With just over a year to go before the next general election in the UK, it is in the back of the minds of many of the British public- including me. When I consider the key election issues, I am concerned with the perception of the Government's approach, and the impact this could have on next year's vote.
To me, the most important is almost always going to be the economy: after all, it affects everyone's well-being, whilst also having an impact on government spending: if the economy is weak, and the government has barely enough money to spend, then it is limited in the scope of what it can afford to change in a significant way. On the whole, I'm very pleased with the Government's economic record to date: we have growth rates that are impressive compared with elsewhere in the developed world, despite ongoing economic challenges, whilst there is evidence of success and progress across most economic sectors. In addition, the Government's goal to shrink the size of the public sector without exacerbating unemployment seems to have been successful, with the number of new private sector jobs far outweighing the number of public sector jobs cut. A combination of confidence and assertiveness in light of our economic achievements, yet an avoidance of complacency in terms of Government debt (when this would have been a relatively easy stance to take when there has been a lot of good news on the economy), strike me as a very positive approach- and one I fear would be jeopardised by a potential Labour government in 2015, which could return to inflating the public sector once again without a pragmatic approach to funding it, creating another economic mess.
I support the government's ambitions regarding Europe: staying within the European Union, while hoping to steer our membership towards one that involves cooperation on political issues and close trading ties, as well as keeping interference in national affairs to a minimum and avoiding getting sucked into the difficulties being faced by the Eurozone. Having said this, I don't think that a Labour government would deviate too much from this- but implies it would be more reluctant to assert the UK's interests to the same extent as the Conservatives.
In terms of energy, the Government seems to be taking a sensible, balanced approach- introducing green technology, with its inherent positive impact on the environment, as well as pursuing the pragmatism of nuclear power and an openness to new potential sources, such as fracking. Meanwhile, the Government seems to have had an effective foreign policy: maintaining the "special relationship" with the United States; constructively seeking partners in Europe (most noticeably Germany's Angela Merkel) to achieve common goals in the EU; supporting humanitarian efforts globally, while taking a fair approach to crises around the world (such as Libya and Syria); and making more of an effort with our Commonwealth allies, with some seeming as strong as ever (Australia and Canada), while it seems that other relationships need more work (such as with India).
However, there have been some areas where quite radical ideas have been pursued, including the Education Secretary's reforms to education, the proposed HS2 high speed train line, and the Universal Credit benefits system, and is too early say what impact they will have (assuming they are not stopped or reversed by the government elected in 2015). Meanwhile, the government has received a bad press on the NHS (with numerous scandals in health, such as the level of care offered in hospitals, though my personal- albeit brief- uses of the NHS have almost always been positive) while there seems to have been little progress in terms of immigration.
Though areas of the public sector, such as education and healthcare, generally seem stronger under a Labour government, I fear Labour's potentially negative impact on the economy and even less control of immigration. But with government slip-ups in a number of areas, and the controversy surrounding the government's pro-austerity measures, Labour stubbornly clings to the lead in opinion polls (albeit a weak one) and, with disillusioned voters (particularly those usually supporting the Conservatives) likely to back UKIP as an alternative, I fear these ingredients seem to make a Labour victory likely in 2015 unless there are some significant changes- in spite of clear government success with the economy.
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
Thoughts for the New Year (Scottish independence; the English language in the UK; alternative spending of the wealthy's benefits)
All the best for 2014!
To kick the new year off, I'd like to share some thoughts and opinions for the year ahead.
Scottish independence referendum:
Don't be surprised if more posts are made here with regards to this issue. This September, Scotland will vote on whether to be an independent country, or remain a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I personally hope that Scotland will remain within the UK- for both practical and emotional reasons.
