Fair Play Flouted

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

14 February 2012

Editorial note: we are currently having difficulty connecting to the internet. Until the problem is resolved, the quality and regularity of our postings may be affected.

We republish below extracts from the Guardian newspaper’s website which give an account of the debate now convulsing political circles in Britain concerning the release from prison last night 13 February 2012 of Abu Qatada.

The interest of this case for Antigone1984 is the fact Abu Qatada that has been held in British gaols for over eight years without charge or trial. Many allegations of the utmost gravity have been made against this man by the British Government and these have received blanket coverage in the media, but no evidence of any crime has been submitted against him in a British court. The detention of Abu Qatada flouts British legal traditions based on the right to a fair trial that date back to the signing of Magna Carta in 1215 AD. The much-vaunted British concern for “fair play” means that a person is deemed innocent until he or she is proven guilty in a court of law. Moreover, the law of Habeas Corpus means that persons suspected of an offence cannot be kept indefinitely in detention without being charged and brought before a judge. These age-old traditions, the cornerstone of English criminal law, have been egregiously disregarded in the case of Abu Qatada.

 

 ABU QATADA RELEASED FROM JAIL

by Alan Travis, Guardian home affairs editor, Monday 13 February 2012

‘Abu Qatada, the radical Islamist cleric, has been released from Long Lartin maximum security prison in Worcestershire on some of the most stringent bail conditions under English law.

They include a 22-hour curfew monitored by an electronic tag that places him under effective house arrest.

Abu Qatada, who the judges accept remains a threat to national security, was being taken to a London address where he will live with his immediate family.

The bail conditions are so stringent that they echo the South African “banning orders” of 30 years ago. They even require Abu Qatada to “disengage himself” after an initial greeting from any genuinely chance encounter in the street. Shopkeepers and bus drivers are explicitly excluded from this provision.

He will be banned from using a mobile phone and the internet and be placed under surveillance by security services during the one hour period twice a day he is allowed to leave the address. He will only be able to move within a tightly drawn geographic area.

The eight-page order setting out the bail conditions includes an outright ban on meeting 27 alleged extremists including Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmad……

The special branch will vet all Abu Qatada’s visitors except for his family and his lawyer. He also faces a ban on leading prayers, giving lectures or providing religious advice or entering any mosque.

The agreed hours of the curfew will mean he will not be able to take his youngest child to school. He will, however, with the approval of the home secretary, be able to get a job or attend a course of academic study or training.

His release came as early signs of progress emerged with the Jordanian authorities to break the deadlock that is preventing Abu Qatada’s removal from Britain.

The release follows a decision last week by the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) that his six and half years in immigration detention without charge pending his deportation could not continue.

The European court of human rights has ruled that the cleric, described by a Spanish judge as Bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe, cannot be sent back to Jordan while he faces the prospect of a retrial [there] on terrorist offences based on evidence obtained by torture…….

Downing Street said it still wanted to deport Abu Qatada at the earliest opportunity. “We will take all measures necessary to protect the public. We are committed to removing him from the country. We want to see him deported and we are looking at all the options for doing that. I’m not going to go into specifics,” said [Prime Minster] David Cameron’s spokesman.’

BRITISH MINISTER IN JORDAN FOR TALKS

Extracts from an updated article by Alan Travis, Guardian home affairs editor on 14 February 2012

‘Home Office minister James Brokenshire is in Jordan for talks about Abu Qatada, whom the UK wants to deport.

 

Abu Qatada, alleged to be a dangerous extremist Muslim preacher, was freed from Long Lartin jail on Monday [13 February 2012].

Jordan’s minister for legislative affairs, Ayman Odeh, has said he would not be tortured if he returned to stand trial. Mr Odeh said Abu Qatada would receive a fair trial.

Mr Brokenshire is seeking reassurances from the Jordanian government about Abu Qatada’s treatment if he is sent there.

There is already a “memorandum of understanding” between the UK and Jordan guaranteeing Abu Qatada himself would not be mistreated, but the UK is seeking further assurances.

A judge ended his six-year detention in the UK last week after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) blocked his deportation to Jordan. It said evidence obtained by torture might be used against him there.

The European human rights judges said that despite the Jordanian ban on the use of evidence obtained by torture, the systemic use of torture by Jordan’s security services to extract confessions remained “widespread and routine”.

Abu Qatada’s lawyers have already warned that any deportation deal with Jordan would trigger another round of litigation in British courts to test its legality.

The executive director of the human rights group, Cageprisoners Limited, Asim Qureshi, does not believe Abu Qatada could get a fair trial in Jordan. “Jordan is a patently unsafe country to send people. It’s known for systematic violations of human rights,” he said.’

————–

Posted in Jordan, Justice, Politics, UK | Tagged | Leave a comment

Playing with Greek fire

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

13 February 2012

The Isles of Greece, the isles of Greece!

