The Right Hook: Ken Clarke’s Justice Reforms U-turn

Being in charge of a party with a traditionally tough stance on justice, Prime Minister (PM) David Cameron’s chosen figure for reforming in the justice system seems unusual.  In the place of someone notably hard-line on crime, a known maverick within the party was chosen in their place.  In stepped Kenneth Clarke, the Coalition Government’s Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor.

Besides being one of the longest serving MPs Kenneth Clarke has a reputation within his party and the House of Commons for not siding with mainstream opinion.  He is President of the Tory Reform Group, which is notable for its progressive and pro-European stance.  To add to this mix Clarke has been notable on many occasions against party decisions he does not approve off, often in a very public fashion.  Once instance of this happened in 2006 in which Kenneth Clarke labelled Cameron’s proposing of a Bill of Rights to be “xenophobic and legal nonsense”. 

So why did Cameron choose Clarke?  It could be that Cameron, continuing his campaign theme of representing a new and reformed Conservative party different from the old.  To press this theme convincingly to his Coalition partners the Liberal Democrats as well as the public, it is likely that he thought it a prudent decision to appoint someone to the justice post with reformist credentials.

As Clarke started to reveal his ideas for justice reform, polls started to indicate that public opinion was at best uneasy about changes being proposed.  These included lessening the justice systems primacy on prison time, when possible potentially making more use of community service as a possible alternative.  Improvement of rehabilitation facilities was also proposed in the original proposals.  David Cameron at the time these proposals were unveiled, seemed to consent to them.

However the proposals revealed in a justice reform bill published on 21^st June seems to have taken a noticeable step away from reform, and more of a step ideologically towards conservatism.  This is evident in some of the new proposals such as deporting foreign national prisoners.  Clarke’s proposal to offer sentencing discounts are also absent from the new bill.  The new bill has revealed a vague commitment to impose sentences on individuals who carry knives, who act in a threatening manner.  The bill also presents a proposal to impose new legal restrictions on squatting.

Opposition to Clarke’s reformist agenda reached fever pitch shortly after Clarke in an interview with BBC 5 Live made a comment about “serious rape”.  Despite the context of the point he was making, alluding to the different circumstances in which rape can happen, his quote ignited a media storm.  The red top tabloids in particular presented Clarke as soft on rape as well as by extension soft on rapists. 

This was shortly followed by Cameron sidelining Clarke in favour of the new proposals, assuring the media that he felt the old ones sent “the wrong message”.   Perhaps the timing of the media storm and the vocal grumblings of the Conservative backbenchers were a coincidence in Cameron’s revelation in deciding that Clarke was sending the wrong message, perhaps not.  What is clear is that the problem of the UK’s ever growing prison population remains, as well as the problem of reoffending.  Clarke’s proposals may well be flawed, however they did seek new solutions to persistent old problems.  In return for this Clarke was overruled, discredited and effectively fined by his PM who has instructed him to cut an extra £130 million from his ministry’s budget.  He has been clearly been made an example of.

The 50th Anniversary of the Bay of Pigs Invasion: Reform in Cuba

The 15^th April 2011 marked 50 years to the day that airstrikes were carried out on Cuban airfields in preparation for the attempted invasion by anti-Castro forces, which became known as the Bay of Pigs invasion.  The invasion and its failure represented a milestone in the deteriorating relations between Cuba and it’s formerly largest trading partner, the United States whom covertly sponsored the invasion by Cuban exiles.  Two years earlier a guerrilla army lead by Fidel Castro and in cooperation with other resistance groups overthrew the United States’ sponsored dictator Fulgencio Batista, and set about forming a reformist government.  Cuban Communist Party figures close to and within the regime’s leadership (Fidel’s brother Raul Castro for instance), raised early concerns in the US’s Eisenhower Administration about Communist infiltration.  A trade dispute between the US and Cuba mixed with the Communist scares, lead the Eisenhower to endorse the creation of the plan that lead to the Bay of Pigs Invasion.  Any lingering doubts about Fidel’s ideology disappeared after the funeral.  At the funeral of those Cubans killed during the airstrikes Fidel infamously proclaimed “I am a Marxist-Leninist, and will be until I die”.  From then to the present day the US and Cuba existed in a state of frozen war.

