The Daily Star
1 June 2009
By Michael Glackin
A week, they say, is a long time in politics. And so it seems like an eternity since British Prime Minister Gordon Brown proclaimed to the nation that he had a "moral compass" that guided all his decisions and underpinned his policies. Today, less than two years on, his moral compass looks more like a defective traffic direction finder, the kind you rip out of your car because it can't tell right from left, or in Brown's case, right from wrong.
In case you missed it, the United Kingdom is enduring an unending moral sclerosis within Parliament. Members of Parliament from all parties have been exposed for scandalously misusing their generous expense allowances to line their own pockets, enriching themselves and their families. The public outrage is such that some parliamentarians have returned money or decided not to seek re-election. So far, a minister and the Speaker of the House of Commons have been forced out of office.
A fish of course rots from the head down. Brown has been exposed for using taxpayers' money to pay his brother for "cleaning services," and he has also claimed tens of thousands of pounds of public money for running and renovating two different homes. The prime minister's manipulation of the system is far from the most blatant. But the expenses scandal is just the latest to envelop him and call into question his cultivated image as a model of probity and integrity.
The impact of all this on British policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan should not be overlooked. In his struggle to hold the fast disintegrating ring at home, Brown has given up foreign affairs unless it offers him a decent photo opportunity. Unfortunately, the only international photo worth having today usually involves US president Barack Obama, and much to Brown's chagrin opportunities for him there are very limited.
Even allowing for the usual fawning over American presidents that British politicians indulge in to give credence to the "special relationship," Brown's overt desperation to get close to Obama in the hope that some of the president's stardust might fall on him has been embarrassing.
Obama knows a lame duck when he sees one and is already looking beyond Brown. When the president visited the UK in April for the G-20 summit he went out of his way to meet the opposition Conservative leader David Cameron. It was also noticeable that US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton took time out to hold a meeting with the Conservative's shadow foreign secretary, William Hague.
The "special relationship" isn't so special these days. Unlike Tony Blair and George W. Bush, or indeed Blair and Bill Clinton, Brown does not enjoy a close personal bond with Obama. At the same time, unlike many of his predecessors, Obama has no great affection for the UK. Whereas Clinton was a former Rhodes Scholar who enjoyed Oxford University and much else that the swinging 1960s in England had to offer, Obama was exposed to a very different side of British culture which saw his grandfather tortured by British soldiers during Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion.
Right now the US president is angry at the UK's response, not to mention the rest of Europe, to his call for more military aid in Afghanistan.
Brown was of course the only Western leader to offer substantial help, and Britain remains the principal contributor of troops to the Afghan conflict after America. But Brown's decision to send just a temporary force of 700 British troops to join the 8,300 already in Helmand and provide security during the August election, fell way short of the thousands of troops Obama was hoping to get from the prime minister as the UK pulls out of Iraq. It also falls short of the 10,000 permanent troops British military chiefs insist is necessary to bring stability to the Helmand-Kandahar region.
But Brown has domestic reasons for resisting Obama's and his own generals' pleas. The human sacrifice - this weekend saw the death of the 164th British soldier in the conflict - and the increasing financial burden, which will see the cost of the conflict hit $3.6 billion in 2008-2009, up from $2.4 billion the year before, are fast becoming unacceptable to UK voters. Meanwhile new laws proposed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai sanctioning child marriage and marital rape leave many voters questioning what kind of regime British troops are dying to establish in Afghanistan.
Consequently, much as Brown wants to bask in the glow of the "special relationship" he has no intention of adding to his many domestic woes by sinking deeper into an unpopular war. Brown's priority is political survival and further commitments to Afghanistan do nothing to help him in that quest.
Although Brown will almost certainly lead his party into a humiliating defeat in June's European Parliament elections and later national elections, the current scandal surrounding parliamentary expenses may lessen the scale of the defeat because support for the Conservatives has also been hit. Brown may even decide to take a calculated gamble and call a national election in the autumn, six months before he has to, and before he is tainted by anything else.
But whenever the election takes place, the UK will have a new government. And while it too will extol the "special relationship" it will be just as unwilling to pay the price demanded by Washington for it as the current government. The country needs some time alone with its scandals.
Michael Glackin is former managing editor of Beirut newspaper The Daily Star.
Monday, 1 June 2009
Monday, 23 March 2009
The UK chats up Hizbullah ... again
Friday 20 March 2009
The Daily Star
By Michael Glackin
How angry is the White House with the United Kingdom for opening talks with Hizbullah? Judging by the tirade of criticism that emanated from the US State Department last week, the answer is very angry indeed.
Despite the fact that President Barack Obama is making overtures to those the Bush White House once deemed untouchable, it is clear from the comments coming out of Washington that this new policy has its limits.
The US of course has a particular problem with Hizbullah, which it believes was behind the bomb attack that killed 241 US Marines in Beirut in 1983. But you could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the White House, to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, "doth protest too much" and is privately content with the UK's attempts to fly solo.
This would perhaps better explain why the UK suddenly appears to be abandoning its recent record of unquestioning acquiescence to US policy and is publicly cocking a snook at its ally, the special relationship and the most popular leader in the world at the moment.
It's worth pointing out that these latest talks, which were officially sanctioned in the summer of 2008, actually represent a resumption rather than an entirely new policy. UK talks with Hizbullah go back as far as 2001 and only stopped during the turmoil following the Hariri assassination. Therefore, over the last eight years or so the UK has spent more time talking to Hizbullah than ignoring it.
The catalyst for the current resumption was Hizbullah's decision to join Lebanon's national unity government in May 2008. A Foreign Office official told me this provided the British government with a "window of opportunity to engage Hizbullah by opening low level talks to encourage it to play a more positive role in politics." The Foreign Office insists it is talking to what it calls Hizbullah's "political wing," and will not hold discussions with the movement's "military wing."
Of course, this "window of opportunity" opened because Hizbullah, its "military wing" included, orchestrated a wave of civil unrest, followed by a military takeover of western Beirut, that substantially weakened the democratic government, including a parliamentary majority that had been targeted by a succession of (unsolved) murders of several of its members.
It is this, among other things, that has apparently so annoyed the Americans. While the UK has opted to compartmentalize Hizbullah's political, social and military functions, Washington insists that Hizbullah's leadership is so integrated that any attempt to separate its various activities is foolhardy.
But one cannot escape the feeling that the Obama administration is perfectly at ease with the UK's engagement of Hizbullah. In the space of a few months Obama has moved away from the Bush policy of isolating so-called rogue states to engaging them. Obama is preparing, according to The Los Angeles Times, to send a secret message to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, inviting him to open a clandestine "back channel" for direct talks between Washington and Tehran. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has invited Iran to this month's international conference on Afghanistan at The Hague. Meanwhile US officials, among them the acting US assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, have begun talks with Syrian officials.
Arguably, British policy is merely seeking to get a step ahead of the US, as opposed to its previous policy of following Washington's lead. The Foreign Office is keen to stress that the move to engage Hizbullah should be seen "purely within the context of Lebanon's political scene." However, insiders concede it is also part of a "wider approach" in the Middle East.
The British foreign secretary, David Miliband, has already broken bread with President Bashar Assad in Damascus. Last weekend a former minister, Clare Short, a left-wing Labor parliamentarian, also visited Damascus where she met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and called for the UK to end its boycott of the Palestinian group. The meeting was well publicized, in contrast to several low-profile visits that other British politicians have made to Meshaal over the last year.
Short was not representing the government of course, and for the record the Foreign Office still insists there are "absolutely no plans" to open talks with Hamas. An official told me: "If there's a lesson for Hamas in our low-level talks with Hizbullah it is that if it decides to agree to the Quartet principles, the door would be open." Perhaps I missed Hizbullah's announcement that it was renouncing violence, throwing down its arms and recognizing Israel. But there is clearly a pattern emerging that a more softly softly approach, which for now includes contact with Hizbullah, but before long is likely to include Hamas too, is now central to UK policy.