In terms of practicality, I have heard many disregard the feasibility of Scottish independence: a strange stance to take, given that countries that are far smaller, and lacking Scotland's stability, have been established over the years- albeit with varying degrees of success. I believe that Scotland could be a wealthy and stable independent country were it to echo the development other countries with relatively great natural resources and small populations, not to mention strong democratic traditions, such as Norway and Sweden. However, the examples of Ireland and Iceland expose the vulnerability of smaller countries, which have experienced dramatic peaks and troughs in terms of living standards and prospects over the years. However, from the point of view of an English Briton, the greatest potential impact for me would me the difficulty surrounding the "divorce settlement" between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Dividing debt, national finances, national institutions, etc., would not be a straight forward process, and I fear that both sides could become bitter and unpleasant during this division process. It is foreseeable that both sides would claim that their side is losing out- potentially undermining relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK for years to come.
Meanwhile, for less practical and more symbolic reasons, I would be very sorry to see the union end. Together the British have fought in wars, made many of the greatest discoveries in the modern world, and produced a powerful and largely effective economy. In the past, British military power, politics and economics dominated the world- whatever one's views on the legacies of the British Empire are, what is undeniable is that its scale and longevity were remarkable. Meanwhile, in recent years, despite being a small country, the UK ranks as one of the world's top 10 economic powers, top 5 military powers, and gains considerable diplomatic leverage as one of the 5 permanent members on the United Nations Security Council. The UK has even been described as a sporting superpower, having come 3rd in the medal table during the 2012 Olympic Games. All these achievements have been made by the United Kingdom, while our success as individual constituent countries is more questionable and less obvious. I for one would miss the relative success and prestige that all Britons have been able to share in over the years- in spite of the dramatic shifts in global power and wealth over the past century. Moreover, though clearly biased, I consider the Union flag to be the most impressive flag in the world, whilst the flags of the UK's individual constituent countries seem much plainer and forgettable in comparison. It is a flag recognised worldwide, well-established over centuries, while its inclusion in other country's national flags, such as Australia's, demonstrates the importance the Union flag plays in not only uniting much of the British Isles, but also uniting the UK with other parts of the world.
I am a great believer in people having control over their own fate, and feel that referendums are a very fair way of trying to accomplish this goal, so I do not oppose the referendum. The great electoral success of the Scottish National Party was evidence enough that this was an important question to be asked and decision to be considered. Nevertheless, I hope that the Scottish vote to also remain British.
English as the truly national language:
As can be seen in the British media, and heard in discussions among its citizens (not to mention on this blog as well), the impact of immigration on the UK is a major issue and debate. For me, one of the most controversial issues concerns language, and how important an ingredient it is to creating a united and successful country. The British are notorious for not learning other languages due to how widely spoken and understood the English language is- a benefit for British tourists and businesspeople, but also a deterrent to most British grasping other languages, consequently isolating the British in this respect when other nationalities will learn each other's languages. However, the irony is that, despite English being the most widely-spoken language in the world, in the UK there are people who are unable to speak the language fluently- if at all. This creates a division between those who have arrived in the UK without being able to speak English effectively, and those who already live here. The process of integrating with the people of a new country and different culture must surely be difficult enough, without this being exacerbated by an inability to communicate with everyone; from officials who are there to assist those settling into this country, to the members of the public whom migrants will want to befriend and work with. In turn, the public are likely to be unsettled by the inability, and sometime just the perceived inability, of fellow UK citizens to communicate with them.
Moreover, this has meant that people have settled here and have been unable to live the quality of life they aim for due to their isolation and inability to communicate when need be. When the different levels of government have made efforts to overcome this, one method they have resorted to is providing translators and/or alternative versions of documentation in other languages. However, I feel that this approach only prolongs isolation and division. What would be best (if not already in place, which it isn't as far as I know...) is if all migrants to the UK had the option upon arrival of taking a course to learn English fluently, overcoming the aforementioned problems. This would also mean that there would no longer be the avoidance of the issue, as well as the extra expense, of trying to accommodate many different languages (through translators and text translations) in favour of universally sponsoring one mainstream, national language. For those who require this service, it could be funded as regular tuition fees are, i.e. the state covers the initial cost in the form of a loan, which is paid back in instalments at a later date.
