open Democracy News Analysis - europe - Comments

Tom Paine on "Georgia after war: the political landscape "

Tom Paine — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:21:38 +0100

He [Saakashvili] also provided a detailed account of the development
of Georgian-Russian relations in the period since he came to power in January
2004...

Given some of Saakashvili's statements so far in this conflict and the fact that he launched the war itself according to the US ambassador to Georgia, any claim Saakashvili makes has to be initially looked at in a highly skeptical manner.

Many of Saakashvili's pronouncements go way, way beyond spin and are flat out lies. Others are simple-minded propaganda that are so outrageous it's laughable (my favorite was his claim that Russian troops were stealing toilet seats -- that's even more funny than the US claim in 1991 that Iraqi troops were stealing baby incubators from Kuwaiti hospitals).

Anthony Barnett on "Russian war and Georgian democracy"

Anthony Barnett — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:29:48 +0100

This is a very well written and moving piece. I'm not sure that our Minister of Education in the UK could have produced anything so well articulated. Thank you

Europe United on "Europe’s trance of unreality"

Europe United — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:27:31 +0100

This article puts its finger on the problems arising from a lack of genuine commitment to democratic accountability in Europe.

For those searching for an alternative vision, the time has come to demand a truly democratic Europe. Sign the petition: www.fivedemands.eu and join the movement.

frank.van.der.valk on "The Anglican vision after Lambeth"

frank.van.der.valk — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:37:54 +0100

As a foreigner, it is quite surprising to read about the developments in the Anglican church, framed in a very limited English cultural context. Isn't the Anglican church a bit broader than that? Hence, isn't there a major issue that the church faces more cultural environments than just England? Which may be at a very different point as regards acceptance of e.g. homosexuality? I would suggest global rapport (and leadership) is the real issue here.

And, of course, the openess of debate is to be much preferred over Roman Catholic doctrinism.

ianniscarras on "After the war: recognising reality in Abkhazia and Georgia "

ianniscarras — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:24:46 +0100

A few questions...

Neal Acherson and Donald Rayfield are both writers I
respect, and they seem to be putting forward a very similar vision for Georgia.

They recommend that Georgia put its ambitions to
reunite the country aside and concentrate on the internal development of those
areas under full Georgian control. The advice seems eminently reasonable.
Indeed it is a tragedy (above all for the Georgians) that this has not been
their policy up until now. Their political leadership and its western
supporters have much to answer for.

Acherson and Rayfield also recommend however that Georgia recognize Abkhazia and South
Ossetia as fully independent states. This seems to me to be more
complicated, for a number of reasons.

1. Rather like the Balkans, Caucasian states have a mixture
of populations. It is possible to subdivide them endlessly and still not
achieve the peculiar 'ideal' of one nation one state, except of course through
widespread ethnic cleansing. By encouraging such subdivision, would we not be
encouraging an increase in violence, rather than the opposite? Who (or rather
where) would be next? Transdniestria? Crimea? Kurdistan? And is it not harder for a minority to live in
a state that is to a large extent monoethnic, rather than in a state with many minorities?

2. Would such recognition not lead to the exact opposite of
what is intended: the seeming justification of Russian's actions after the
event, encouraging repeat performances? Or was Russia's
invasion in fact justified given Georgian actions in Abkhazia and Ossetia? I find it astonishing how extraordinarily
different a view my many (and largely liberal) friends in Russia, and my somewhat fewer (but also liberal)
friends in Georgia
have of what actually occurred.

3. Surely the last thing Georgia needs at the moment is rash
actions in any direction. Rather than move to recognise the independence of
Abkhazia and Ossetia, perhaps the Georgian state should wait, while offering
compensation for those killed in its bombing of South Ossetia and also pay for
the rebuilding of any buildings and monuments it destroyed there. It should
also offer an apology to the Ossetians. Its aim should then be over time to
build bridges with the Abkhazians and the Ossetians, knowing full well that
they could only ever be reintegrated into the Georgian state of their own free
will, without violence and with a very (very) high degree of autonomy. Would such
an approach not actually increase the options available to the Abkhazians and
the Ossetians in the medium term? Today the peoples of these regions clearly understand
the Georgians to be their enemy. But time has its turnings. If Georgia changes tack, it is not at all clear
that Russia’s
embrace will feel quite as liberating in a few years time.