The previous policy of isolating enemies and promoting liberal democracy is in pieces, broken by its own failure. The West has so far failed to thwart Iran's ambitions to become a nuclear power. Israeli military actions have strengthened both Hamas and Hizbullah. Security may have at long last improved in Iraq, or at least enough for coalition troops to depart, but Afghanistan remains a disaster and neighboring Pakistan is now a political basket case as well. Large parts of Pakistan's northwest are firmly under the control of the Taliban with tacit government approval. The West cannot allow Pakistan to become another Afghanistan any more than it can sit back and allow Iran to join the nuclear club.
The UK, like the US, wants to draw a line through what has gone on before and clearly feels the interlocking relationships between Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas is a good place to start. The fates of all four are inextricably entwined, and with them the future of Lebanon. The question that remains unanswered is what price Lebanon will pay for this change of policy, particularly in the run up to elections in June?
When I put this question to the Foreign Office the official said: "We don't seek to empower one movement over another. We are supportive of the Siniora government and our talks with Hizbullah do not change that."
So that's alright then. But official talks offer Hizbullah, or its political wing, an official sanction that may well undermine political parties that don't have a "military wing," those that rely on elections to bring down governments.
The government often cites the lessons learned through the peace process in Northern Ireland when discussing the Middle East. But it is worth remembering that the moderate political parties quickly lost ground to the extremists once the government opened a dialogue with them. The two moderate Northern Ireland politicians who won the Nobel Prize in 1998, John Hume and David Trimble, both lost their parliamentary seats to more extremist parties a few years afterward.
Of course the advances in Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the recent outbreak of violence, have been fantastic. But crucially the IRA leadership told the British government that "the war was over" before formal talks began. Has Hizbullah given a similar assurance? I doubt if it was even asked.
Michael Glackin is former managing editor of Beirut newspaper THE DAILY STAR.
The Daily Star
By Michael Glackin
How angry is the White House with the United Kingdom for opening talks with Hizbullah? Judging by the tirade of criticism that emanated from the US State Department last week, the answer is very angry indeed.
Despite the fact that President Barack Obama is making overtures to those the Bush White House once deemed untouchable, it is clear from the comments coming out of Washington that this new policy has its limits.
The US of course has a particular problem with Hizbullah, which it believes was behind the bomb attack that killed 241 US Marines in Beirut in 1983. But you could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the White House, to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, "doth protest too much" and is privately content with the UK's attempts to fly solo.
This would perhaps better explain why the UK suddenly appears to be abandoning its recent record of unquestioning acquiescence to US policy and is publicly cocking a snook at its ally, the special relationship and the most popular leader in the world at the moment.
It's worth pointing out that these latest talks, which were officially sanctioned in the summer of 2008, actually represent a resumption rather than an entirely new policy. UK talks with Hizbullah go back as far as 2001 and only stopped during the turmoil following the Hariri assassination. Therefore, over the last eight years or so the UK has spent more time talking to Hizbullah than ignoring it.
The catalyst for the current resumption was Hizbullah's decision to join Lebanon's national unity government in May 2008. A Foreign Office official told me this provided the British government with a "window of opportunity to engage Hizbullah by opening low level talks to encourage it to play a more positive role in politics." The Foreign Office insists it is talking to what it calls Hizbullah's "political wing," and will not hold discussions with the movement's "military wing."
Of course, this "window of opportunity" opened because Hizbullah, its "military wing" included, orchestrated a wave of civil unrest, followed by a military takeover of western Beirut, that substantially weakened the democratic government, including a parliamentary majority that had been targeted by a succession of (unsolved) murders of several of its members.
It is this, among other things, that has apparently so annoyed the Americans. While the UK has opted to compartmentalize Hizbullah's political, social and military functions, Washington insists that Hizbullah's leadership is so integrated that any attempt to separate its various activities is foolhardy.
But one cannot escape the feeling that the Obama administration is perfectly at ease with the UK's engagement of Hizbullah. In the space of a few months Obama has moved away from the Bush policy of isolating so-called rogue states to engaging them. Obama is preparing, according to The Los Angeles Times, to send a secret message to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, inviting him to open a clandestine "back channel" for direct talks between Washington and Tehran. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has invited Iran to this month's international conference on Afghanistan at The Hague. Meanwhile US officials, among them the acting US assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, have begun talks with Syrian officials.
Arguably, British policy is merely seeking to get a step ahead of the US, as opposed to its previous policy of following Washington's lead. The Foreign Office is keen to stress that the move to engage Hizbullah should be seen "purely within the context of Lebanon's political scene." However, insiders concede it is also part of a "wider approach" in the Middle East.
The British foreign secretary, David Miliband, has already broken bread with President Bashar Assad in Damascus. Last weekend a former minister, Clare Short, a left-wing Labor parliamentarian, also visited Damascus where she met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and called for the UK to end its boycott of the Palestinian group. The meeting was well publicized, in contrast to several low-profile visits that other British politicians have made to Meshaal over the last year.
Short was not representing the government of course, and for the record the Foreign Office still insists there are "absolutely no plans" to open talks with Hamas. An official told me: "If there's a lesson for Hamas in our low-level talks with Hizbullah it is that if it decides to agree to the Quartet principles, the door would be open." Perhaps I missed Hizbullah's announcement that it was renouncing violence, throwing down its arms and recognizing Israel. But there is clearly a pattern emerging that a more softly softly approach, which for now includes contact with Hizbullah, but before long is likely to include Hamas too, is now central to UK policy.
The previous policy of isolating enemies and promoting liberal democracy is in pieces, broken by its own failure. The West has so far failed to thwart Iran's ambitions to become a nuclear power. Israeli military actions have strengthened both Hamas and Hizbullah. Security may have at long last improved in Iraq, or at least enough for coalition troops to depart, but Afghanistan remains a disaster and neighboring Pakistan is now a political basket case as well. Large parts of Pakistan's northwest are firmly under the control of the Taliban with tacit government approval. The West cannot allow Pakistan to become another Afghanistan any more than it can sit back and allow Iran to join the nuclear club.
The UK, like the US, wants to draw a line through what has gone on before and clearly feels the interlocking relationships between Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas is a good place to start. The fates of all four are inextricably entwined, and with them the future of Lebanon. The question that remains unanswered is what price Lebanon will pay for this change of policy, particularly in the run up to elections in June?
When I put this question to the Foreign Office the official said: "We don't seek to empower one movement over another. We are supportive of the Siniora government and our talks with Hizbullah do not change that."
So that's alright then. But official talks offer Hizbullah, or its political wing, an official sanction that may well undermine political parties that don't have a "military wing," those that rely on elections to bring down governments.
The government often cites the lessons learned through the peace process in Northern Ireland when discussing the Middle East. But it is worth remembering that the moderate political parties quickly lost ground to the extremists once the government opened a dialogue with them. The two moderate Northern Ireland politicians who won the Nobel Prize in 1998, John Hume and David Trimble, both lost their parliamentary seats to more extremist parties a few years afterward.
Of course the advances in Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the recent outbreak of violence, have been fantastic. But crucially the IRA leadership told the British government that "the war was over" before formal talks began. Has Hizbullah given a similar assurance? I doubt if it was even asked.
Michael Glackin is former managing editor of Beirut newspaper THE DAILY STAR.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
The gun gets an olive branch
Wednesday 18 March 2009
NOW Lebanon
By Michael Glackin
Britain reaches out to Hezbollah
Those in Britain with an interest in political Islam suffered a blow over the weekend when it emerged that a Hezbollah official, Ibrahim Moussawi, would not be allowed into the United Kingdom to lecture on the subject at the School of Oriental and African Studies later this month.
The Home Office, the department responsible for the banning order, does not comment on individual cases, but department insiders told me that Moussawi’s application for a visa was denied on the basis that his presence in the UK “was not conducive to the public good.” It’s worth pointing out that Moussawi can appeal the decision, although the process is unlikely to offer him much comfort.