Where burning Sappho loved and sung,

Where grew the arts of war and peace,

Where Delos rose, and Phoebus sprung!

Eternal summer gilds them yet,

But all, except their sun, is set!

 

            Lord Byron’s Don Juan, canto 3, stanza 86 (1)

¡NO PASARÁN!

With Athens on fire last night (12 February 2012) as a result of mass violent protests, the Greek Parliament (Boule) ignored the voice of the people and, by 199 votes to 74, adopted the savage cuts in public spending demanded by Brussels  in exchange for an international  bail-out loan to stave off national bankruptcy.

“The rebellion has begun,” the veteran leftist MANOLIS GLEZOS is quoted in today’s Guardian as telling reporters in Athens. “These measures will never pass. They are a breach of our democracy.”

However, as a triumphant Francisco Franco retorted to the Spanish Republicans, “¡Ya han pasado!”

 

Still, as the saying goes, it’s not over till the fat lady sings – and will be a long time yet before that happens.  Parliament has talked the talk. The government now has to walk the walk.

Glezos may be right in the end. The austerity measures have been adopted in the Boule.  They may well not pass in the street.

Greece is expected to go to the polls in April. It could be fun.

A campaign to boycott German goods is also starting, the Germans being seen in Greece as the driving-force behind the humiliation of the externally imposed cutbacks.

The Prime Minister forcing the austerity package down the throats of the Greek people is LUKAS PAPADEMOS. Referring to the demonstrations outside the Boule, he told Parliament : “Vandalism, violence and destruction have no place in a democratic country and won’t be tolerated.”  Odd that he should talk about democracy. Papademos is a technocrat who has never faced the Greek people in an election. He is Prime Minister as a result of a cosy backroom agreement inside the Greek partitocracy – the bi-party arrangement whereby power in Greece alternates between the pro-establishment Panhellenic “Socialist” Movement (Pasok) and the equally pro-establishment New Democracy Party.

However, according to the BBC’s Gavin Hewitt, even some of the politicians who urged a vote in favour of the austerity measures do not believe in them.They apparently include Antonis Samaras, leader of the New Democracy party, who is said to favour a pro-growth strategy on the grounds that that austerity is locking the country into a cycle of decline. However, this did not stop Samaras threatening to expel from the party any of his parliamentarians who failed to vote in favour of the cutbacks – which he apparently doesn’t want.

 

You couldn’t make it up!

 

 

 

The mountains look on Marathon —

And Marathon looks on the sea;

And musing there an hour alone,

I dreamed that Greece might still be free.

Lord Byron’s Don Juan, canto 3, stanza 86 (3)

 

Readers will find below two authoritative accounts of the developments in Athens published today on the BBC website.

1. Euro crisis: Greek despair over deeper cuts

by Gavin Hewitt  (BBC), 13 February 2012

 

 

Last night witnessed Greek rage. At least 45 buildings were burned in the capital, 150 stores looted or smashed.

The violence sends a clear and unmistakable message to Brussels: they cannot bank on the new measures being implemented.

Many Greeks are in despair. They are against further austerity and yet they fear the unknown, bankruptcy and exclusion from the eurozone.

Late on Sunday night [12 February 2012] the [Greek] parliament voted to support the new spending cuts. It was a vote that revealed just how divided Greece is – 43 deputies rebelled.

On the streets there was fury, some of the worst violence in a long history of protest. The disturbances this time spread to cities away from the capital.

Europe’s leaders will now push on towards a meeting of finance ministers on Wednesday [15 February 2012]. The expectation is that they will approve a second bailout for Greece worth 130bn euros ($170bn; £110bn).

Without the extra funding Greece would face a default on 20 March, when it has to find 14bn euros.

This is not the deal that was envisaged, however. Both EU and IMF officials intended this second bailout to end the Greek crisis. The plan was to put the country on a sustainable path, with the target of reducing the debt to GDP ratio to 120% by 2020.

That will not be reached without eurozone countries, once again, having to find extra funding – perhaps 15bn euros or more.

Certainly, the fact that private investors will take losses on their Greek investments of up to 70% will reduce the debt mountain by about 100bn euros.

That deal is almost in place, although some uncertainty remains.

The bigger question relates to the Greek economy. It is shrinking for the fifth year. Businesses are closing, unemployment rising. The poverty on the streets of Athens is visible. The mood in the country is sullen and resentful. There is intense dislike of the EU, the IMF and the Germans.

A campaign is starting to boycott German goods.

What incenses people is the humiliation. Negotiations with Brussels are seen as negotiating the terms of surrender.

Even some of the politicians who urged a vote in favour of the new measures do not believe in them.

The politician leading in the polls, Antonis Samaras, believes that austerity is locking the country into a cycle of decline. He wants a spring election.