The above questions are not meant to be rhetorical. I
myself am not sure of the answers. After the recognition of Kosovo I felt
instinctively that we were entering a new and more dangerous world where the
old laws, treaties and conventions had been set aside. Being by inclination a
worrier, I fear that worse is yet to come…

Iannis Carras, Athens,
Greece.

AlexM on "Kosovo: the Balkans’ last independent state"

AlexM — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:32:25 +0100

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

Damian O'Loan on "Miliband - by our rights we will know you"

Damian O'Loan — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:37:24 +0100

I agree large parts of your analysis but find it, and Sunder Katwala's, a little indulgent regarding Miliband. Specifically, Miliband says:

"The social democratic tradition has great achievements to its credit in the UK, notably in health and welfare. But on its own traditional social democracy is not enough.

We need the second progressive tradition...

The radical liberal tradition can teach social democrats the importance of individual lives and stories in the overall pattern of the good society. It speaks to the civilian surge. The social democrat can teach the radical liberal that, without social justice, there is no freedom. It speaks to collective insecurity."

Miliband has written off the Social Democratic strand as "not enough" without explanation nor justification. New Labour governments have been using it as a fig-leaf.

The target of eradication of child poverty is unrealistic, as it is measured in relative terms, and it has never been seriously tackled. Tackling child poverty means tackling inequality generally. New Labour did the opposite.

The economic policy of New Labour favoured the individual at society's expense. Public expenditure was high, but channelled to private enterprise, its primary benefactor. The reforms in education (with City Academies among the most identifiably New Labour policies) and public procurement did not favour better expenditure of the public purse and better public services. The policy was to decrease the role of the state, while negotiating terrible contracts with private business that either deliberately, or through mismanagement, allowed the argument that the 'business does it better' to gain credibility.

Brown's system of oversight for financial systems is the biggest example of favouring globally dominant private groups over the public interest. The subprime crisis was identified long enough before to have enacted reform in oversight, in evaluation of assets, in clawback clauses. All were suggested, including from within the banking system, and all rejected or ignored.

The minimum wage has been overcome through loopholes allowing foreign workers to be contracted at rates below it, and the government will not close them. The prison population has increased dramatically, though crime has not.

Results like Glasgow East are due to an excess of liberalism, not a lack of it. The mastery of statistics could only work for so long - in real terms, most people are poorer - only moreso with the present crisis, though that will encourage complaints.

New Labour has not tried social democracy.

A new path should admit the lies inherent in the last project. It is unrealistic to base the debate for the future on an analysis of the recent past as vague and inaccurate as that of Miliband. It makes me expect more of the same in different packaging (or "Labour now needs a generational shift" if you like).

Miliband has interesting ideas on local government. However, I would expect a New Labour system to operate in such a way that they have operational and not strategic control. That local government would take responsibility and central government credit. That a bad policy could continue by replacing its local executive, and eventually the whole project would devalue local government and damage the public interest. If Miliband wishes to allay these kinds of fears, he needs to be honest about past failings.

Not logged in on "Georgia, Abkhazia, Russia: the war option"

Not logged in — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:44:44 +0100

People, listen please. I have a poor English, but it is my duty to tell the truth. Nowadays American and world press say that Russia attacked poor Georgia. That is not true. My old friend lives there and he approves the info from Russian TV. Georgians attacked Osetia, maybe it's a plan of CIA, currently it is not known. Georgian artillery degan to strike the Russian MP base in Osetia when the Olympic games just began.There where only few Russians, but they managed to stay alive and to confront Georgians during operation of taking Chinvali. All videos, which are translated as a Russian attack on Tbilisi-are fake. That is Georgian aircraft attacking Chinvali. Only on that night 1500 Osetians where dead... Awfull. It is proved, that Georgian army killed wounded Russian MP's and Osetian kids/women. Kisten for Osetians themselvs-tyey are grateful to Russian soldiers, who protected them. Look where they wanna go-it is Russia. Obviousely Russian side has the true in this argue. If you protect Saakashvili-you are a fascist. That means you protect Hitler-because Saakashvili initianed genocide of Osetians. All other news are US fake.

Toque on "What is Labour's British story?"

Toque — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:09:22 +0100

Keith, I've made the same journey. I made it a long time ago to be fair. I call myself an English nationalist, but not, necessarily, a separatist, because when sovereignty lies with the people it's up to them to choose independence or the Union. I happen to think that they will choose Union. Sovereignty needs to be moved from the centre - Westminster - to the peripheries - the nations - and when that happens we can still have a union but it will be one by mutual consent.