Moussawi will probably feel hard done by. Quite why his presence is now suddenly “not conducive to the public good” after he happily visited Britain’s shores last year and in 2007 without interference is a bit of a mystery. During Moussawi’s previous trips, Hezbollah was a proscribed movement. Now when the British authorities are openly talking to Hezbollah, he has suddenly found himself persona non grata.
Confused? Well it’s not the only confusing occurrence in the UK’s relationship with Hezbollah in the last week. Earlier this month Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell, whose remit includes the Middle East, caused consternation when he announced that the government had just “reconsidered” its policy toward Hezbollah and would now talk to ‘‘carefully selected’’ contacts within the movement’s “political wing” – by which he meant members of parliament.
Unfortunately for Rammell, the policy he thought he was unveiling has been in existence for almost a year, and was first revealed in July 2008, five months after Moussawi’s last visit to the UK. In fact, the policy is even older than that. In December 2001, then-British Ambassador to Lebanon Richard Kinchen met with the secretary general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. This “official contact” lasted until 2005, and ended because of a combination of factors, including the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and the fact that it was yielding little positive results.
Putting aside Rammell’s blushes, not to mention his ignorance of his own department’s policy, the catalyst and purpose for this not-so-new approach was explained to me by a friendly but unenlightening Foreign Office spokesperson. She told me that Hezbollah’s decision to join the Lebanese national-unity government – which of course came about after it brought the country to a standstill and used force against the existing government – provided an opportunity for the UK to “engage Hezbollah.”
This meant that the British ambassador in Lebanon has been given permission to open what the Foreign Office describes as “low-level talks” with the aim of “encouraging Hezbollah to take a more positive role in the political process.” The government’s objectives are straightforward: “We want Hezbollah to disarm and stop supporting terrorism and participate in Lebanese politics as a democratic party. This dialogue helps us communicate these points to Hezbollah,” the spokesperson said.
You could be forgiven for thinking that Hezbollah was already aware of what the UK and most Western governments wanted them to do for some time now. But in the spirit of this engagement, Moussawi was probably looking forward to explaining how these aspirations fit in with Hezbollah’s view of “political Islam” to a British audience, which was set to include a number of Foreign Office staff members.
Actually, Moussawi found himself caught up in purely domestic row. The government was heavily criticized after it banned Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders from entering the UK earlier this year for a screening of his controversial film “Fitna” – which links Islam to terrorism – at the House of Lords. The government faced accusations of being tough on critics of Islam and soft on Muslim extremists. The public perception that the British government is soft on Muslim extremism was further evidenced for many when a handful of such extremists were allowed to protest last week during a parade for soldiers returning from Iraq.
Moussawi aside, the new British policy toward Hezbollah is broadly in line with Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s speech in India earlier this year, when he poured scorn on the idea of the “war on terror”. It can also be viewed as part of what US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calls America’s “smart diplomacy”, although the White House insists, for now at any rate, that it will not talk to anyone from Hezbollah.
Has the UK’s olive branch to Hezbollah achieved anything?
The Foreign Office insists it is too early to say if the approach is working. The spokesperson said, “The jury’s still out. We’ll assess it on a regular basis. There is no open-ended check here.” But with Lebanon’s elections just under three months away, there may be some who think this very public rapprochement with Hezbollah, by a government that just a year ago was one of its most vociferous critics, will be money in the bank for the party on polling day. Maybe Rammell isn’t as ignorant as we thought.
Michael Glackin, a UK based journalist and former managing editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. The views of the author do not necessarily reflect those of NOW Lebanon.
NOW Lebanon
By Michael Glackin
Britain reaches out to Hezbollah
Those in Britain with an interest in political Islam suffered a blow over the weekend when it emerged that a Hezbollah official, Ibrahim Moussawi, would not be allowed into the United Kingdom to lecture on the subject at the School of Oriental and African Studies later this month.
The Home Office, the department responsible for the banning order, does not comment on individual cases, but department insiders told me that Moussawi’s application for a visa was denied on the basis that his presence in the UK “was not conducive to the public good.” It’s worth pointing out that Moussawi can appeal the decision, although the process is unlikely to offer him much comfort.
Moussawi will probably feel hard done by. Quite why his presence is now suddenly “not conducive to the public good” after he happily visited Britain’s shores last year and in 2007 without interference is a bit of a mystery. During Moussawi’s previous trips, Hezbollah was a proscribed movement. Now when the British authorities are openly talking to Hezbollah, he has suddenly found himself persona non grata.
Confused? Well it’s not the only confusing occurrence in the UK’s relationship with Hezbollah in the last week. Earlier this month Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell, whose remit includes the Middle East, caused consternation when he announced that the government had just “reconsidered” its policy toward Hezbollah and would now talk to ‘‘carefully selected’’ contacts within the movement’s “political wing” – by which he meant members of parliament.
Unfortunately for Rammell, the policy he thought he was unveiling has been in existence for almost a year, and was first revealed in July 2008, five months after Moussawi’s last visit to the UK. In fact, the policy is even older than that. In December 2001, then-British Ambassador to Lebanon Richard Kinchen met with the secretary general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. This “official contact” lasted until 2005, and ended because of a combination of factors, including the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and the fact that it was yielding little positive results.
Putting aside Rammell’s blushes, not to mention his ignorance of his own department’s policy, the catalyst and purpose for this not-so-new approach was explained to me by a friendly but unenlightening Foreign Office spokesperson. She told me that Hezbollah’s decision to join the Lebanese national-unity government – which of course came about after it brought the country to a standstill and used force against the existing government – provided an opportunity for the UK to “engage Hezbollah.”
This meant that the British ambassador in Lebanon has been given permission to open what the Foreign Office describes as “low-level talks” with the aim of “encouraging Hezbollah to take a more positive role in the political process.” The government’s objectives are straightforward: “We want Hezbollah to disarm and stop supporting terrorism and participate in Lebanese politics as a democratic party. This dialogue helps us communicate these points to Hezbollah,” the spokesperson said.
You could be forgiven for thinking that Hezbollah was already aware of what the UK and most Western governments wanted them to do for some time now. But in the spirit of this engagement, Moussawi was probably looking forward to explaining how these aspirations fit in with Hezbollah’s view of “political Islam” to a British audience, which was set to include a number of Foreign Office staff members.
Actually, Moussawi found himself caught up in purely domestic row. The government was heavily criticized after it banned Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders from entering the UK earlier this year for a screening of his controversial film “Fitna” – which links Islam to terrorism – at the House of Lords. The government faced accusations of being tough on critics of Islam and soft on Muslim extremists. The public perception that the British government is soft on Muslim extremism was further evidenced for many when a handful of such extremists were allowed to protest last week during a parade for soldiers returning from Iraq.
Moussawi aside, the new British policy toward Hezbollah is broadly in line with Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s speech in India earlier this year, when he poured scorn on the idea of the “war on terror”. It can also be viewed as part of what US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calls America’s “smart diplomacy”, although the White House insists, for now at any rate, that it will not talk to anyone from Hezbollah.
Has the UK’s olive branch to Hezbollah achieved anything?
The Foreign Office insists it is too early to say if the approach is working. The spokesperson said, “The jury’s still out. We’ll assess it on a regular basis. There is no open-ended check here.” But with Lebanon’s elections just under three months away, there may be some who think this very public rapprochement with Hezbollah, by a government that just a year ago was one of its most vociferous critics, will be money in the bank for the party on polling day. Maybe Rammell isn’t as ignorant as we thought.
Michael Glackin, a UK based journalist and former managing editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. The views of the author do not necessarily reflect those of NOW Lebanon.
Monday, 2 March 2009
British Conservatives and the Middle East
The Daily Star
Tuesday 3 March 2009
By Michael Glackin
Gordon Brown's government is in its death throes, propelled there by a recession, rising unemployment and a succession of revelations highlighting ministerial sleaze. The odds on Brown being prime minister after an election, which he must call before May 2010, are long indeed.
The latest opinion polls reveal the government is trailing the opposition Conservative Party by 16 points and is now just three points ahead of the much smaller Liberal Democrats.