Europe’s leaders want his signature on a piece of paper pledging that he will continue with the spending cuts if he becomes prime minister.

Government officials say that in a couple of years there will be a budgetary surplus – if interest payments are excluded. Some say that in two years some of the reforms will begin to make the economy more competitive.

Perhaps.

There is a real chance that the Greek economy will decline, further undermining the plan that lies behind the bailout.

As far as Brussels is concerned the object is to buy time, to prevent a default and the risk it might undermine other economies. That might be achieved but Greece remains unstable.

 

2. GreeK MPs pass austerity plan amid violent protests

 

BBC, 13 February 2012

 

Greek MPs have approved a controversial package of austerity measures demanded by the eurozone and IMF in return for a 130bn euro ($170bn; £110bn) bailout.

The vote was carried by 199 in favour to 74 against.

Coalition parties expelled more than 40 deputies for failing to back the bill.

Tens of thousands protested in Athens, where there were widespread clashes and buildings were set on fire. Violent protests were reported in cities across the country.

Protesters outside parliament threw stones and petrol bombs, and police responded with tear gas. Scores of police and protesters were injured.

Prime Minister Lukas Papademos urged calm, insisting that the austerity package would “set the foundations for the reform and recovery of the economy”.

“Vandalism, violence and destruction have no place in a democratic country and won’t be tolerated,” he said in a speech in parliament before the vote.

The bill passed parliament easily as the two largest parties in the coalition – Pasok and New Democracy – account for more than two-thirds of the deputies.

The austerity measures include:

-15,000 public-sector job cuts;

– liberalisation of labour laws;

– lowering the minimum wage by 20% from 751 euros a    month to 600 euros.

Eurozone ministers must now ratify the measures at a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday [15 February 2012] before bailout funds can be released.

The ministers rejected proposals put forward by the Greeks last week, which they said fell 325m euros short of the cuts needed.

The BBC’s Mark Lowen in Athens says the public are increasingly angry with the austerity measures and feel that the impact is beyond the value of the bailout.

At least 80,000 people were reported to have joined demonstrations in Athens, with another 20,000 protesting in Thessaloniki.

Running battles with police continued in the capital until late on Sunday, although no new clashes were reported after the vote.

Protesters hurled flares and chunks of marble torn up from the square. Some had tried to break through a cordon of riot police around the parliament.

Several historic buildings, including cafes and cinemas, were set alight……

Violent protests also spread to other Greek towns and cities, including the islands of Corfu and Crete, according to state TV.

Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos said the question was not “whether some salaries and pensions will be curtailed, but whether we will be able to pay even these reduced wages and pensions”.

“When you have to choose between bad and worse, you will pick what is bad to avoid what is worse,” he said.

Greece needs the bailout to make its next repayment on its huge sovereign debt. If it cannot make the payment, it will default and in effect become bankrupt.

Analysts say such a “chaotic default” could endanger Europe’s financial stability and possibly even lead to a break-up of the eurozone.

As part of the deal with international lenders, Greece will also be able to write off 100bn euros of privately held debt.

Earlier this week several ministers from the coalition government, including two from Pasok, quit in protest at the measures.

The leader of the far-right Laos party, the junior coalition member, announced his 15 deputies would not back the austerity measures.

George Karatzaferis complained that the measures amounted to Greeks being “humiliated” by Germany.

The eurozone bloc has demanded “strong political assurances” that the packages will be implemented regardless of which party wins a general election due in April.

BREAKING-POINT

The BBC’s Mark Lowen adds:

The flames have died down and the debris has been cleared by Athens authorities now well versed in post-riot clean-ups. But anger is building here and another spark could unleash yet more fury.

Eurozone leaders will breathe a sigh of relief that Greece has got over this latest hurdle and the Greek government will expect vital bailout funds to start flowing soon. But many ordinary people feel that their country took another leap towards breaking point last night.

The big question is when the next crisis moment will come. Is this simply kicking the can further down the road, with Greece’s debt level remaining unsustainable in the long run? And will this country – will Europe – at some stage feel that the sacrifices Greece is making to stay in the euro are simply too great?

——————-

Posted in Economics, Europe, Germany, Greece, Literature, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Что делать? What is to be done? (Part 2)

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context.

12 February 2012

FROM EPICURUS TO KARATZAFERIS

Что делать? What is to be done? That is, of course, the trillion dollar question.

We are referring here to the current global political situation.

We are also considering the question, as always, from a committed leftwing viewpoint.

There are three options, it seems to us.