A federation is what the Scots wanted from the start. Extracts from Tom Nairn's After Britain.

Sir John Clerk of Penicuik (16 April 2006):

The Commissioners met there amongst themselves, the
first general point debated…was whether they should propose to the
English a Federal union between the two nations, or an incorporating
union. The first was most favoured by the people of Scotland, but all
Scots Commissioners, to a Man, considered it impracticable, for that in
all Federal unions there behoved to be a supreme power lodged
somewhere, and wherever this was lodged it henceforth became the States
General, or, in our way of speaking, the Parliament of Great Britain,
under the same royal power and authority as the two nations are at
present…

Earl of Mar:

…they [the English] will never meet with us, for they
think all the notions about federal unions and forms a mere jest or
chimera…

And Tom Nairn’s opinion?

The point was not simply that the English Parliament
demanded incorporation, but that they were right to do so. This is what
the Commissioners were really recognizing, against the will of many or
even most of them. Any lesser or more conditional union between the two
such hopelessly unequal polities could never work out, at least in what
Clerk calls ‘things of the greatest consequence’ - which were naturally
what the whole deal turned on. At bottom Union was about finally
separating Scotland from France, and being able to go on unimpeded to
conquest French hegemony in the wider world.

Thanks to the English ideal of the Crown's sovereignty in Parliament (which as Tom points out is under attack) the Act of Union incorporated Scotland into the English Parliament (it was now a British parliament but the furniture was the same). But at the same time the English parliament was incorporated, or rather changed, into the British parliament. With the benefit of hindsight it's fairly easy to see that a huge mistake was made. OK, so the Union has lasted 300 years, but the anniversary passed without celebration, and the French aren't quite as dastardly as they once seemed...Time to mend the huge cracks that have appeared in our union of nations.

Keith McBurney on "What is Labour's British story?"

Keith McBurney — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:03:59 +0100

I wonder if he has too Toque?

But perhaps the enabling vision of GB after GB in a transformed confederal "Union of the Isles" is in more folks' minds than i might be tempted to think brought it to their attention here. Once the real problems are identified from the symptoms, the best approach to negotiations is a win-win outcome. It struck me that recognition of sovereignty and confederation would be the antidote to so many of our democratic deficit ills. So even in England, I could not be alone in seeing the uniquely confederal accommodation of Independence and Union appears to do just and justly that, with no attendant downside whatsoever other than for the political parties, their paymasters and fellow travellers who put party before our peoples.

And yes, it is about all our freedoms. After taking their group photo in the HoL, i said as much to the CEP and ED members who had heard me advocate such a re-Union at the Hansard event with the Rifkind and Falconer on the WLQ. Therein, i suggested it was the wrong question being answered by the wrong people and the wrong solution. When i went on to expand on the real argument between a unitary federal UK and a reunifying confederal Union of the Isles, Rifkind looked as owlishly bemused as ever. However, Falconer got the point and the chair to shut me up, but not before it had been made to folk from Ireland and Wales who had made the journey too.

Likewise, if parties would put people first, the progressive will find expression in our preferred plurality. Else, our disinterest - if not downright disaffection in walking away from their undoing of us - will be marked both in declining membership of parties and turnout, as has been the trend in states where the electorate has become political consumer rather than participant. Here, cash back for votes is fostered by the decisive marginal gains to be had in first past the post; hence no party got more than 20% of the total potential electorates vote in the last rounds. That was not a mandate for anything other than the consensual, effectively heeded only in Scotland and Wales.

In contrast, Whitehall continues to hide behind the Westminster it sorely abuses - with the whipped connivance of unfaithful misrepresentatives, and so us by proxy. A Westminster locked in the adversarial, where strength of argument is outnumbered at our expense by unsustainable legislative incompetence. Like much else, such was the ersatz decentralisation of devolution.

It is ironic too that successive Conservative and now Labour maladministrations, throughout tribally engaged by infighting outside and knock-out by numbers inside the Westminster village ring, have been decrying what they might better have been themselves in Scotland and Wales had they not been party to shoring up the diminished power of the UK edifice of Empire past to preserve England writ large and so themselves.

This poorly attended performance is now bringing about the time-served UK state’s final curtain call. Moreover, hubristic Labour are now on the wrong side of a self-inflicted economic and political drag curve, where matters can only get worse before they can get better, and there is no quick fix without a nigh on terminal downside.