What to do with benefits for the rich...:
One of the principles of the welfare state is that everyone is entitled to certain benefits, such as state pensions. Whilst this is a very equitable concept, in practice it means that the very richest in the country can and are accessing some of the benefits that they don't need. Many of the wealthiest who do not need these benefits (that they are nevertheless entitled to) would doubtless be happy to sacrifice them if they had the opportunity to reassign the funds entitled to them to another government department, for example education or international development. Thus funds would not be allocated unnecessarily, particularly when the government is looking to reduce its funding deficit, whilst the wealthy (who are generally net contributors rather than net recipients of state funds- the top 1% of earners are said to contribute around 25% of the country's tax revenue) are given a greater stake in the state by given a degree of choice, which would also provide an indicator of the public's priorities, in terms of how state finances should be spent.
Hopefully there is some food for thought to be getting on with for the new year!
To kick the new year off, I'd like to share some thoughts and opinions for the year ahead.
Scottish independence referendum:
Don't be surprised if more posts are made here with regards to this issue. This September, Scotland will vote on whether to be an independent country, or remain a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I personally hope that Scotland will remain within the UK- for both practical and emotional reasons.
In terms of practicality, I have heard many disregard the feasibility of Scottish independence: a strange stance to take, given that countries that are far smaller, and lacking Scotland's stability, have been established over the years- albeit with varying degrees of success. I believe that Scotland could be a wealthy and stable independent country were it to echo the development other countries with relatively great natural resources and small populations, not to mention strong democratic traditions, such as Norway and Sweden. However, the examples of Ireland and Iceland expose the vulnerability of smaller countries, which have experienced dramatic peaks and troughs in terms of living standards and prospects over the years. However, from the point of view of an English Briton, the greatest potential impact for me would me the difficulty surrounding the "divorce settlement" between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Dividing debt, national finances, national institutions, etc., would not be a straight forward process, and I fear that both sides could become bitter and unpleasant during this division process. It is foreseeable that both sides would claim that their side is losing out- potentially undermining relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK for years to come.
Meanwhile, for less practical and more symbolic reasons, I would be very sorry to see the union end. Together the British have fought in wars, made many of the greatest discoveries in the modern world, and produced a powerful and largely effective economy. In the past, British military power, politics and economics dominated the world- whatever one's views on the legacies of the British Empire are, what is undeniable is that its scale and longevity were remarkable. Meanwhile, in recent years, despite being a small country, the UK ranks as one of the world's top 10 economic powers, top 5 military powers, and gains considerable diplomatic leverage as one of the 5 permanent members on the United Nations Security Council. The UK has even been described as a sporting superpower, having come 3rd in the medal table during the 2012 Olympic Games. All these achievements have been made by the United Kingdom, while our success as individual constituent countries is more questionable and less obvious. I for one would miss the relative success and prestige that all Britons have been able to share in over the years- in spite of the dramatic shifts in global power and wealth over the past century. Moreover, though clearly biased, I consider the Union flag to be the most impressive flag in the world, whilst the flags of the UK's individual constituent countries seem much plainer and forgettable in comparison. It is a flag recognised worldwide, well-established over centuries, while its inclusion in other country's national flags, such as Australia's, demonstrates the importance the Union flag plays in not only uniting much of the British Isles, but also uniting the UK with other parts of the world.
I am a great believer in people having control over their own fate, and feel that referendums are a very fair way of trying to accomplish this goal, so I do not oppose the referendum. The great electoral success of the Scottish National Party was evidence enough that this was an important question to be asked and decision to be considered. Nevertheless, I hope that the Scottish vote to also remain British.