1. The first possibility is to do nothing. If nothing can be achieved, then it is pointless to engage in politics.

The atomist philosopher Epicurus of Samos (341-270 BC) took this route. The classical Greek world of the “polis” or city-state, in which all citizens (but not slaves) had a voice in the conduct of public affairs, gave way to the Macedonian Empire in 338 BC when Epicurus was still a child and that too was swept away after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, when the Empire fissured into a trio of separate states. How was the individual to attune himself to the new cosmopolis in which he had no political importance (unlike in the old days of the “polis”)? Epicurus’s answer was to keep out of politics and “cultivate one’s garden”, by which he meant that one should cultivate one’s intellect, pursuing happiness through self-control,  self-denial and remaining calm in the face of life’s vicissitudes. Voltaire (1694-1778) reprised the advice to “cultivate one’s garden” at the end of his 1759 satire Candide.

In practice, most people do precisely that. Most people leave politics to the politicians and get on with their day-to-day life. We are busy enough as it is, they say. Let us leave politics to the professionals. In a way, who can blame them? Particularly, if they have learned from experience that anything they say or do will be ignored by the powers that be.

However, it is precisely this passivity that allows the ruling elite to enjoy their unfettered  domination of political life.

2. The second possibility is for the people to revolt and oust their rulers. But this approach too has a number of obvious drawbacks.

The ruling class will stop at nothing to suppress revolt. Regardless of which country it is, the army, the police and the judiciary will, in the last resort, show no mercy towards the rebels. Consider the situation in Syria or Egypt today. The Alawi minority led by Bashar al-Assad is using his army to butcher opponents from the Sunni majority. In Egypt, slightly more subtly, the army is using  mainly the police (assisted by masked goons) and the judiciary to stifle dissent. In the Financial Times of 11/12 February 2012, Egyptian novelist Alaa Al Aswany, author of  best-seller The Yacoubian Building, said “the Mubarak regime is still in power”. But you don’t have to go to the turbulent Middle East to witness the brutal reprisals that face anyone who threatens the status quo. The riots in London last summer, when hundreds of penniless out-of-work young people broke into local shops and “liberated” cheap goods, such as trainers or bottles of water, provoked vicious prison sentences from an establishment  judiciary hell-bent on snuffing out any developments in the English capital that might conceivably metamorphose into something resembling the Arab Spring: Trafalgar Square, they were determined, would not become Tahrir Square.

Even if contestation is, more or less, tolerated by the authorities for a time, as happened last year in the case of the “indignados”, who built a tent city in Madrid’s central Puerta del Sol square, it will eventually be repressed by the police, often in dawn raids, as ultimately happened in Spain. The same fate has befallen the “Occupy” protesters who have occupied public space in many countries worldwide to highlight the disparity between the poor and relatively poor 99% of the population and the mega-rich 1%. A court in London recently paved the way for the forced removal of an “Occupy” camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral.

A successful revolt usually requires immense organisation and years of preparation. Radicals  in Russia had been attempting to topple the imperial autocracy for a hundred years before the successful rebellion in October 1917. The recent revolts in the Arab world have constituted spontaneous outbursts of popular anger. They have lacked the organisation that might have enabled them to topple the tyrants. The same is true, but even more so, in the case of the “indignados” and supporters of the “Occupy” movements. It has been easy, as a result, for governments to ignore them and such movements are unlikely, in our view, to have any lasting impact. These protests were sparked by vague aspirations to a more equitable society.  They failed, however, either to formulate a list of specific demands or to devise a specific strategy for prising concessions from the authorities. Nor did they strike up alliances with other potentially dissident groups,  such as the trade unions (much weakened though these are in today’s globalised world).

3. The third option is to try and win power through the ballot box.

However,  (see https://antigone1984.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/what-would-gandhi-have-said/) we have argued comprehensively in this blog that, in our view at least, this is pointless given the political duopoly in place: in western social democracies power almost invariably passes between two differently named but ideologically indistinguishable political parties. Moreover, the left is especially hampered when campaigning since one of the two parties that alternates in power is a so-called socialist party yet whose ideology and policies differ hardly a jot from those of its conservative rival. Nonetheless, many voters are bound to be taken in by socialist campaign slogans that bear no relationship to the party’s real ideology.

The situation is even worse in the United States where huge amounts of money are a sine qua non of election campaigns based on advertising. The electoral system in the US is a bi-party plutocracy.

Another problem is leftwing splittism. The left is split into a myriad different groups and parties. These must necessarily devise a common platform and form a united front if they are to have a hope in hell of winning any conventional election.

THE GERMAN BOOT

In view of what we have just said, Antigone1984, is extremely pessimistic about the possibility of a successful breakthrough for the left in the foreseeable future.

There is some hope, perhaps, in Latin America. Hugo Chávez may hang on to power in the presidential elections in October 2012. Bolivia has moved leftwards under President Evo Morales, likewise Ecuador (Rafael Correa), Peru (Ollanta Humala) and Paraguay (Fernando Lugo).  The situation in Argentina is interesting too under President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Europe has moved dramatically to the right in recent years. Rightwing liberal or conservative parties currently either form the government or participate in it in 22 of the 27 member states of the European Union.  The so-called Socialist Party under François Hollande is likely to oust the current rightwing President Nicolas Sarkozy in elections in France this spring, but nothing earth-shattering will happen as a result: tweedledum will replace tweedledee.