In readily recognising the English Question from their own colonial experience of the iniquitous inequality which begged it, others do recognise the English cannot leave themselves until they leave them to shut the UK door behind and step aboard a new Union. And this we would all be bound to do, as no man or nation is an island on our nations’ shores of families and friends and family of friendly nations.

Time and tide beckons. As Alex says, It is indeed concern for our neighbours as much for ourselves that will see us safe across the present divide between past and future, despite the divisive gloom and doom of naysayers. We should not be discouraged by false arguments couched in terms of Union v Independence, or ersatz Devolution v true Decentralisation, or Home Rule v Self Rule. These are the posturing pronouncements of politicians on manoeuvres. You will not hear them cry “Save the UK” lest we ask "why?" Instead, their calculating call is “Save the Union”. As the Union would be saved in any event, of course they wish to do so, as they well might in wishing to be the party in power that does! But not this UK state that the 1707 incorporating Union gave the mixed blessing of birth to. Instead, as all our nations should be party to the complete transformation, we folk might best prefer to do so too in our perceived mutual interests.

Meanwhile, the progressive voices of liberty are still alive and well in Scotland and Wales. If not keen on advice from there to change policies, the latest edition of the New Statesman has some thoughtful inputs from Martin Bright and its Leader on some progressive medicine for unhealthy democracies, respectively at: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2008/08/labour-party-city-justice & http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2008/08/labour-wealth-continuity.

Unlock Democracy too might care to pass on some holiday reading to GB before he resumes his quest to be elected as PM. Given the little that has been accomplished, it should not take long to update what they sent him on taking up office. PR would be a good start. It might be the only way to ensure enough Labour MPs live to fight another day. It would be a liberating Act which has worked for progressive forces elsewhere!

Aye Ours,

Keith, frae Fife and Yorkshire, for Independence & Union

PS to others. There is an excellent article “In Support for Nationalism” and a contribution by Harry Reid which is a very succinct aid to understanding here: http://toque.co.uk/blog/?p=980

Toque on "What is Labour's British story?"

Toque — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:33:51 +0100

I wonder if James Bovington reads Our Kingdom?

alex_buchan on "What is Labour's British story?"

alex_buchan — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:25:10 +0100

Tom

I think what happens in England concerns everyone who lives in the UK.

The lessons from Scotland, I feel, is that progressive political change can only come about when 1) it is in line with, rather than going against, the deep underlying forces unleashed by globalism and European unification, 2) it manages to gain some political space free from Westminster.

On both these criteria the battle seems to be around the death of the old ‘Great Britain’ project, with its concern for world power status on the one hand, and the emergence of ‘England’ as a vehicle for a new progressive vision of the future.

As an artificial construct united around greatness on the world stage, Britain seems out of place and out of time, in the new Europe. The struggle over the vision of an emerging England also creates space free from the control of Westminster, and the media circus the surrounds it. Although the Westminster parties can co-opt most new movements that arise, such as the environmental movement, they cannot co-opt the movement for English democratic rights because it would signal the end of Westminster itself.

Tom Griffin on "What is Labour's British story?"

Tom Griffin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:59:49 +0100

Mike,

I agree that a way forward for the English Left is not your responsibility. The belief that the Scottish left could make good the failures of its English counterpart is part of what got us where we are.

Those of us south of the border need to find our own way forward. I don't have any great analysis to show that will happen, but I'm not sure that calling the odds is what's important at this juncture.

Sarah2 on "What is Labour's British story?"

Sarah2 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:01:35 +0100

'Liberal' is a sneered insult at times in the UK. This phenomenon is even more pronounced in the US. I suspect progressive may end up the same way. Perhaps many people have had quite enough 'progress'.

Mike Small on "What is Labour's British story?"

Mike Small — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:25:18 +0100

Tom I'm away of the radical traditions in English political cultural, and their great potential, though less sure when they have recenly manifested.

But when you say: "I think it is worth trying to come up with a way forward now rather than just waiting for that to happen" part of me asks, is that my responsibility?

Gerry writes: 'Such a new progressive imagination can already be seen in Scotland and Wales, where it will continue to grow with or without Labour. It will then find its English form. ' But will it? It seems like a bold statement, given a resurgent Tory vote, a sprinkling of support for the BNP and a political culture that seems at times to be lurching to the right.