Since then the Cuban Revolution has lingered on.  The dissolution of the Soviet Union ended its economic assistance to Cuba, the government promoted austerity and more growth in the small private sector.  Tourism in particular has proved a vital earner for the country in terms of foreign revenue, helped by its tropical climate and towns full of historic buildings and vibrant culture.  An innovative biotechnology sector has also grown over the years, a bi-product of the government’s strong investment in its health system.  However internal and external issues have consistently held back the country from greater development.  In the Cold War days it was customary for Fidel Castro to denounce the hostile neighbour to the north in explaining away problems at home.  However times have changed, Fidel has retired from politics and allowed his brother Raul to be formerly sworn in as President.  And the new President it seems is prepared to talk about reform, in order to in his language improve and not stop the revolution.

A recent Cuban Communist Party Congress outlined some of these reforms.  These include the right for Cubans to buy and sell their own homes (a once notoriously corrupt and bureaucratic process), the reduction in state sector jobs and the expansion of self employment.  This could be interpreted as a moderate step towards an economic model more typical of post Cold War Communist regimes such as China, however the political reforms announced have been even more modest.

So far political reform measures announced by the Congress have included promises for term limits for top Communist party officials at a maximum of 10 years.  Vague promises have also been made to push younger leaders to the front ranks of the regime; this issue has become more pressing not in the least since the President himself is approaching 80 years old. 

Washington cites lack of political reform for its lack of relations or even dialogue with the Castro regime, as well as its maintenance (and in the 1990s its expansion) of the US Trade Embargo on the country.  One wonders at this justification, since US trade with clients such as China and Saudi Arabia flourishes in the meantime.  Perhaps if Raul Castro takes a few steps away from the old beaten track, so should Barack Obama.

The Politics of Revenge- The West and the War on Terror

I am supposed to be writing a more professional blog at the moment for publication on an official blogsite.  But to be honest after the events of last week I felt it would be unsuitable to publish this as a professional piece.  By the events last week I am referring of course to the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.  An ugly ending to an ugly chapter if ever there was one.  But for me his death has personal significance.  It is already nearly 10 years since the 9/11 attacks.  One of those times where everyone can usually recount where they were doing mostly because the news was so incredibly horrifying, and otherworldly.  Nothing like it had happened before. 

I remember where I was that day.  I was 14 at the time, I had just got back to my house from work.  On the way into the house my Mum mentioned something about planes crashing into the World Trade Center Towers.  We got in the house sat down, and basically watched the world go mad.  In real time we saw the last of the Twin Towers collapse in a massive and thunderous plume of grey smoke and debris.  Myself at this time had little knowledge of US history or foreign affairs, and even less about it's political history.  But my recollections of the good spiritedness of the country's people that I witnessed while living there, and my humane distate at the carnage glued me to my seat, trying to make some sense of it.  I remember Mum admiring Colin Powell's powerful speech made on the day about the attacks not destroying the spirit of democracy.  At that time I had no idea about him or the administration he worked in or even the Republican Party, but I got a thirst to want to know, as though the whole event was some giant jigsaw for me to put together.

Just when I thought I was starting to get some order in my head about it all I saw the inexplicable.  People cheering.  Cheering at the attacks, the hurt it caused and the lives it took.  This particular footage over the BBC I saw was I believe in some Hamas controlled neighbourhood in Palestine.  Men, women and children partied around with glee, amazing and trully unsettling.  At the time I didn't know a thing about the Israeli-Palestine conflict, nothing about Hamas, Islamic Extremism, Islam even, Palestine or Israel.

I had a half curious outlook on politics and current affairs at the time.  Not from this day on.  9/11 you could say was my political awakening.  From then on I have begun a long process of learning to understand the world.  I am learning as I go, but accept that I still have a long way to go.   But the more I learn, the more I want to learn.  For those out there afraid of big issues like terrorism I have this advice, don't be afraid to start from somewhere.  I don't expect you to immerse yourself in books and news sites like me, but it's important (or at least I feel it is) to start from somewhere.  If you believe something, stand up for it, but don't be afraid for it to be criticised (with cause).  And most of all don't be afraid to admit you are wrong.  And most of all, be very suspicious of anyone who tells you to pick enemies.  I upset a whole room of socialists about a few years ago because I wouldn't swallow their class-war vision.  We all have to live in this world, so making war on people for the sake of it is about as smart as making your toast in the bath.

Do I think justice has been done by Bin Laden's death?  Not exactly.  I think a resolution of sorts has happened, but the real problem we are dealing with isn't one man.  Too many people still listen to his evil ideology which is ridiculously riddled with theological inconsistencies and inconsistencies with reality.  His is the worst kind of cheap politics, easy answers for difficult problems surrounding difficult issues.  But there is much to be encouraged about, the Arab Springs have so far been pretty free of Islamic Extremism, and even some people once receptive to Osama's message see him as politically redundant.  What it is important to do now is minimise the parading around of his bloodstained (now submerged) body, and treat his legacy like the waste it trully is.  Revenge as ever is a dish best served cold.