The most promising country for the left at present is Greece. Greece is undoubtedly in a pre-revolutionary situation and anything could happen. The Greeks are suffering a savage decline in their living standards as a result of cutbacks imposed by Brussels, at Germany’s insistence, with a view to reducing the country’s deficit and entitling it to panhandle for a bail-out from the European Union. The standing of the country’s parliamentarians is at an all-time low as a result of their failure to stand up to German demands. Elections are expected this April in Greece, which could give a massive opportunity to less established parties on the left or right.

The rightwing party Laos is already benefiting from this swing away from the two main parties: the rightwing New Democracy party under Antonis Samaras and the supposedly left-leaning Panhellenic Socialist Movement (Pasok) party under George Papandreou.  According to the Financial Times this weekend ( 11/12 February 2012), Mr George Karatzaferis, the leader of Laos, has blamed Germany for trampling on the countries of the southern Mediterranean. “We were robbed of our dignity, we were humiliated. I can’t take this. I won’t allow it,” he is quoted as saying, adding that Greece “could do without the German boot”.

However, there has been no sign as yet that the left has got its act together. There have been countless marches and demonstrations but nothing has changed as a result. The two main parties have simply ignored the protests. It is to be wondered whether the left in Greece is sufficiently flexible and organised to form a strong United Front in time for the expected elections in the spring.

————


Posted in Economics, Egypt, Europe, France, Germany, Greece, Philosophy, Politics, Russia, Spain, Syria, USA | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Что делать? What is to be done? (Part 1)

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

 

11 February 2012

A RUSSIAN QUESTION: CHERNYSHEVSKY, TOLSTOY AND LENIN

Russians seem to spend a lot of time wondering what is to be done. We list below three works on this subject by leading Russian thinkers. We do this to provide the background for a brief item which we hope to publish tomorrow 12 February 2012 asking the same question in relation to our own time.  Most of the information below has been cobbled together from Wikipedia.

1. What is to be done? (Russian: Что делать? Shto delat’?) is a novel written by the Russian radical Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) when he was incarcerated in the Peter and Paul Fortress in St Petersburg, the Russian “Bastille”. Smuggled out from the author’s cell, it appeared in 1863.

The novel was written in response to the 1862 novel “Fathers and Sons” by Russian writer Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883).

Rakhmetov, the hero of Chernyshevsky’s novel, became an icon of of Russian radicalism. The book has been called “a handbook of radicalism”.

Activists Kropotkin, Rosa Luxembourg, Lenin, Plekhanov and Alexandra Kollontai were all highly impressed with the novel and it became an official Soviet classic. Lenin is said to have read the book five times in one summer.

According to Joseph Frank, professor emeritus of Slavic and Comparative Literature at Stanford University,  “Chernyshevsky’s novel, far more than Marx’s Capital, supplied the emotional dynamic that eventually went to make the Russian Revolution.”

Within the framework of the story of a privileged couple who decide to work for the revolution and ruthlessly subordinate everything in their lives to the cause, the work furnished a blueprint for the asceticism and dedication-unto-death that was an ideal of the early socialist underground in the Russian Empire.

However, Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) mocked the utilitarianism and utopianism of Chernyshevsky’s novel in his 1864 novella “Notes from Underground”.

Lafcadio, the main character of the 1914 novel Les Caves du Vatican  by André Gide (1869-1951)bears a striking resemblance to Rakhmetov.

A novel which has had a comparable impact among English socialists to that of Chernyshevsky in Russia is “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” by Robert Tressell, which was published posthumously in 1914. Tressell was the pseudonym of Frank Noonan (1870-1911).

2. What is to be done? is a work published in 1886 by Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), in which the author refers to the social conditions in the Russia of his day and advocates moral responsibility.

3. What is to be done? is a political pamphlet written by the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin (1870-1924) in 1901 and published in 1902.

Its title is inspired by the novel of the same name by the Russian revolutionary Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828-1889).

In What Is to Be Done? Lenin argues that the working class will not spontaneously become political simply by fighting economic battles with employers over wages, working hours and the like. To convert the working class to Marxism, Lenin argues that Marxists should form a political party, or “vanguard” of dedicated revolutionaries to spread Marxist political ideas among the workers.

—————-

Posted in Russia | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Chopping logic – a fishy business!

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

10 February 2012

Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were strolling along the dam of the Hao River when Chuang Tzu said, “See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That’s what fish really enjoy!”

Hui Tzu said, “You’re not a fish – how do you know what fish enjoy?”

Chuang Tzu said, “You’re not I, so how do you know I don’t know what fish enjoy?”