So what can the Middle East expect from a future Conservative government?
Speaking to me earlier this month David Lidington, the Conservative shadow minister for foreign affairs and the party's Middle East spokesperson, outlined what the region could expect from a Conservative government, and made it clear that lofty ideals such as democracy will no longer be the yardstick for measuring political progress in the region.
"The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan has given us a more sober assessment about how difficult it is to introduce political reform," Lidington told me. "I think we've learned that it is very difficult to impose democracy by force, particularly by foreign force, and that democracy in terms of votes and competing political parties is not enough."
Lidington said a Conservative government would remain "very interested" in human rights and democratic reform, but it is clear that stability, not democracy, will be the guiding principle of Conservative Middle East policy. "We are not starry eyed about the ability of Britain or even a country as powerful as the United States simply to snap its fingers and impose such a system on places with their own cultures and histories," he explained. "I would hope that we will see the development of democratic and plural institutions in the Middle East in different countries, but in each country it will have to be in a fashion that takes account of the particular history and culture of that nation."
On one level this "more sober assessment" is a reflection of the policy shift in the corridors of power of Washington and London. But this sort of realpolitik in Middle East affairs has never been far from the surface of Conservative policy. When the American and British government, along with France, cold shouldered Syria in the wake of the 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, the Conservative Party continued to talk to President Bashar Assad's regime.
Lidington has long believed Western attempts to isolate Syria have failed. Britain and France have already undergone a Damascene conversion and the obvious desire of US President Barack Obama to bury the hatchet that his predecessor waved over Assad's head is the latest vindication of his party's policy of maintaining a dialogue with Damascus.
But you get nothing for nothing in international diplomacy, and as the West rushes to bring Syria in from the cold, many people in the Middle East, particularly the Lebanese, wonder what price will be paid for this rapprochement? Many wonder whether the Hariri Tribunal, which begins operating this week but will not hear testimony before next year, might now grind to a halt as Syria's international rehabilitation gathers pace.
No says Lidington. "We haven't moved from our position supporting the Hariri Tribunal. But, we do take the view that you need to talk to governments even when you have the most profound differences with them. I certainly take the view that efforts to isolate a government are rarely effective and probably breed greater risk of misunderstanding. That doesn't mean you take on trust everything that another government says to you, you have to sup with long spoons."
But why stop at Damascus? If you can use a long spoon to sup with a regime that the UN has implicated in a terror attack on another state then why not use it to sup with Hamas, or Hizbullah? Both groups have successfully contested elections that were more open and democratic than those won by Assad and the Baath Party in Syria. Both groups are also crucial to any hopes of stability in the region. Do they not fall into the "more sober assessment" category?
Lidington agrees both groups are central to creating a stable Middle East, but insists the United Kingdom must distinguish between the governments of a sovereign nation, in this case Assad and Syria, and a group which "openly advocates violence."
"I would accept that Hamas has electoral support and it does represent a significant strand of Palestinian opinion," he said. "But I think that if we are going to deal with it as a party to Middle East diplomacy that can only be on the basis that it has committed itself to being a political movement rather than a movement based on violence."
Lidington concedes his party has what he calls "channels of communication" with Hamas through some of its backbench MPs and contacts in various NGOs, but insists no direct talks will take place until Hamas renounces violence for good and formally recognizes Israel.
Despite this there is strong support within the Conservative Party for direct talks with Hamas. Former Conservative ministers Michael Ancram and Chris Patten, both of whom were involved in the Northern Ireland peace process, recently called for the scrapping of preconditions on talks with Hamas, insisting the group should only be required to halt its violence, not renounce it entirely, to join peace negotiations.
Bearing in mind the Conservatives' willingness to cock a snoot at both the US and UK government over Syria, it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see a situation where a Conservative government would be prepared to break bread with Hamas or indeed Hizbullah if it felt it was in the UK's wider interests. While describing Hizbullah as a terror group on the one hand, Lidington also insists it is "an authentic movement," because of its strong electoral support, and as such would have to be part of any Middle East peace settlement.
"You cannot disentangle Hizbullah from broader questions of the Middle East. If you think about prospects of a deal between Israel and Syria over the Golan you can sketch quite easily the territorial demarcation lines; but I cannot see any Israeli government finalizing a deal without some firm assurances concerning the supply of arms to Hizbullah across Syrian territory. When you start getting into that discussion you're immediately talking about the relationship of Hizbullah to Iran as well. These are all part of a broader regional picture."
Whether you see the Conservative Party's "more sober assessment" of the region's future as a long overdue correction or a contradictory and indeed dangerous policy, one thing is certain: The West now appears to view the idea of Middle East democracy with the same disdain it once had for Soviet Communism. It is fast becoming the doctrine that can no longer speak its name in this part of the world.
Michael Glackin is former manging editor of Beirut newspaper The Daily Star
Tuesday 3 March 2009
By Michael Glackin
Gordon Brown's government is in its death throes, propelled there by a recession, rising unemployment and a succession of revelations highlighting ministerial sleaze. The odds on Brown being prime minister after an election, which he must call before May 2010, are long indeed.
The latest opinion polls reveal the government is trailing the opposition Conservative Party by 16 points and is now just three points ahead of the much smaller Liberal Democrats.
So what can the Middle East expect from a future Conservative government?
Speaking to me earlier this month David Lidington, the Conservative shadow minister for foreign affairs and the party's Middle East spokesperson, outlined what the region could expect from a Conservative government, and made it clear that lofty ideals such as democracy will no longer be the yardstick for measuring political progress in the region.
"The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan has given us a more sober assessment about how difficult it is to introduce political reform," Lidington told me. "I think we've learned that it is very difficult to impose democracy by force, particularly by foreign force, and that democracy in terms of votes and competing political parties is not enough."
Lidington said a Conservative government would remain "very interested" in human rights and democratic reform, but it is clear that stability, not democracy, will be the guiding principle of Conservative Middle East policy. "We are not starry eyed about the ability of Britain or even a country as powerful as the United States simply to snap its fingers and impose such a system on places with their own cultures and histories," he explained. "I would hope that we will see the development of democratic and plural institutions in the Middle East in different countries, but in each country it will have to be in a fashion that takes account of the particular history and culture of that nation."
On one level this "more sober assessment" is a reflection of the policy shift in the corridors of power of Washington and London. But this sort of realpolitik in Middle East affairs has never been far from the surface of Conservative policy. When the American and British government, along with France, cold shouldered Syria in the wake of the 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, the Conservative Party continued to talk to President Bashar Assad's regime.
Lidington has long believed Western attempts to isolate Syria have failed. Britain and France have already undergone a Damascene conversion and the obvious desire of US President Barack Obama to bury the hatchet that his predecessor waved over Assad's head is the latest vindication of his party's policy of maintaining a dialogue with Damascus.
But you get nothing for nothing in international diplomacy, and as the West rushes to bring Syria in from the cold, many people in the Middle East, particularly the Lebanese, wonder what price will be paid for this rapprochement? Many wonder whether the Hariri Tribunal, which begins operating this week but will not hear testimony before next year, might now grind to a halt as Syria's international rehabilitation gathers pace.
No says Lidington. "We haven't moved from our position supporting the Hariri Tribunal. But, we do take the view that you need to talk to governments even when you have the most profound differences with them. I certainly take the view that efforts to isolate a government are rarely effective and probably breed greater risk of misunderstanding. That doesn't mean you take on trust everything that another government says to you, you have to sup with long spoons."
But why stop at Damascus? If you can use a long spoon to sup with a regime that the UN has implicated in a terror attack on another state then why not use it to sup with Hamas, or Hizbullah? Both groups have successfully contested elections that were more open and democratic than those won by Assad and the Baath Party in Syria. Both groups are also crucial to any hopes of stability in the region. Do they not fall into the "more sober assessment" category?
Lidington agrees both groups are central to creating a stable Middle East, but insists the United Kingdom must distinguish between the governments of a sovereign nation, in this case Assad and Syria, and a group which "openly advocates violence."