English as the truly national language:
As can be seen in the British media, and heard in discussions among its citizens (not to mention on this blog as well), the impact of immigration on the UK is a major issue and debate. For me, one of the most controversial issues concerns language, and how important an ingredient it is to creating a united and successful country. The British are notorious for not learning other languages due to how widely spoken and understood the English language is- a benefit for British tourists and businesspeople, but also a deterrent to most British grasping other languages, consequently isolating the British in this respect when other nationalities will learn each other's languages. However, the irony is that, despite English being the most widely-spoken language in the world, in the UK there are people who are unable to speak the language fluently- if at all. This creates a division between those who have arrived in the UK without being able to speak English effectively, and those who already live here. The process of integrating with the people of a new country and different culture must surely be difficult enough, without this being exacerbated by an inability to communicate with everyone; from officials who are there to assist those settling into this country, to the members of the public whom migrants will want to befriend and work with. In turn, the public are likely to be unsettled by the inability, and sometime just the perceived inability, of fellow UK citizens to communicate with them.
Moreover, this has meant that people have settled here and have been unable to live the quality of life they aim for due to their isolation and inability to communicate when need be. When the different levels of government have made efforts to overcome this, one method they have resorted to is providing translators and/or alternative versions of documentation in other languages. However, I feel that this approach only prolongs isolation and division. What would be best (if not already in place, which it isn't as far as I know...) is if all migrants to the UK had the option upon arrival of taking a course to learn English fluently, overcoming the aforementioned problems. This would also mean that there would no longer be the avoidance of the issue, as well as the extra expense, of trying to accommodate many different languages (through translators and text translations) in favour of universally sponsoring one mainstream, national language. For those who require this service, it could be funded as regular tuition fees are, i.e. the state covers the initial cost in the form of a loan, which is paid back in instalments at a later date.
What to do with benefits for the rich...:
One of the principles of the welfare state is that everyone is entitled to certain benefits, such as state pensions. Whilst this is a very equitable concept, in practice it means that the very richest in the country can and are accessing some of the benefits that they don't need. Many of the wealthiest who do not need these benefits (that they are nevertheless entitled to) would doubtless be happy to sacrifice them if they had the opportunity to reassign the funds entitled to them to another government department, for example education or international development. Thus funds would not be allocated unnecessarily, particularly when the government is looking to reduce its funding deficit, whilst the wealthy (who are generally net contributors rather than net recipients of state funds- the top 1% of earners are said to contribute around 25% of the country's tax revenue) are given a greater stake in the state by given a degree of choice, which would also provide an indicator of the public's priorities, in terms of how state finances should be spent.
Hopefully there is some food for thought to be getting on with for the new year!
Sunday, 13 October 2013
Housing & Homelessness
Housing and homelessness are two significant issues in the UK, but
particularly in London. In London, the average property price is currently just
over £1,000,000, and consequently out of reach of average Londoners- let alone
Brits in general. House prices are high due to the relative lack of supply
compared with huge demand, caused by both a boom in the population size as well as the
desire for wealthy foreigners to secure a good investment. Meanwhile, as London
properties are snapped up by overseas investors, there are thousands of
homeless on London's streets. The two problems have interconnected causes and
solutions.
With regards to London's homelessness, a few years ago I was convinced that it was a relatively simple issue: when it comes to allocating council homes, the homeless should be prioritised over anyone migrating to the UK, following the logic that once everyone who needs the most urgent help here receives it before support is offered to those from elsewhere. However, I am now mindful of the complication to the homeless debate that freedom of movement within the EU brings. When membership only included Western European states, the similar levels of living standards meant that there were no expected floods of migration from one set of states to another. However, once Eastern European countries were admitted, the disparity in wealth between these member states and existing members was stark. Thus, rather than the light, inconspicuous flow of Western Europeans previously experienced, the differences between East and West meant that there was an inevitable flow of Eastern Europeans from East to West, where the greater wealth-creating opportunities were available. This not only stretched resources in Western Europe (a problem appreciated all the more when the economy is vulnerable), and reduced the number of available jobs at a time when unemployment remains a problem in many Western European countries, but also threatened developing Eastern European states with a "brain drain", as their gifted talented seek the opportunities in the West, denying their home states of their talents.