Hui Tzu said, “I’m not you, so I certainly don’t know what you know. On the other hand, you’re certainly not a fish – so that still proves you don’t know what fish enjoy!”

Chuang Tzu said, “Let’s go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy – so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao.”

This is an extract from The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, translated by Burton Watson and published by Columbia University Press (1968). The text cited is the concluding section of Chapter 17.

Chuang Tzu is traditionally said to have lived from 369 to 286 BC, but the work dates in something like its present form from the beginning of the Han dynasty in 206 BC. Hui Tzu was a logician.

——————-

Posted in China, Literature, Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Lynch mob

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

 

9 February 2012

THE KING OF JORDAN

UK politicians, expediently foaming at the mouth, have taken the cynical decision to exploit populist hysteria and adopt  a lynch mob mentality towards the UK’s untried long-term Muslim prisoner Abu Qatada (For the full backstory, check out our post yesterday 8 February 2012 “From Magna Carta to Abu Qatada”).

Both major political parties – the ruling rightwing Conservatives and the equally rightwing opposition Labour Party – are vying with each other to determine which can heap the most opprobrium on this Jordanian citizen who has spent almost nine years in detention without charge or trial on the grounds of national security.

A British judge, Mr Justice Mitting, has just ruled that Abu Qatada must be released on bail, albeit under conditions of virtual house-arrest, including a 22-hour curfew and electronic tagging. He is expected to be released from prison within days if the Government cannot concoct a legal procedure for keeping him behind bars.

Nonetheless, the Government wants to deport him back lickety-split to Jordan to face terrorism charges there. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that this would be illegal on the grounds that he would not get a fair trial in Jordan since evidence obtained through torture could be used against him.

According to Andrew Woodcock on the Independent newspaper’s website, Prime Minister David Cameron spoke with King Abdullah of Jordan today 9 February 2012 about Britain’s efforts to deport Islamist radical Abu Qatada to stand trial in the country. There was no immediate detail available on how the discussion went.

UK junior interior minister James Brokenshire is to fly to Jordanian capital Amman next week to try to secure assurances to satisfy the ECHR that the Middle Eastern state will not use evidence gathered by the use of torture in any trial of Qatada.

 OLYMPIC GAMES

According to a report by Alan Travis in Guardian newspaper for yesterday 8 February, UK interior secretary Theresa May has told Members of the UK Parliament that she disagrees vehemently with the ECHR ruling.

“I continue to believe Qatada should remain behind bars,” she said. “The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain.”

She told Members of Parliament that she wanted Abu Qatada out of Britain before the Olympic Games (which take place in London from 27 July to 12 August 2012).

The opposition Labour Party’s interior spokeswoman, Yvette Cooper, asked that Abu Qatada be refused bail while discussions with Jordan took place.

Both political parties are seeking to capitalize on a wave of popular revulsion against Abu Qatada that has been whipped up by certain sections of the media regardless of the fact that – despite spending almost nine years under lock and key – he has never been charged with any crime.

Normally, in Britain if you are suspected of having committed an offence, you are brought to court and formally charged.

There is a deeper layer to this story, however. The eurosceptic right is using the Abu Qatada case to lash out at the Strasbourg-based ECHR and the fact that its rulings take precedence over decisions by British courts. Such people profess a belief in “British” human rights”, which apparently differ from “universal” human rights.  As these human rights are “British”, foreign courts have no right to interfere with the decisions of British courts.

HYSTERIA

An idea of the intensity of the hysteria surrounding this man can be gleaned from a thread currently running on the Guardian’s chat forum “Comment is Free”. Antigone1984 has added its pennyworth to the debate.

Here are examples of just a few comments:

HughManatee: “Let’s just suspend our duty to protect the underdog for once and boot the bastard out. If you keep him here and need to protect him, don’t use my fucking tax to do it.”

HudsonBarBarfly: “When this man has been party to a terrorist act that kills British people, and the likelihood is that he will, then, if we had any bollocks left in this country, we should ensure that, any man or woman involved in the decision not to allow the UK to deport him, is also blown up, shot or what-ever. Let terrorism hit those mealy-mouthed twats.”

Sugarcoatedsnack : “Strap a parachute on the bloke and push him out at 10,000 ft over Strasbourg.”

The thread tees off with a rabble-rousing article by Guardian commentator Simon Jenkins in the 8 February 2012 edition of the paper. The following is an extract (the bold type is ours):

“There is no argument. The Muslim cleric Abu Qatada is as unpleasant a character as ever graced Britain’s shores. Wanted on terrorism charges in eight countries, including his own of Jordan, his championing of al-Qaida and his delight in terrorist outrages puts him beyond any reasonable pale. He propounds violence and seeks to corrupt the young. There is no obligation on any country to tolerate such a guest. He is a citizen of Jordan and has forfeited any serious claim on the hospitality of the British judicial system….