"I would accept that Hamas has electoral support and it does represent a significant strand of Palestinian opinion," he said. "But I think that if we are going to deal with it as a party to Middle East diplomacy that can only be on the basis that it has committed itself to being a political movement rather than a movement based on violence."
Lidington concedes his party has what he calls "channels of communication" with Hamas through some of its backbench MPs and contacts in various NGOs, but insists no direct talks will take place until Hamas renounces violence for good and formally recognizes Israel.
Despite this there is strong support within the Conservative Party for direct talks with Hamas. Former Conservative ministers Michael Ancram and Chris Patten, both of whom were involved in the Northern Ireland peace process, recently called for the scrapping of preconditions on talks with Hamas, insisting the group should only be required to halt its violence, not renounce it entirely, to join peace negotiations.
Bearing in mind the Conservatives' willingness to cock a snoot at both the US and UK government over Syria, it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see a situation where a Conservative government would be prepared to break bread with Hamas or indeed Hizbullah if it felt it was in the UK's wider interests. While describing Hizbullah as a terror group on the one hand, Lidington also insists it is "an authentic movement," because of its strong electoral support, and as such would have to be part of any Middle East peace settlement.
"You cannot disentangle Hizbullah from broader questions of the Middle East. If you think about prospects of a deal between Israel and Syria over the Golan you can sketch quite easily the territorial demarcation lines; but I cannot see any Israeli government finalizing a deal without some firm assurances concerning the supply of arms to Hizbullah across Syrian territory. When you start getting into that discussion you're immediately talking about the relationship of Hizbullah to Iran as well. These are all part of a broader regional picture."
Whether you see the Conservative Party's "more sober assessment" of the region's future as a long overdue correction or a contradictory and indeed dangerous policy, one thing is certain: The West now appears to view the idea of Middle East democracy with the same disdain it once had for Soviet Communism. It is fast becoming the doctrine that can no longer speak its name in this part of the world.
Michael Glackin is former manging editor of Beirut newspaper The Daily Star
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
British reserve
20 January 2009
Now Lebanon
By Michael Glackin
Despite the criticism at home directed at the UK’s Labour government for its stance on the Israeli offensive in Gaza, the UK’s Mideast policy has little impact; the policy that matters is on the other side of the Atlantic.
"Most of my family were killed in the Holocaust. In Poland, my grandmother was shot dead in her bed by a German soldier. She was too ill to get up you see, so he shot her. But none of that justifies Israel murdering Palestinians."
Sir Gerald Kaufman, veteran Labour Member of Parliament and former minister was talking to me just before he had to rush off to take part in a parliamentary debate on the latest Gaza conflict late on Thursday afternoon.
Kaufman, who is Jewish, is a long standing supporter of Israel, though a vociferous critic of both its current government and of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. But Kaufman is not blind to the Real Politik of the Middle East. He voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq, and more recently voted against a parliamentary investigation into the war.
During Thursday's three hour debate he told parliament the Israeli government was "cynically exploiting the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians". He said the Israeli claim that 500 of the 1,000 Palestinian victims of the conflict were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."
The debate revealed how out of step the UK government's inertia on the continuing violence is with parliamentarians of all political parties. It also follows two weekends of demonstrations in most of the UK's major cities against the Israeli offensive.
Opposition Conservative MP Hugo Swire, who chairs the Conservative Middle East Council and also supported the invasion of Iraq, called on the government to open talks with Hamas. He insisted the elected Hamas administration in Gaza had a more democratic mandate than Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has of course ruled by decree for the last two years and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah has not met for more than a year.
Another Conservative, former Northern Ireland minister Michael Ancram, said he had spoken to Hamas leaders who were willing to acknowledge the existence of Israel, but added Israel's actions made it harder for moderates to win support.
In addition to several calls for economic sanctions against Israel, a number of MPs called on the government to recall the UK ambassador from Israel and expel the Israeli Ambassador from the UK.
But lively as the debate was, it is extremely unlikely to have any impact on what passes for government policy on the conflict.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband missed the debate because he was visiting India. But speaking in parliament earlier in the week he insisted the ill fated UK authored UN resolution calling for a cease fire was evidence of the government's hard work and commitment to solving the conflict despite the fact that it was ignored by both sides and only passed after America agreed to abstain rather than use its veto. If this kind of abject failure is how the government measures success I'd hate to see what it considers failure.
Miliband firmly ruled out severing diplomatic ties or imposing sanctions, insisting that would simply isolate Israel. He also ruled out talks with Hamas. He did call for abuse allegations made by both sides to be investigated, although he neglected to say who should investigate them.
Israel has twice bombed United Nations buildings in Gaza during this offensive – insisting missiles had been fired from the premises, something the UN vehemently, and it seems quite rightly, deny. Therefore it is unlikely Tel Aviv will consider a UN led investigation to be entirely impartial. Mind you, considering the UN's long running probe into former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri's murder has so far yielded little, this may be a good thing. For the record, the Foreign Office had no idea who would carry out such an investigation either.
Meanwhile, as the violence in Gaza intensified, Quartet Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair was busy accepting the presidential medal of freedom from outgoing US president George W Bush for his support in the war on terror – a phrase Miliband poured scorn on during a speech in Mumbai this week.
Yet for all the criticism of the government, it should be remembered the UK is a bit player in all this. For that matter so too are the Palestinians. Israel has the support of the world's only superpower, and in reality, as the last eight years have shown, it doesn't have to talk to anyone outside of Washington. Hence Hamas - whose electoral success represents Palestinians anger at the failure of anybody to do anything about their plight - and with it Gaza, remain beyond the Pale.
The obscenity here is that Israel is well aware that negotiations with a weakend and all but bankrupt Abbas, such as the now dead in the water Annapolis talks, are pointless. Having been ousted from Gaza, Abbas' authority is now seriously under threat in the West Bank. Annapolis, which Abbas supposed would lead to a comprehensive agreement with Israel by the end of 2008, has instead led to the death of at least 292 children in Gaza since the offensive started, none of whom voted for Hamas in the last election, along with the death of more than 700 adults.
Will this change when the new administration starts work this week?
The former Northern Ireland minister Ancram made a telling point during the parliamentary debate when he said peace in Northern Ireland was only achieved when the White House became heavily involved and former US senator George Mitchell took charge of chairing the talks process. He called on incoming president Barak Obama to make a similar commitment to the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the government here will continue to watch and wait until Israel decides its time to stop hostilities. Welcome to 2009.
Michael Glackin is a journalist and former managing editor of Beirut newspaper The Daily Star.
Now Lebanon
By Michael Glackin
Despite the criticism at home directed at the UK’s Labour government for its stance on the Israeli offensive in Gaza, the UK’s Mideast policy has little impact; the policy that matters is on the other side of the Atlantic.
"Most of my family were killed in the Holocaust. In Poland, my grandmother was shot dead in her bed by a German soldier. She was too ill to get up you see, so he shot her. But none of that justifies Israel murdering Palestinians."
Sir Gerald Kaufman, veteran Labour Member of Parliament and former minister was talking to me just before he had to rush off to take part in a parliamentary debate on the latest Gaza conflict late on Thursday afternoon.
Kaufman, who is Jewish, is a long standing supporter of Israel, though a vociferous critic of both its current government and of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. But Kaufman is not blind to the Real Politik of the Middle East. He voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq, and more recently voted against a parliamentary investigation into the war.
During Thursday's three hour debate he told parliament the Israeli government was "cynically exploiting the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians". He said the Israeli claim that 500 of the 1,000 Palestinian victims of the conflict were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."
The debate revealed how out of step the UK government's inertia on the continuing violence is with parliamentarians of all political parties. It also follows two weekends of demonstrations in most of the UK's major cities against the Israeli offensive.
Opposition Conservative MP Hugo Swire, who chairs the Conservative Middle East Council and also supported the invasion of Iraq, called on the government to open talks with Hamas. He insisted the elected Hamas administration in Gaza had a more democratic mandate than Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has of course ruled by decree for the last two years and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah has not met for more than a year.