So Many Books So Little Time

Good evening all.  Since my last post a lot has happened as regards the Libya situation.  But for now I have had enough ranting on that front.  For now I want to talk about something a bit closer to home.  Those who know me well know I love reading. So much so that I have more books than I can read at once.  Online shopping and charity shops have more than once been my undoing.  Being a committed user of the highly efficient (more efficient than walking at least) First Group Bristol bus network I find myself with nearly an hours worth of dead travel time in which I read.  In the week after work I usually sit in a nearby local coffee shop over a mocha.  For the most part I read to feed my politics fix and my curiosity about the world.  Got a fair few books on the Middle East.  A few on US politics (including some Memoirs I'll elborate on later).  But my fiction collection is growing, and I am listening out for more potential authors to get into.

The latest furniture addition to my room was a wooden book case that myself and my dear mother cobbled together from a flatpack kit.  So far, so sturdy.  The books are in part author's name order, with fiction on the topside and the non-fiction ones below. And a special place for my favourite author Hunter S Thompson, who you could say specialises in both fiction and non-fiction.  Not sure what people may think the first time they walk into my room and see the book case.  Some may think I am smart.  Some may puzzle at my political beliefs and think they are bizarre, spotting Hitler's Mein Kempf on the top shelf, and then seeing books about Che Guevara at the bottom. 

I am going to mention some of the books that have been on my 'to be read' list but have been there a while.  Circumstance and overall awkwardness in what I read next has prevented these from actually being read. After that I'll mention some of the books I have read and will definitely read again.

My Life by Bill Clinton-  This was a find in a local charity shop.  A bit beaten up, but holding together and functional (a bit like the guy who his the focus of the book).  I actually started this one, but admittedly I didn't have enough patience to let this book get it's hooks into me.  There was just a bit too much reminiscing about his family life to keep me interested.  I will get back to this though.  By handcuffing myself to the book if necessary.  I have been told the campaigns, scandals, random bombings and general madness of being POTUS in the 90s kicks off after a slow start.

Postwar by Judy Thomas- This is a huge book.  It was in perfect condition when I bought it from a bookshop in St. Ives.  And then it got almost irrepairably damaged, via a mass of mould that grew through the wall it was stacked against.  This was in my old room, in a house I lived in a few years ago.  I don't tend to hold many grudges, but the landlord of that place is on my small Enemies List due to their gross negligence to correct the mould problem.  The book itself is an overview of how Europe changed since the end of WWWII.  From the creation of the Berlin Wall, to the destruction of it and beyond.  I tend to read huge amounts about the Middle East and the US. This year I am looking to re-educate myself on Europe.

Mein Kempf by Adolf Hitler- The blurb on the back literally describes it as a "book of evil".  Which is pretty app.  But nonetheless it is arguably an important book.  It's in party a autobiography (extremely airbrushed), and a political manifesto for the infamous madman himself.  A part of my interest in this book is psychological, the other political. One to scratch my beard to.  Good job I'm not single anymore. I imagine sitting in a coffee shop with this book is likely to turn heads in the opposite direction.

The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower by Robert Baer-After a few failed attempts at getting this book online, I finally managed to get it.  Robert Baer is an ex-CIA agent, who co-wrote the film Syriana.  His first book 'See No Evil' was basically his autobiography of being a spy. A brilliant and very accessible book it was too, I thoroughly recommend it.  The mechanics of spying are laid bare. In this book Baer (a Farsi speaker himself) tackles the thorny issue of Iran, and portrays the country as a hidden superpower in the Middle East.  Apparently he lays out a plan that he believes may be able to lead to an alliance of sorts with Iran, taming it's aggresive at the same time.  Sounds like a tall order, but I am sure if anyone can lay down a good argument, than Mr Baer can do it.

The Long Walk to Freedom-Nelson Mandela: I guess you could call this the anti-Mein Kempf, told by a lucid and very honourable man.  I am still learning more about South Africa.  Unfortunately I think the ANC is on the slippery slop to becoming a corrupt monolith, not unlike the Indian Congress Party.  Nearly 17 years on from the end of apartheid, there are still pressing problems that need to be addressed in the country. I am particularly interested to learn about Mandela's pre-prison days with the ANC.  While he was struggling for an honourable cause, many people forget that before he got arrested he was planning to go to the Soviet Union for paramilitary training.  In this, he was no Ghandi. Not that I hold it against him.  His cause was definitely worth fighting for.  It's a mammoth sized book, but I can't put something this good off too long.