“I can’t see why the government does not dump Qatada on the next plane to Amman. He has been declared a public menace, and charged with a serious offence back home. Britain is entitled to treat the ECHR finding as advisory and put its security first. Qatada broke his last bail condition and is as cast-iron a candidate for expulsion as can be imagined. The ECHR can go eat muesli.”

SOCRATES

Antigone1984 commented as follows on Jenkins’s article:

“1.  So Abu Qatada “propounds violence and seeks to corrupt the young”.

How do you know?  Methinks you got it on the grapevine – straight from the mouth of the spooks.

2. Corrupting the young? Funnily enough, that is why Socrates was condemned to drink the hemlock.

3. ‘Britain is entitled to treat the ECHR finding as advisory…The ECHR can go eat muesli.’ (Jenkins)

Fine, provided we want to leave the Council of Europe. Otherwise, we are obliged to respect ECHR decisions. Either we obey the rules or we leave the club. The court is there to ensure uniform respect by the Council’s 47 members for the European Convention on Human Rights. When a court of law hands down a judgement that litigants do not like, are they entitled to treat it as “advisory” (ie to be ignored)?”

RobertMJones responded:

“Not true, both France and Italy have ignored similar rulings and they are still a member of the ‘club’.”

CHERRY-PICKING

Antigone1984 replied to RobertMJones as follows:

“If some members of a club ignore the rules, that does not mean that every other member of the club is entitled to ignore the rules. If everyone ignores the rules, then the club ceases to exist. The rules are made by the club collectively in the interests of the club as a whole. If some members ignore the rules, then it is for the club authorities to bring them into line or expel them.

Is it really being suggested that member states of the Council of Europe are entitled to cherry-pick which decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) it suits them to accept and which decisions they can choose to ignore?

If individual member states of the Council of Europe refuse to accept the findings of the ECHR in a particular case, it is for the council’s political authorities – the Committee of Ministers or the Parliamentary Assembly, as appropriate – to bring them to heel. If they persist in refusing to implement the court’s rulings, they should be expelled from the club.

This presupposes, of course, that the council’s political authorities have the cojones to take on an offending state, which will exercise all the political pressure it can command to persuade as many of the other member states as possible to turn a blind eye, in the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, to its transgression.

If, as a result of such pressure, no action is taken in such cases, the Council of Europe might as well wind itself up.  According to its own literature, “the Council of Europe was established to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.

End of quotes from thread

It is relevant here to mention that, according to the Guardian report by Alan Travis mentioned above, several Members of Parliament have demanded that legislation be introduced immediately to repeal Britain’s Human Rights Act and suspend Britain’s membership of the ECHR.

According to the report, Interior Secretary Theresa May assured them that she shared their anger and said Britain was “working very actively” to ensure that ECHR judges could not override the British courts.

———————-

Posted in Jordan, Justice, Politics, UK | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

From Magna Carta to Abu Qatada

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

8 February 2012

BLACK PROPAGANDA

Nothing that spies say about anything should be treated as true without cast-iron independent corroboration.

This is a precaution that holds good in any circumstances, at any time and in respect of any state.

Spies lie.

Sir Henry Wotton (1568 – 1639), English ambassador to Venice, said: “An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.”

What is true of diplomats, is applicable a fortiori to spies. And they don’t need to go abroad to do it.

They operate in total secrecy and without anything but token supervision.

Their budgets are kept under wraps.

They are accountable in theory to Ministers but in practice to no one.

In London right now is a guy the spooks don’t like.

His name is Abu Qatada.

Okay, that’s not an Anglo-Saxon monicker, I give you that, and he doesn’t come from Scotland, Wales or Ireland either.

In fact, born in Bethlehem on the West Bank in 1960, he has Jordanian citizenship.

He first pitched up on these shores in 1993, was given asylum and, whadya know, he’s been “in trouble with the police” a lot since then.

In fact, he’s been in and out of prison more times than you or I have had hot breakfasts.

JUST LIKE IN CHINA

This past six and a half years, for instance, he has spent doing time “at Her Majesty’s pleasure”. Without trial. Just picked off the streets and banged up. You know. Like in China, for instance.

This guy is real dangerous, the spooks tell us. Or, to be accurate, that is what they have briefed the media. Again, like in China. Off the record briefings, you know, the usual procedure. No names, no pack-drill.

This guy is about as dangerous as they come.

The stories leaked to journalists about Abu Qatada include his alleged fund-raising for terrorist groups, including training Muslims in Afghanistan to fight against the occupying US, UK and allied armies.

Police are also said to have found a substantial sum of money “in cash” at his home, some of it allegedly destined for Muslims fighting against Putin’s savage puppet dictator Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya.

COBBLERS

He is also said to have “been asked for advice” by Richard Reid, the would-be shoe bomber, who has since been jailed for terrorism.