Another Conservative, former Northern Ireland minister Michael Ancram, said he had spoken to Hamas leaders who were willing to acknowledge the existence of Israel, but added Israel's actions made it harder for moderates to win support.
In addition to several calls for economic sanctions against Israel, a number of MPs called on the government to recall the UK ambassador from Israel and expel the Israeli Ambassador from the UK.
But lively as the debate was, it is extremely unlikely to have any impact on what passes for government policy on the conflict.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband missed the debate because he was visiting India. But speaking in parliament earlier in the week he insisted the ill fated UK authored UN resolution calling for a cease fire was evidence of the government's hard work and commitment to solving the conflict despite the fact that it was ignored by both sides and only passed after America agreed to abstain rather than use its veto. If this kind of abject failure is how the government measures success I'd hate to see what it considers failure.
Miliband firmly ruled out severing diplomatic ties or imposing sanctions, insisting that would simply isolate Israel. He also ruled out talks with Hamas. He did call for abuse allegations made by both sides to be investigated, although he neglected to say who should investigate them.
Israel has twice bombed United Nations buildings in Gaza during this offensive – insisting missiles had been fired from the premises, something the UN vehemently, and it seems quite rightly, deny. Therefore it is unlikely Tel Aviv will consider a UN led investigation to be entirely impartial. Mind you, considering the UN's long running probe into former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri's murder has so far yielded little, this may be a good thing. For the record, the Foreign Office had no idea who would carry out such an investigation either.
Meanwhile, as the violence in Gaza intensified, Quartet Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair was busy accepting the presidential medal of freedom from outgoing US president George W Bush for his support in the war on terror – a phrase Miliband poured scorn on during a speech in Mumbai this week.
Yet for all the criticism of the government, it should be remembered the UK is a bit player in all this. For that matter so too are the Palestinians. Israel has the support of the world's only superpower, and in reality, as the last eight years have shown, it doesn't have to talk to anyone outside of Washington. Hence Hamas - whose electoral success represents Palestinians anger at the failure of anybody to do anything about their plight - and with it Gaza, remain beyond the Pale.
The obscenity here is that Israel is well aware that negotiations with a weakend and all but bankrupt Abbas, such as the now dead in the water Annapolis talks, are pointless. Having been ousted from Gaza, Abbas' authority is now seriously under threat in the West Bank. Annapolis, which Abbas supposed would lead to a comprehensive agreement with Israel by the end of 2008, has instead led to the death of at least 292 children in Gaza since the offensive started, none of whom voted for Hamas in the last election, along with the death of more than 700 adults.
Will this change when the new administration starts work this week?
The former Northern Ireland minister Ancram made a telling point during the parliamentary debate when he said peace in Northern Ireland was only achieved when the White House became heavily involved and former US senator George Mitchell took charge of chairing the talks process. He called on incoming president Barak Obama to make a similar commitment to the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the government here will continue to watch and wait until Israel decides its time to stop hostilities. Welcome to 2009.
Michael Glackin is a journalist and former managing editor of Beirut newspaper The Daily Star.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Brown preaches morals he doesn't have
Tuesday 21 October 2008
The Daily Star
By Michael Glackin
The turmoil on the world's financial markets is getting serious. I bumped into a stock broker acquaintance the other day who complained he hadn't enjoyed a decent night's sleep in months. Feeling rather sorry for him, I asked how much money he had lost. "I haven't lost anything", he told me. "All my cash is stuffed under my mattress, has been for months. It's safer there but makes my bed a rather uncomfortable place to sleep."
Unfortunately his clients are not so fortunate, and so my acquaintance is probably one of the people British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had in mind last week when he criticized bankers, fund managers and other financiers for what he called a "lack of morals." As the world financial meltdown intensified, despite heavy government intervention across the globe, Brown insisted "financial markets need morals."
Brown is fond of pontificating about morals. Not so long ago he boastfully told us he had a "moral compass" that guided his decision making and underpinned his political principles. But frankly, far from lecturing people on morality, Brown could do with discovering a few morals himself.
The plight of Iraqi interpreters working for the British Army in Iraq offers a good example of the prime minister's duplicity when it comes to moral standards.
Twelve months ago Brown's government introduced the British Locally Engaged Staff Assistance Scheme. The scheme was supposed to help those Iraqis who had put their lives at risk working for Britain's armed forces in Basra - doing everything from interpreting to washing soldiers' uniforms - to settle in the UK.
Around 20,000 Iraqis have worked for the British armed forces since the invasion. Many of them, along with their families, have suffered intimidation, abduction, torture and murder at the hands of militias who see them as "enemy collaborators." Fearing for their lives many are now in hiding and want to leave Iraq.
However, instead of helping these people, the British Locally Engaged Staff Assistance Scheme actually erected a series of insurmountable hurdles which prevent Iraqi interpreters and others employed by the British in Iraq from ever getting into the UK.
Under the scheme there are 600 resettlement places for Iraqi staff and their dependants in the UK over the next two years. Up to September, there have been more than 1,100 applications for those 600 places. Official figures reveal that more than 500 of those applicants have been assessed as ineligible for resettlement in the UK.
The criteria for the scheme are very strict. Only those who have worked as interpreters or other similarly skilled or professional roles for a minimum of 12 consecutive months from the start of January 2005 are eligible to apply for resettlement. In fact, according to Leigh Day & Co., a law firm that is representing some of the Iraqi interpreters, only 158 former staff are actually being considered for resettlement in the UK. But it gets worse. When I spoke to the Foreign Office last week, a spokesperson told me that only 23 Iraqis have actually arrived in the UK under the scheme, which has now been running for a year.
In short, it would be easier to break into Fort Knox in broad daylight dressed as Osama bin Laden than get into the UK via this scheme. Meanwhile, dozens of Iraqis who have worked for the British Army are being murdered and threatened on a regular basis.
One interpreter had his application rejected because he had only worked for the British Army for 11 months and three weeks, just six days short of the required 12 months. Four interpreters he worked with during his time with the army have all been murdered. After escaping one attempt on his life he is currently in hiding outside Basra.
Another interpreter, who worked for British forces for six months, was forced to flee to Syria after his father was kidnapped, tortured and murdered. The killers telephoned him to tell him he would be next and played a tape recording of his father's screams while being tortured. Despite being married to a UK citizen he has been refused a visa to come to the UK to join her.
Another Iraqi, who worked as a laundry assistant and whose original employment with the British Army was subcontracted out to a Western private contractor (KBR), fled to Syria after surviving two attempts on his life. His application to settle in the UK under the scheme was rejected because his employment had been transferred from the UK government to an independent contractor.
The Foreign Office told me that most Iraqis employed by the army have opted to take a one-off cash settlement from the government to remain in Iraq rather than apply for UK resettlement. But Leigh Day & Co. insists this is because most Iraqis believe there is little real chance they will ever be allowed to settle in the UK.
The UK scheme does not compare well with what Britain's coalition partners are doing. Poland for example, which has already resettled 25 of its former Iraqi workers and their families in Poland - more than the UK has managed over the same period - only requires evidence of six months of employment with its forces. America, Australia and Denmark also operate a much less restrictive system. Under one of the American schemes there is no minimum term of service requirement at all, while another scheme covers all workers employed by US subcontractors, something the UK scheme does not.
But you could be forgiven for wondering quite why the interpreters expected the government to behave in a moral and responsible way toward them.
The Gurkhas, legendary Nepalese soldiers who have fought as British soldiers in just about every war the UK has waged over the last 150 years, were forced to go to court this month after the government refused them permission to settle in the UK. In the First World War their service included battling the Ottomans during the Arab Revolt alongside the Arab armies of Faisal and Abdullah with Lawrence of Arabia. More recently they have fought in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite this Brown's government insisted the Gurkhas had "no strong ties" to the UK and refused a large number of Gurkha veterans the right to settle in Britain. The High Court thought otherwise, and ruled the UK government's policy toward the Gurkhas was unlawful.