Nixonland by Rick Perlstein-  Why did the Americans vote in someone as insecure and psychologically unstable as Nixon?  This book apparently explains all.  Perlstein portrays an electorate tired of war, tired of civil unrest and overall scared at the social shockwaves sent out by the sixties.  To the rescue comes Nixon, portraying himself as a vote for stability, to assure the so called Silent Majority.  Conservatives fascinate me as much as frustrate me.  I am sure this will be a good read.

Milk by Randy Shilts-  If you haven't seen the film, bugger off and do so.  This is the story of Harvey Milk, one of my political idols. The first openly gay man to be elected into public office in the US (I admire politicians with conviction and unshakeable honesty, a somewhat endangered species).  His political awakening came at a time the Bombs and Jesus crowd started on their warpath to 'cure' homosexuality.  The film told an inspiring if ultimately sad tale. I find films made from books are good, but the book behind the film usually has hidden depth worth looking into.

Ghadaffi's Libya vs. the world (that cares)

It's rare that pretty epic and long running stories like the ongoing struggle in Libya between the rebels and Ghaddafi come about, and pick up so much attention.  What started out as a few protests, turned into a protestor crushing excercise by the security forces, and then quickly turned into something else entirely within weeks if not days.  Libya is now effectively in a state of civil war. 

Mercifully the rebels seem to be at least for the most part of the pretty democratic variety, making claims by Ghaddafi that they are Bin Laden fans on crack somewhat unconvincing to say the least.  The rebels seem to have taken control of much of the east of the country.  They have a real chance at removing Ghaddafi and creating....well something else as yet undetermined in his place.  There is no love lost really between us and the Ghaddafi regime.  We scared them something stupid about 5 years ago with the removing of Saddam Hussein from power into giving up his WMDs, as far as we know that is.  Our government even went sligthly overboard in our new friendliness towards the Libyans, by sending our elite SAS troopers over to train the army that is now slaughtering the rebels.  A nice turn of political amnesia mixed pure shamelessness lead this week, to Ed Miliband calling the Coalition incompetent in foriegn affairs, conveniently forgetting among other things that particular episode with the SAS under HIS party leader's premiership.  It seems everyone has an opinion on how to proceed with dealing with the current state of affairs.  I applaud the enthusiasm for discussion, although the longer this goes on I wonder what will be left once we get down to options.

Last year I read a brilliant book on the Spanish Civil War by Anthony Beevor.  This precursor to WWII essentially involved the Spanish Republican and Nationalist factions fighting each other.  While this got on we largely took an observer approach, and tried to enforce an arms embargo and basically bullied all of Europe bar Germany and Italy from joining in and arming either side.  This approach essentially lead to the Fascist powers arming (and in some cases fighting for) the nationalists (who already had good access to arms stockpiles and manufacturing centres), and the Republicans materially deprived for fear on the part of the western democracies arming commies.  What we got in return was a facist dictatorship in Spain that lasted 30 years, not exactly a great legacy of keeping order in one's backyard.

In some ways I can almost clearly see a tragic and at the same time frustrating ending to this possibly eventual debacle. Some practical ideas have been floated around.  One of them (at least on paper) is an idea floated by David Cameron to impose a no fly zone.  Interesting point David.  Sure enough, I hear from Frank Gardner the BBC Security Correspondent that Ghadaffi has a fleet of helicopter gunships, perfect for mowing down pesky rebels.  But now the US all of a sudden throwing history to the wind, has actually decided to consult the UN on this before acting and may actually heed it's advice.  What frustrates me is this is nearly a fortnight or so since the shooting has started, and we are still talking.  Not just talking but talking ABOUT.........talking.  And by the time we have done this what then?  Will there even be anything to be acted  on?  What about arming?  A Conservative backbencher this week openly advocated arming the rebels, and I have to say I am almost persuaded.

Then again one has to look at Africa and the obvious question comes: is an injection of arms and munitions a healthy solution by a continent with a depressing history of continous war?  A difficult moral conundrum if ever I have seen one.

What is frustrating me more nowadays is the inverted logic used by those who reject any notion of practical action on the Libyan crisis.  The name Iraq is annoyingly, and in my view quite unnecessarily on the tip of many people's lips.  While there is some merit in bringing that skeleton out of the closet, it can inconveniently cloud our judgement, and make us forget that was a situation with very unique circumstances.  All wars are different, just as there are similarities between them.  The horrors of the Iraq one I fear, will steal away our balanced judgement today.