To hinder this imbalance and (returning to my original point) reduce the numbers of Eastern Europeans without the prospect of jobs and potentially living on the streets arriving in the UK, as in elsewhere in Western Europe, it would help if an agreement across the EU (and maybe the Schengen Area in its entirety as well) stated that Europeans are not permitted to migrate freely to another state unless they have a minimum amount of money in their bank account as proof that they can only make a positive contribution, and in no way hinder, the new state they are arriving in. Measures such as this would help alleviate growing Euroscepticism in the UK and elsewhere in Western Europe- not to mention allow UK lawmakers to do more to reduce the blight of homeless, without having the logistical nightmare of being compelled to house potentially millions of citizens from elsewhere in the EU.
Saturday, 12 October 2013
HS2, and how it could put Britain on track to bridge the North-South divide
For years, the British Government has been debating whether to construct a High Speed (HS) train service, linking London in the South; Birmingham in the Midlands; and Manchester and Leeds in the North of England. It is a controversial issue, with critics highlighting the cost of tens of billions of pounds, as well as the fact that many miles of countryside will be spoilt by railway lines crossing through them. However, I personally feel that the benefits would ultimately outweigh the costs over the long term, whilst the "Not In My Back Yard" attitude to so many potential infrastructure investments in Britain such as this is very impractical. We have an ever-expanding population, yet a reluctance to construct new railways and reservoirs to alleviate pressure on the overstretched, existing infrastructure.
With a multitude of drawbacks to being a motorist (from the variety of expenses involved, to the traffic jams and lack of parking spaces), it makes sense to support the railways- a practical way to transport masses of people, avoiding most of the numerous costs and inconveniences of driving, not to mention better for the environment. Meanwhile, the greatest attractions for me are the prospects for economic progress for the regions outside of the South-East of England. A high-speed service from the North and Midlands to the South will give access to the greater potential earnings on offer in London and the Home Counties via an expanded commuter belt, and consequently enhance demand in those areas for housing and boost local economies generally; on the other hand, it would make towns and cities elsewhere in England more attractive for investment, as they would be linked more effectively with the country's other economic centres. This could be a major step towards bridging the gap in wealth and opportunities between the North and South of England and, if successful, could also be used as a model for encouraging greater economic activity elsewhere in the UK, e.g. if HS2 were then be additionally linked to the North-East and South-West of England, Scotland and Wales. My main concern for this project is that ticket prices for the train could be too high to be accessible for ordinary Brits; in which case, the costs and sacrifices would have been in vain and great potential would be wasted.
With a multitude of drawbacks to being a motorist (from the variety of expenses involved, to the traffic jams and lack of parking spaces), it makes sense to support the railways- a practical way to transport masses of people, avoiding most of the numerous costs and inconveniences of driving, not to mention better for the environment. Meanwhile, the greatest attractions for me are the prospects for economic progress for the regions outside of the South-East of England. A high-speed service from the North and Midlands to the South will give access to the greater potential earnings on offer in London and the Home Counties via an expanded commuter belt, and consequently enhance demand in those areas for housing and boost local economies generally; on the other hand, it would make towns and cities elsewhere in England more attractive for investment, as they would be linked more effectively with the country's other economic centres. This could be a major step towards bridging the gap in wealth and opportunities between the North and South of England and, if successful, could also be used as a model for encouraging greater economic activity elsewhere in the UK, e.g. if HS2 were then be additionally linked to the North-East and South-West of England, Scotland and Wales. My main concern for this project is that ticket prices for the train could be too high to be accessible for ordinary Brits; in which case, the costs and sacrifices would have been in vain and great potential would be wasted.
Sunday, 29 September 2013
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!
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!
Sunday, 15 September 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, 1 September 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)