Unfortunately a similar move on behalf of Iraqi workers was thrown out by the High Court last month. Leigh Day & Co. barrister Daniel Leader acknowledged the ruling means the legal route to get justice for the Iraqi interpreters and others is effectively closed but added: "We will be working to highlight the plight of our clients and it is hoped that the government will adopt a more humane approach to people who have risked their lives for the British Army."
Never mind the moral compass, someone should pass Gordon Brown a dictionary so he can look up what the word moral actually means. Brown may not be able to shore up the global financial system, but he can definitely act to save the lives of people who have served his cause in Iraq.
Michael Glackin is a journalist and former managing editor of Lebanese newspaper THE DAILY STAR.
The Daily Star
By Michael Glackin
The turmoil on the world's financial markets is getting serious. I bumped into a stock broker acquaintance the other day who complained he hadn't enjoyed a decent night's sleep in months. Feeling rather sorry for him, I asked how much money he had lost. "I haven't lost anything", he told me. "All my cash is stuffed under my mattress, has been for months. It's safer there but makes my bed a rather uncomfortable place to sleep."
Unfortunately his clients are not so fortunate, and so my acquaintance is probably one of the people British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had in mind last week when he criticized bankers, fund managers and other financiers for what he called a "lack of morals." As the world financial meltdown intensified, despite heavy government intervention across the globe, Brown insisted "financial markets need morals."
Brown is fond of pontificating about morals. Not so long ago he boastfully told us he had a "moral compass" that guided his decision making and underpinned his political principles. But frankly, far from lecturing people on morality, Brown could do with discovering a few morals himself.
The plight of Iraqi interpreters working for the British Army in Iraq offers a good example of the prime minister's duplicity when it comes to moral standards.
Twelve months ago Brown's government introduced the British Locally Engaged Staff Assistance Scheme. The scheme was supposed to help those Iraqis who had put their lives at risk working for Britain's armed forces in Basra - doing everything from interpreting to washing soldiers' uniforms - to settle in the UK.
Around 20,000 Iraqis have worked for the British armed forces since the invasion. Many of them, along with their families, have suffered intimidation, abduction, torture and murder at the hands of militias who see them as "enemy collaborators." Fearing for their lives many are now in hiding and want to leave Iraq.
However, instead of helping these people, the British Locally Engaged Staff Assistance Scheme actually erected a series of insurmountable hurdles which prevent Iraqi interpreters and others employed by the British in Iraq from ever getting into the UK.
Under the scheme there are 600 resettlement places for Iraqi staff and their dependants in the UK over the next two years. Up to September, there have been more than 1,100 applications for those 600 places. Official figures reveal that more than 500 of those applicants have been assessed as ineligible for resettlement in the UK.
The criteria for the scheme are very strict. Only those who have worked as interpreters or other similarly skilled or professional roles for a minimum of 12 consecutive months from the start of January 2005 are eligible to apply for resettlement. In fact, according to Leigh Day & Co., a law firm that is representing some of the Iraqi interpreters, only 158 former staff are actually being considered for resettlement in the UK. But it gets worse. When I spoke to the Foreign Office last week, a spokesperson told me that only 23 Iraqis have actually arrived in the UK under the scheme, which has now been running for a year.
In short, it would be easier to break into Fort Knox in broad daylight dressed as Osama bin Laden than get into the UK via this scheme. Meanwhile, dozens of Iraqis who have worked for the British Army are being murdered and threatened on a regular basis.
One interpreter had his application rejected because he had only worked for the British Army for 11 months and three weeks, just six days short of the required 12 months. Four interpreters he worked with during his time with the army have all been murdered. After escaping one attempt on his life he is currently in hiding outside Basra.
Another interpreter, who worked for British forces for six months, was forced to flee to Syria after his father was kidnapped, tortured and murdered. The killers telephoned him to tell him he would be next and played a tape recording of his father's screams while being tortured. Despite being married to a UK citizen he has been refused a visa to come to the UK to join her.
Another Iraqi, who worked as a laundry assistant and whose original employment with the British Army was subcontracted out to a Western private contractor (KBR), fled to Syria after surviving two attempts on his life. His application to settle in the UK under the scheme was rejected because his employment had been transferred from the UK government to an independent contractor.
The Foreign Office told me that most Iraqis employed by the army have opted to take a one-off cash settlement from the government to remain in Iraq rather than apply for UK resettlement. But Leigh Day & Co. insists this is because most Iraqis believe there is little real chance they will ever be allowed to settle in the UK.
The UK scheme does not compare well with what Britain's coalition partners are doing. Poland for example, which has already resettled 25 of its former Iraqi workers and their families in Poland - more than the UK has managed over the same period - only requires evidence of six months of employment with its forces. America, Australia and Denmark also operate a much less restrictive system. Under one of the American schemes there is no minimum term of service requirement at all, while another scheme covers all workers employed by US subcontractors, something the UK scheme does not.
But you could be forgiven for wondering quite why the interpreters expected the government to behave in a moral and responsible way toward them.
The Gurkhas, legendary Nepalese soldiers who have fought as British soldiers in just about every war the UK has waged over the last 150 years, were forced to go to court this month after the government refused them permission to settle in the UK. In the First World War their service included battling the Ottomans during the Arab Revolt alongside the Arab armies of Faisal and Abdullah with Lawrence of Arabia. More recently they have fought in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite this Brown's government insisted the Gurkhas had "no strong ties" to the UK and refused a large number of Gurkha veterans the right to settle in Britain. The High Court thought otherwise, and ruled the UK government's policy toward the Gurkhas was unlawful.
Unfortunately a similar move on behalf of Iraqi workers was thrown out by the High Court last month. Leigh Day & Co. barrister Daniel Leader acknowledged the ruling means the legal route to get justice for the Iraqi interpreters and others is effectively closed but added: "We will be working to highlight the plight of our clients and it is hoped that the government will adopt a more humane approach to people who have risked their lives for the British Army."
Never mind the moral compass, someone should pass Gordon Brown a dictionary so he can look up what the word moral actually means. Brown may not be able to shore up the global financial system, but he can definitely act to save the lives of people who have served his cause in Iraq.
Michael Glackin is a journalist and former managing editor of Lebanese newspaper THE DAILY STAR.
Monday, 4 August 2008
An Irishman offers advice in Beirut
Monday, 4 August 2008.
The Daily Star
By Michael Glackin
Beirut played host last week to Raymond McCartney, elected member of Northern Ireland's new devolved parliament. Although little known outside of his native Northern Ireland, McCartney's views on what social scientists call "conflict resolution" make him a much sought after speaker around the world. He arrived in Beirut two weekends ago to take part in a conference organized by the London-based Conflicts Forum, examining how political groupings on the margins of society can eventually move forward to occupy the center stage.
It's a journey he and his political party, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the paramilitary Irish Republican Army (IRA,) have already made.
Not so long ago McCartney was deemed beyond the political pale. A member of the IRA, which opposed British rule in Northern Ireland, McCartney was convicted of two murders while a teenager in 1979 and spent 15 years in Northern Ireland's notorious Maze Prison.
During his incarceration he and other Republican inmates refused to wear prison uniforms, part of their insistence on being treated as political prisoners, not criminals, by the British government. He and others went naked, wrapping themselves in prison-issue blankets. McCartney was among those who refused to leave their cells to wash or use toilet facilities and instead daubed their excrement on the walls of their cells.
The conflict between the "blanket" protesters and the United Kingdom's government culminated in McCartney going on hunger strike for 53 days in 1980, the first wave of the hunger strikes that the following year culminated in 10 Republican prisoners starving themselves to death. A giant mural of a young, long haired and gaunt looking McCartney, wrapped in his prison blanket, still stares out from the gable end of a house in Derry City's Bogside area as a tribute to the hunger strikers.