 At times like this I feel an almost uncontrollable urge to grab Tony Blair by the collar, and punch him in the nose repeatedly, and howl at him with a bloody rage.  And then in no uncertain terms express my displeasure at his past actions (and inactions) cursing this country into raising a new generation of people in this country.  One that is deeply cynical in many ways, and take events for granted on the world stage.  Like someone passively watching a town go by, while sitting next to a window on the train.  The cynicism of some people has reduced them to the most ridiculous arguments.  The so called "Arab Spring Uprisings" have lead many people to the conclusion that the Arab world largely consists of countries ruled by dictators or at the very least petulent playboys.  But when it comes to dicussions about action in this crisis, it's "WHOA SLOW YOUR ROLL THERE".  "Let's go and talk to those wisened statesmen over there" and those wisened statesmen just happened to be the members of the Arab League, at which that person a few minutes ago was spitting venom at.  I think one only needs to look at the state of Palestine, to consider how wise the judgement of the Arab League really is.  Last time I checked it was more of a warzone than a utopia.

If you will take anything away from this rant (apart from utter confusion and bewilderment), then here it is in a nutshell.  I am all for discussion.  But sometimes, the worse thing to do is to do nothing, or the same things again which haven't worked before (like the sanctions we used some 20 years ago, that we are now reinstating on Ghaddafi).  But Libya may be presenting us with a rare oppurtunity.  We are as a nation state always apprehensive about what the Arab world think of us.  I ask, what will they think of us if we are still eating crumpets and watching the fireworks when the lights of Benghazi go out?  That's all for now.

Why everyone should buy Colin Powell a pint and strange times and unstable people talking about stability

Well today has been frustrating.  For the first time in about a year I have been forced to call in a sick day at work.  Confirmed by a quick call to my recruitment agency that gave me a blunt 'ok'.  Nice to be appreciated for one's hard work.  No "hey you ok?".  Well for the most part now I'm fine.  To be honest I shouldn't really have gone into work yesterday, but well I can be a stubborn dickhead at the best of times.  So I crashed in my bed in fits of shivering pleased at least I had managed to finish the bloody good book "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson in my lunch break.  So I dully collapsed when I got home, had my tea while watching Inception (damn good film), my batteries were pretty much flat by then so I conked out about an hour or so earlier than usual. I woke up today feeling slightly better, but not great I thought a few seconds about what to do.  And then dooly decided to give myself a break. 

In the new day's worth of time I had suddenly to spare, I promptly carried on my reading regime.  And moved on to "Savage War of Peace 1954-1962" by Alistair Horne. The funny story behind this book is I borrowed it from a friend (of infinite patience), and knowing he read it recently and would likely not want to bother with it for a long time I decided to delay it in my reading list.  Several times over.  Till now, a space of a year.  Yes that is pretty insane.  But you have to understand that I am a bit moody when it comes to reading.  I like to make good progress on a book over a week, mostly because I am always curious about what is coming on the next page (usually I am well rewarded).  And two because there are always many other things on the reading list to sink my teeth into after.  Occassionally I go on reading sprees on certain subjects, like the Middle East or WWII.  On one of these blogs I'll list a few of the books I am waiting to read that are resting in some container in my room, but I don't honestly know how that list will end.  May take a while.  I may well have to sell some, time will tell if I will.

Anyway let's get to the subject matter of this blog.  Colin Powell, heard of him?  You may well remember him as that man giving the unfortunate speech at the UN 8 years ago making Saddam Hussein look like a modern day Genghis Khan on Crack armed with a nuclear missile under each shoulder and shoes stuffed with Anthrax.  Alas the speech turned out to be somewhat overblown and in more than one way, exagerrated.  Now I am assuming that some people will jump on this as proof that he is a fool to have risked his reputation on something that flimsy so lightly.   Well in some ways I wouldn't blame you.  But I have done a lot of reading around the run up to the infamous speech, and it has become obvious to me that he was basically assigned as a fall guy to deliver one of the weakest cases conceived to the international scene.  Whispers from several different sources have informed me that behind close doors he read the intelligence that was to be presented in his speech, and proceeded to fume at that worm of a man Donald Rumsfeld for making him carry the ball for it.  One report claims he shouted at Rumsfeld that the intel was full of a brown substance that begins with c (there is no profanity on my blog people, exagerrations, character assasinations and lots of bitching but NEVER profanity).

