing high (and sometimes record-breaking) profits, while still raising their prices and consequently making life more difficult for struggling families. Rather than complaining without meaningful action to back it up, or shrugging his shoulders and effectively saying "that's life" and moving on; Miliband has advocated a more active role for the Government: demanding that companies, from the railways to energy companies, charge lower prices or face strict penalties. This is an attractive alternative to the status quo, and suggests a prospective government that is sympathetic with its ordinary citizens- willing to exercise its power for the public interest.

Having said this (with business leaders probably concerned for their company's profits), these ideas were promptly criticised as unfeasible- but I suppose the proof of the pudding would be in the eating. Meanwhile, though increased state intervention in the private sector may well have the effect of compelling companies to act in the public's interest if they are threatened with a big stick; it may also discourage them from operating in Britain at all, removing investment and jobs at a time when the economy is only just recovering. Miliband's focus is a thought-provoking and appealing one, providing the beginnings of an alternative vision for British voters- but if it is likely to jeopardise economic recovery, that would be too high a cost as everyone, either directly or indirectly, feels the impact of economic strength or weakness (albeit to different degrees). Moreover, Labour's economic record is generally viewed as very poor already: blamed for exacerbating the global recession's impact on Britain through reckless spending, funded through borrowing. So Miliband and Labour still have a lot of work to do to boost their credibility, but they've made a start... though it'll take a lot more from them to get my vote any time soon!

Peace Talks with Syria: For Better or For Worse?

Syria has proven to be further evidence of how the world of politics can change dramatically in a small amount of time. At present, foreign direct military involvement in Syria now seems increasingly unlikely. The rejection of involvement by the British parliament severely dented the momentum of those wishing to intervene amongst the international community. American politicians supporting military engagement, led by President Barack Obama, have seemed more defensive of their stance lately and are fighting to plead their case. This comes as the American public, like the British, similarly seems to be afflicted by wariness of further American military engagement in international affairs. However, the process took an unexpected turn after American Secretary of State, John Kerry, suggested that the United States was willing to negotiate instead of attack if it could achieve its goals peacefully. This prompted the Russian response of encouraging Syria to destroy its own chemical weapons- a process which could be verified by UN weapons inspectors, which would thus achieve the goal of removing the contentious weapons, that was stated as the primary motivation behind military involvement. This is the route currently being pursued by international leaders involved in the Syrian conflict.

The removal of these weapons, which breach internationally-agreed laws of weapons use, would doubtless be an outcome that would satisfy leaders who were disturbed by the threat these weapons posed. Moreover, on the other hand those that were more wary of the willingness of some countries to infringe the sovereignty of other states regardless of UN support, will also feel some relief that an alternative to military involvement is being pursued. However, whilst the use of chemical weapons would have been a clearer target for those wishing to intervene in Syria; the main motivation should always have been the moral imperative to prevent the Syrian government from launching attacks on its citizens on a vast scale- regardless of what weapons it was using. If military involvement is ruled out due to the removal of chemical weapons, then this effectively allows the Syrian government to resume attacking its own people through other means; with the international community returning to their position of criticising the Assad regime and vainly hoping for a diplomatic solution. This approach has been in place for the past two years with little to show for it. One wonders how this emerging stalemate in Syria will ultimately be resolved- particularly without external intervention.

Humanity should be the Top Consideration with the International Response to Syria

At the forefront of international news this week has been whether the Western world should intervene in the Syrian conflict. Since the Arab Spring in 2011, when many dictators were challenged and toppled in the Arab World (though in the case of Libya, with outside assistance), Syria's Bashar al-Assad not only managed to remain in power- but also used the country's military force against the regime's opponents. In Syria, this has been relentless ever since, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. While some of those killed had actively confronted the Syrian government, demonstrating in the streets and knowingly putting themselves in danger; many others, including women and children, have been murdered by indiscriminate bombardments from the military.

Over the past week, the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed forces against their own citizens was described as the crossing of a "red line" by US President, Barack Obama, which would consequently provoke an international effort to intervene against further such actions by Assad's regime. When setting these terms, one of Obama's most vocal supporters has been the British prime minister, David Cameron. However, the momentum behind an international effort to intervene in Syria encountered an unexpected obstacle when the British House of Commons voted against Cameron's formal suggestion that British forces should consider to getting involved in the conflict. Those opposing included all Labour MPs, who form the official Opposition to the Government, as well as some Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, whose parties form the Government. Thus, Cameron was more-or-less obliged to accept their verdict, and would consequently not be able to provide military force to support his rhetoric.

This is a very divisive issue in Britain, with the most powerful politicians advocating intervention and lamenting the House of Commons' decisions; while opinion polls suggest most members of the public oppose any role for Britain in Syria. I have strong opinions to add to this contentious debate. I think that there are ultimately two scenarios when it is justifiable to use military force: firstly, in self-defence, i.e. when a country has clearly been attacked by an external force, with innocent civilians as their victims; secondly, for humanitarian reasons, to defend civilians against overwhelming opposition forces that they have no chance of practically overcoming otherwise, chiefly in cases where a government is systematically attacking its own people. I consider the situation in Syria a clear example of the latter, with the Government, armed with the latest weapons, tanks and a trained army, taking on largely untrained civilians who have only cobbled together what few weapons they can. If this was an evenly-matched, ideologically-divided civil war, then I would agree that it is not for the international community to pick sides; but when it is a national army primarily against unarmed members of the public, to not intervene is practically giving consent to the Syrian government to treat its people however it wishes- even if it means cruelly executing their own citizens by any means they wish until they are satisfied. As we have seen so far, this not an even battle: it is virtually a one-sided bloodbath. Opposition and members of the public will not be able to practically defend themselves against tanks and aerial bombardments. To be left as an internal issue for Syrians to handle alone is to condemn an unlimited amount of people to death, as has been the case for the past two years. Moreover, those who say that diplomacy is the solution, rather than military action, need only look at the relentless bloodshed of the past two years to see that a new alternative is needed. And those who say it is "none of our business" should wonder how they would feel if they were under attack from their own government, with no hope of defending themselves without external support.

Parallels have been repeatedly drawn with Iraq, questioning whether military intervention is justified, when I feel the greater comparison is with Libya. In the case of both the latter and Syria, their authoritarian governments were using relentless force against their own people. In Libya, swift action that avoided "boots on the ground" achieved the goal of stopping that regime's relentless onslaught on its people- I had expected the same response to Syria, so I was shocked by the House of Commons vote. What arouses particularly cynicism is that the Labour MPs opposing the motion, judging from their public appearances since and distasteful cheers after the vote, give the impression that they were voting more for the sake of undermining the Government and playing politics, in an attempt to overcome the negative attention the Party received for supporting the Iraq War- all at the expense of thousands of lives. The motion clearly did not state imminent military action and regardless of future developments, but merely attempted to gain potential consent to unspecified involvement in certain circumstances, which would require another vote anyway. So those voting against the motion effectively ruled out any military role in any circumstances. Some say that consent from the United Nations should come first but, given that strategy seems to play a greater role in the United Nations Security Council's decision-making than morality, leaders should ultimately do what they think is the right thing and for the greater good. Those advocating a delay until the United Nations' has made a collective decision say that this would give any intervention legitimacy. But for me, neither legitimacy nor party-political strategy should be the top priority- this should be a humanitarian effort. The only consolation is that other countries will at least be taking action to stop the ongoing bloodshed, even if British forces are not there to support them.