Today McCartney is a respected politician. His murder convictions were quashed last year by the same British courts that condemned him years earlier. As a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, representing Sinn Fein, he now works closely with the British government whose prisoner he once was and whom he almost died opposing. The now middle-aged and gray-haired McCartney is both beneficiary and part of the new political establishment created by the peace process of recent years.
As a member of the Northern Ireland's International Development Committee he now travels across the globe, from South Africa to the Middle East and Basque region of Spain, discussing conflict resolution. History is riddled with examples of men labeled terrorists one day and statesmen the next. In this part of the world Menachem Begin and Yasser Arafat spring to mind, though the most globally recognized and revered is the former South African President Nelson Mandela.
But what can someone with McCartney's experience as a former political prisoner turned statesman offer to the myriad conflicts that beset the Middle East? McCartney concedes that he can provide few concrete solutions and structures to deal with the issues facing Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan or Lebanon. "I'm simply in Beirut to outline my experience," he told me before traveling to Lebanon. "That allows people in similar struggles to relate my experience to their own and maybe use what's of benefit to them."
McCartney expected to meet Lebanese people "from various factions" during his short stay, including Hizbullah. He will find an informed audience. In the handful of meetings I had with Hizbullah officials while based in Beirut I was always impressed by their knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland. It was a good deal better than that of the average Irish American. But Hizbullah officials were always at pains to insist they were not following the same path as Sinn Fein, that of abandoning arms for political progress or even political power.
McCartney agrees that it's difficult to draw direct parallels, but adds there are what he calls "general principles" for resolving conflicts within rival groups that could be used in Lebanon and elsewhere. "Conflict resolution success processes have common threads, inclusivity, representation and equality," he explains. "Everyone has to see and treat everyone with equal respect. You cannot have a framework of resolving conflict based entirely on your terms. You have to have a mutual understanding of everyone's views."
A leadership that knows when to take the gun out of politics is crucial too, but that is something the Middle East, on the whole, has, so far at least, to grasp. This is arguably where British government officials, including current Middle East envoy Tony Blair, who continually raise the peace process in Northern Ireland as a template that can be utilized for the Middle East make a serious error.
In Northern Ireland the British government negotiated directly with those who could deliver the hard-line gunmen, those who in effect controlled them. That single point of contact does not appear to exist within Hamas, Al-Qaeda, or the Taliban. It does of course exist within Hizbullah, but there is more chance of US President George W. Bush being offered the keys to Tehran than Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ordering Hizbullah to disarm and commit itself solely to the political process.
While not wishing to discuss the issue of Hizbullah's weapons directly, McCartney makes it clear he believes the party's reluctance stems from a lack of political progress. "Ability to deliver people is one thing," he says. "But political progress is the paramount requirement."
"The key to the process in the north of Ireland was people could see that politics were working. Ability to deliver is meaningless if you're faced with a political vacuum. Things had to be achieved and aims have to be realized to keep people on board. The political process has to deliver meaningful change, otherwise the ability to deliver people counts for nothing."
Arguably, political progress in the Middle East is bedeviled by the inability of various parties to compromise. But can a visitor from Northern Ireland provide those in the region with good ideas for how to do so? Raymond McCartney doubtless hoped so as he made his way through Lebanon, where compromise has not been the highest priority lately.
Michael Glackin is a freelance journalist and former managing editor of Beirut newspaper The Daily Star.
The Daily Star
By Michael Glackin
Beirut played host last week to Raymond McCartney, elected member of Northern Ireland's new devolved parliament. Although little known outside of his native Northern Ireland, McCartney's views on what social scientists call "conflict resolution" make him a much sought after speaker around the world. He arrived in Beirut two weekends ago to take part in a conference organized by the London-based Conflicts Forum, examining how political groupings on the margins of society can eventually move forward to occupy the center stage.
It's a journey he and his political party, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the paramilitary Irish Republican Army (IRA,) have already made.
Not so long ago McCartney was deemed beyond the political pale. A member of the IRA, which opposed British rule in Northern Ireland, McCartney was convicted of two murders while a teenager in 1979 and spent 15 years in Northern Ireland's notorious Maze Prison.
During his incarceration he and other Republican inmates refused to wear prison uniforms, part of their insistence on being treated as political prisoners, not criminals, by the British government. He and others went naked, wrapping themselves in prison-issue blankets. McCartney was among those who refused to leave their cells to wash or use toilet facilities and instead daubed their excrement on the walls of their cells.
The conflict between the "blanket" protesters and the United Kingdom's government culminated in McCartney going on hunger strike for 53 days in 1980, the first wave of the hunger strikes that the following year culminated in 10 Republican prisoners starving themselves to death. A giant mural of a young, long haired and gaunt looking McCartney, wrapped in his prison blanket, still stares out from the gable end of a house in Derry City's Bogside area as a tribute to the hunger strikers.
Today McCartney is a respected politician. His murder convictions were quashed last year by the same British courts that condemned him years earlier. As a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, representing Sinn Fein, he now works closely with the British government whose prisoner he once was and whom he almost died opposing. The now middle-aged and gray-haired McCartney is both beneficiary and part of the new political establishment created by the peace process of recent years.
As a member of the Northern Ireland's International Development Committee he now travels across the globe, from South Africa to the Middle East and Basque region of Spain, discussing conflict resolution. History is riddled with examples of men labeled terrorists one day and statesmen the next. In this part of the world Menachem Begin and Yasser Arafat spring to mind, though the most globally recognized and revered is the former South African President Nelson Mandela.
But what can someone with McCartney's experience as a former political prisoner turned statesman offer to the myriad conflicts that beset the Middle East? McCartney concedes that he can provide few concrete solutions and structures to deal with the issues facing Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan or Lebanon. "I'm simply in Beirut to outline my experience," he told me before traveling to Lebanon. "That allows people in similar struggles to relate my experience to their own and maybe use what's of benefit to them."
McCartney expected to meet Lebanese people "from various factions" during his short stay, including Hizbullah. He will find an informed audience. In the handful of meetings I had with Hizbullah officials while based in Beirut I was always impressed by their knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland. It was a good deal better than that of the average Irish American. But Hizbullah officials were always at pains to insist they were not following the same path as Sinn Fein, that of abandoning arms for political progress or even political power.
McCartney agrees that it's difficult to draw direct parallels, but adds there are what he calls "general principles" for resolving conflicts within rival groups that could be used in Lebanon and elsewhere. "Conflict resolution success processes have common threads, inclusivity, representation and equality," he explains. "Everyone has to see and treat everyone with equal respect. You cannot have a framework of resolving conflict based entirely on your terms. You have to have a mutual understanding of everyone's views."
A leadership that knows when to take the gun out of politics is crucial too, but that is something the Middle East, on the whole, has, so far at least, to grasp. This is arguably where British government officials, including current Middle East envoy Tony Blair, who continually raise the peace process in Northern Ireland as a template that can be utilized for the Middle East make a serious error.
In Northern Ireland the British government negotiated directly with those who could deliver the hard-line gunmen, those who in effect controlled them. That single point of contact does not appear to exist within Hamas, Al-Qaeda, or the Taliban. It does of course exist within Hizbullah, but there is more chance of US President George W. Bush being offered the keys to Tehran than Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ordering Hizbullah to disarm and commit itself solely to the political process.
While not wishing to discuss the issue of Hizbullah's weapons directly, McCartney makes it clear he believes the party's reluctance stems from a lack of political progress. "Ability to deliver people is one thing," he says. "But political progress is the paramount requirement."
"The key to the process in the north of Ireland was people could see that politics were working. Ability to deliver is meaningless if you're faced with a political vacuum. Things had to be achieved and aims have to be realized to keep people on board. The political process has to deliver meaningful change, otherwise the ability to deliver people counts for nothing."
Arguably, political progress in the Middle East is bedeviled by the inability of various parties to compromise. But can a visitor from Northern Ireland provide those in the region with good ideas for how to do so? Raymond McCartney doubtless hoped so as he made his way through Lebanon, where compromise has not been the highest priority lately.
Michael Glackin is a freelance journalist and former managing editor of Beirut newspaper The Daily Star.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)