We all know what happened.  We ate the story up, the Iraq War happened.  But instead of the shameless showboating that many of the Bush Administration refugees took (books etc) Colin seems to have taken a more subtle exit from the public political sphere.  His resignation in itself was pretty much a non-event.  The way I see it, it was an action that showed great humility.  One that calmly said, "I've done my job, now I'm out".  And he was allowed to go, as oppose to Rumsfeld who clinged onto the Bush ship like a limpet till he evenutally (and belatedly in my opinion) was told to jump ship before the mid-terms.  For me then Colin Powell is something of a personal hero, and in many ways has the right to be for many other people.  Have their been times when you have had to be fed lies and live with it?  Have their been times when you have worked for people above you or next to you who you know are pinheads(either currently or ever before)? Of course you have experienced one of these situations.  But this man like us towed the line, jumped when he was told to....but still had the humility and honesty to admit that he did wrong.  A few days ago was the anniversary of his infamous speech to the UN when he waved a vial of anthrax in front of the international community (a fake one, a live one may have been highlighted as a security risk).  I only wish I could give him a reassuring nudge on the shoulder and buy him a pint, when he looks back on that ugly part of his career.  The I could tell him, "don't feel bad Colin, there are plenty more parasites among your former colleagues that historians are going to spit ink at".  But somehow I think he's more happy enjoying his retirement with his wife and grand-kids. 

Obama is a Saladin-Stalin-Osama Bin Laden-Satan all rolled into one.  And he's a socialist, probably a hermaphrodite and he's not even Christian. NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN!!!! AAAAAGGGHH!!!! That is a prospective slogan for Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign.  One can expect the opposition to scream bloody murder at some point, especially this close in the electoral cycle and after a mid-term result that has almost certainly re-energised their ranks.  Now the nerdy political side of me makes me genuinely interested in the greviances the Conservative base has with Obama.  But when out and out smearing and cheap political point scoring takes over I begin to lose patience.  Such it is when outrageous claims are made such as that Obama is not a Christian, he is, calm down and shut up.  And that he isn't even American, he is, but unfortuantely for him he didn't have the good fortune of being born English instead (HUZZAH!  HUZZAH! Land of Hope and Glory! etc).  He won and he beat your McCain fair and square Conservative base.  Perhaps not entirely McCains fault because he was living in the unusual shadow of an apparent small government and fiscal Conservative Republican who somewhat confusingly vastly expanded the government and HUGELY increased the national debt.  Hence why the Tea Party folk treat Bush as some kind of an embarrassment, foreign policy shenanigans notwithstanding.

A long critique of the US Conservative base could easily turn into a book with several law suits pending at the end of it, so I will just stick to one bone I have to pick with them. We come to the current troubles in the Middle East.

It's a rare thing to see such a spectacular butterfly effect in foriegn affairs such as that which has taken place in the Middle East over the past month or so.  All sparked off from one harrowing incident.  A university graduate in Tunisia, recently prevented from selling vegetable from a cart by his corrupt government gave up on his life of being humiliated by the powers that be and set himself on fire.  In a short space of time, people were out in the streets in the major cities of Tunisia.  Such protests (albeit not on that scale) have taken place before and have usually been dispersed by the govs security forces.  Not this time, the army made it's presence known but refused to crack skulls.  This sent a very definite sign to Ben Ali, the dictator of Tunisia and he promptly left with money he stole from his own people.  And now the future of Tunisia is still being decided.

Then came the big one, Egypt.  A classic case of a democracy on paper ruled by a strongman 'reliable' to the West.  We had a kind of unwritten deal with him, he makes some democratic reforms (and decide how much 'some' is by himself) and we give him lots of aid and recognises his rule.  At the same time he can keep those ever angry Muslim extremists out of the political scene.  Unfortunately the faustian pact's bad side started to rear it's ugly head.  Democracy became a very bad joke in Egypt, as did the blatantly fraudulent elections that came with it (or Mubarak's version of it).  Corruption rose, with the ruling family getting suspiciously rich.  Reform slowed to a grinding halt, and torture by security forces became an open secret.  But mainstream opinon largely ignored all this, the economy was booming, the tourist sector in particular.

The Tunisia changed everything.  A country who's population has a record low participation in elections that have pre-decided outcomes, realised that people power could acheive a lot more than they thought.  And so the people revolted.  The army reared it's head, tanks and jet fighters on display.  But the ever present eye of the 24 hour media was prepared to catch the first shots live, if the Tahrir Square incident turned into one resembling Tainnenmen Square in 1989 (which wasn't caught on camera, but a suspicious amount of people walked into the square and never came out).  But the military stood firm and watched.  Then one day they suggested that Mubarak should leave, which he did just like that.  And now they are the apparent gaurantors of the writting of a revised constitution for the nation.  We'll see what happens.

The domino effect may not be over.  Trouble still persisits in Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya.  The first three are US allies in it's War on Terror.  The people in charge are either kings or 'strongmen' before given a blank cheque to govern how they see fit.  Time will tell how these events and the US's reaction to them plays out.

What frustrated me was how quickly the Conservative base in the US (mostly although there were some rumblings in this country too).  All of a sudden in their book, selling him out was like selling an old friend.  And the very implication that we were selling him out took root.  No one one blaring the conservative horn in the states admitted underlying facts that underminded their time old realpolitik philosophy on foriegn affairs.  One fact being that Mubarak had over the year being effectively making the radicalisation of the opposition in Egypt a self-fulfilling prophecy by holding fraudulent elections, and allowing corruption in his family to reach new heights.  The doctrine of stability seemed to trump the one of democracy, like Arabs aren't good enough or smart enough for the latter.  The arrogant suggestion was made that we should somehow reign in this revolution, despite the fact that Mubarak had now control of it let alone the Western nations.  The role of the Muslim Brotherhood was exagerrated by shameless commentators like Glenn Beck who ruled all of this event out as some masterplan by Iran.  As though every demonstrator on the streets was some nutter prepared to light their shoes or underpants on fire and take out a bunch of westerners.  Ignoring that religious and cultural divides alienate the Muslim extremists in Egypt from those of Iran.

I doubt the so far encouraging way events have turned out will make the creators of these comments eat their words.  More comments will be made I am sure.  Especially now the US's key ally Bahrain is now experiencing turbulence.  Worryingly close to the potential motherload, Saudi Arabia.  As for what message the West should send to our strongmen allies I think it is obvious.  We need to let them know that they are tolerated by us, not liked.  We live in an imperfect world, and we have to do business with imperfect people.  Doesn't mean we have to like them, or even compliment them.  When asked about our opinions on their conduct we should say straight, that they are running laughably fraudulent regimes that are barely disguised as legitimate.  A policy of see no evil with our foriegn allies won't help anyone, I think that's what Obama has realised.  I applaud him with how he dealt with the situation. He knew there was a chance that the protests could die down and he may of had to deal with Mubarak again.  But when the chips were down he saw that the people weren't going to give way till Mubarak did.  In that I believe he excercised good judgement.

Ulysses S Grant vs. Tony Blair

Well it's been an up and down past month to tell you the truth.  Why?  Well the inevitable consequence of one spilling all the beans online and subsequently remembering you actually did it at the last morning, may have something to do with it.  So I will be suitably vague but end cheerfully and leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside like Obama.  Basically I left my last temp job which was due to end anyway a few weeks ago on a downer.  Some frank words were exchanged, and then I moved on.  Not exactly the warmest case of leaving a job.  If you can't stand the vagueness then private message me.  But for all viewing this wall, the rest of the information is classified.  If I told you I would have to kill you.  And survivors will be shot again etc.  All a bit of a hastle really.  The point of this (indeed there is one) is to say that I feel I have regained my confidence after it has taken a severe knock.  I look back disappointed but not bitter, as JFK said "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".

Having a prolonged period of stability and success and then going into an unnecessary and thoroughly knackering downward slump which defies logic takes me neatly to..........Tony Blair!  Recently I finished his book.  Much like the individual himself the book half satisfied me and half infuriated me.  Some of the usual arguments you would expect from him are there.  But some controversial points (for him at least) are made.  Likely trying to maintain moral highground he very rarely speaks directly against people, even those he was obviously at odds with.  Such as Mo Mowlem.  To a certain expect it appears to be an honourable way of saying he didn't get on with them, but it does come off as rather patronising in a curiously kind of paternal way as if to say "oh it's OK he's a good guy, just a little misguided.  He'll learn when he grows up".

The actual political ideas expressed in this book share many striking realities with many of the centrist leaning people in the Tory-Lib Coalition at the mo, perhaps tellingly almost no venom is thrown at the current government.  Most of the time in fact Tony Blair's criticism (people such as him rarely muster venom) is against the New Labour doubters within the Labour party who now apparently dominate the party (a viewpoint not without merit).  The most prominent among them was his sometime friend and sometime political nemesis Gordon Brown, one of the most interesting and at times puzzling politcal feuds in our history.  More on that later. 

Tony Blair basically preached the gospel of New Labour, our expression of the Third Way politics that took it's lead from Clinton.  In a nutshell an amalgamation of fiscal conservatism (eg. not spending more than one can afford) with preserving but reforming public services.  Tactically sensing attacks about New Labour being perceived as just a media gimmick Tony quickly counter-attacks to attempt to assure the reader that New Labour represents a way of life more than it does a mere bumper sticker.  But in a perhaps stereotypical Liberal messianic fashion, he continues the theme throughout the book of him as some kind of rejected reformist Jesus.  Persecuted by the Romans in the form of the dregs of the old Labour Party, stopping them from seeing the light.  I can imagine many of these elements reading this book and feeling as though they are being talked down to, by a school teacher they never liked.

It's not that I necessarily disagree with all of the things he did do or tried to do (many of them were honourable), but I just felt short changed reading with his meager excuses for leaving things the way he did.  He harks on about irresponsible government spending and debt, which HE presided over!  But he blames Brown!  He tip toes around the strange issue of their feud several times until he sort of hits the nail on the head (not that I was satisfied when he eventually did).  Basically he outlines a kind of gentlemans agreement between the two of them, for one leader to pass the entire country over to the other.  He only remarks on how slightly it may (and indeed was in my many quarters) be perceived, to simply let party leadership elections take the place of actual general elections.  So much for principle and going for broke on honest reform, when power is unexpectedly passed on in a blatantly onesided leadership battle.  He practically ignores how short changed people felt in the beginning of the Brown era of government.  Of course his ultimate downfall is mostly attributed to his abandonment of his New Labour baby, of which absolutely nothing is wrong.

And then we come to Iraq, this issue is faced off by him with a pincer movement of victimhood arguments (ie."what else could I do?") and some admittedly intelligent arguments (close but not completely air-tight).  In a nutshell he claims that the original Gulf War UN resolution technically still authorised the use of force in 2003.  Second he argues that Number 10 could not of 'sexed up' the intelligence in the Iraq dossier, because it was the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) not Downing Street that made it.  More plausible, but perhaps not airtight.  OK he's not an intelligence expert and neither am I.  But surely the correct approach to finding out about a subject matter that you don't have much on (and the stakes are high), is to check and then recheck your sources.  And appreciate that much like with the news, it matters who is telling you what and different interests exist.  On that basis, some Iraqi dissident making Saddam sound like some kind of nuclear Genghis Khan when the truth is perhaps differnt, becomes a possibility.

He in many ways intelligently recognises that much of the criticism the public has for the Iraq debacle is nowdays more about how unprepared we were for the aftermath, as oppose to how we handled toppling Saddam himself.  This is where I admittedly started to lose patience with the author in the book.  He more or less ignore the background of Iraq being a country of years old tensions between rival ethnic groups.  Basically his simple formula is power gap+Alqaeda-in-Iraq+Iran= chaos.  I know Alqaeda and Iran played a part in stirring up trouble.  But many of the prominent agitators in the near civil war were Iraqis representing grieviances many ordinary Iraqis faced in an uncertain future, shaped by centuries of leaders playing on ethnic divides.  How could Blair be so naive of Iraq in this regard with our empire history there. Basically us putting the Sunnis on the pedestal above the majority Shias, albeit in a less extreme way than Saddam.  I think his biggest mistake was not planning for the worst scenario, that unfortunately made itself a very real reality.

As if to make up for all that I disagree about him, there is also much to appreciate in his book.  He owns up to some well known embarrasing moments, such as his "Hand of History" quote.  The book is also very informative about complex issues such as the Northern Ireland chapter.  Chapters such as this are often interspersed with light-hearted humour.  For instance during one Northern Ireland negotiation Tony tried to keep calm with a particularly prickly person he was negotiating with, only to ignore insults to his position to have his aide leap up furiously in his place and do the "how dare you!" angry retort.  Some of the controversial characters in his term of power are elaborated on, to make them real and often interesting people.  This is particularly the case with Alistair Campbell, like him or loathe him, I bet you if you read this you may even respect him.  And for my generation this book especially will bring back a lot of nostalgia, good and bad.  The 1997 election, the millenium, Princess Diana's death, 9/11.  In a sense I felt I had to read this book, and in many ways I am glad I did.

For now I am onto a book about the American Civil Warm, hence the wierd blog title.  Thanks for reading.