“What sort of shoes do you think I should wear, Mr Qatada, brogues or winkle-pickers?”

To cap it all, Qatada is also alleged to have been the late Osama bin Laden’s “right-hand man in Europe”.

Naturally, this major international terrorist “suspect” is said to pose a grave threat to British national security.

Jumping on the securocrat bandwagon on the Guardian website on 7 February 2012, commentator Simon Jenkins writes:

“There is no argument. The Muslim cleric Abu Qatada is as unpleasant a character as ever graced Britain’s shores. Wanted on terrorism charges in eight countries, including his own of Jordan, his championing of al-Qaida and his delight in terrorist outrages puts him beyond any reasonable pale. He propounds violence and seeks to corrupt the young. There is no obligation on any country to tolerate such a guest. He is a citizen of Jordan and has forfeited any serious claim on the hospitality of the British judicial system.”

Yet where do all these allegations come from?

They come from the state’s secret security apparatus – the spies.

They have all the hall-marks of black propaganda.

Without evidence tested in a court of law, no one can know whether they are valid or not.

MANDY RICE-DAVIES

The British state wants to rid itself of Abu Qatada regardless.

It is briefing the media that Abu Qatada is a bad, bad guy.

Well, to cite Mandy Rice-Davies, it would, wouldn’t it?

But until evidence to that effect is tested in a court of law we cannot know whether the allegations are true or not.

The funny thing is that Abu Qatada, however dangerous he is alleged to be, has never been charged in a UK court with any crime.

As a result, he has never been proved guilty in a UK court of any crime.

And yet he has just spent six and a half years in clink.

According to the lead story in the Guardian on 7 February 2012, this is the longest period in modern times that a suspect has been held in custody without trial.

Funny that.

According to English law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court. Moreover, suspects cannot be kept in detention indefinitely. They must be presented to a court within a reasonable time to answer any charges against them.

FOUND GUILTY AND NOT TRIED

Abu Qatada has been found guilty and not tried.

He has been found guilty in the court of public opinion and not tried in a court of law.

Why on earth have no charges been brought against this allegedly extremely dangerous man?

We do not know. It’s as simple as that.

However, writing on the Guardian’s website on 6 February 2012, security specialist Richard Norton-Taylor makes a suggestion:

“MI5 and the police might not have welcomed a trial because it would have resurrected the circumstances surrounding the seizure by the CIA of two British residents – Jamil el-Banna, a Jordanian national, and Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi – in Gambia in 2002, leading to their rendition to Guantánamo Bay…..Rawi had…helped MI5 to obtain information about Qatada. Banna had prayed in the same mosque as Qatada when they lived in Peshawar, Pakistan. Banna, Rawi and Qatada later prayed in the same mosque in London.”

Praying in the same mosque?

That’s bad. Very bad.

One can smell a rat.

This case stinks.

Meanwhile, a judge sitting for the UK’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission, Mr Justice Mitting, has just ruled that Abu Qatada must be released on bail, albeit under conditions of virtual house-arrest, including a 22-hour curfew and electronic tagging.

Moreover, someone as dangerous as this man allegedly is is bound to be kept under 24-hour surveillance by the police and the security authorities, with his telephone being tapped and his visitors monitored.

How is it conceivable that, under these conditions, Abu Qatada can possibly present a grave threat to British national security?

JORDAN A BASTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS?

Nonetheless, the Government wants to deport him to back lickety-split to Jordan to face terrorism charges there. However, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that this would be illegal on the grounds that he would not get a fair trial in Jordan since evidence obtained through torture could be used against him.

According to the Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow, Downing Street (the Prime Minister’s office) has announced that a minister from the Home Office (Interior Ministry) will fly to Jordan next week to try and obtain assurances that could lead to Abu Qatada being deported.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons today 8 February:

We are doing everything we can to get this man out of the country. The absolutely key thing to do is an agreement with Jordan about the way that he will be treated. This guy should have been deported years ago. Nevertheless, if we can get that agreement with Jordan, he can be on his way.”

Before that happens, however, we need to know : (1) whether the European Court of Human Rights is prepared to rescind its ban on the deportation of Abu Qatada; (2) whether the Jordanian state uses torture in its handling of suspects; (3) whether free, fair and open trials take place in Jordan;(4) how reliable any assurances given to Britain by the Jordanian authorities are; and (5) what steps Britain is proposing to take to monitor Abu Qatada’s treatment in the event that he is deported to Jordan.

If Jordan has been awarded any prizes as a bastion of human rights, it has escaped our attention.

MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta was signed under duress at Runnymede by bad King John in 1215. It contains the following three clauses (translated at Fordham University, New York, from the original Latin):

“(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

Much later, the HABEAS CORPUS ACT of 1679 prescribed that defendants could not be kept in detention indefinitely. They must be presented to a court within a reasonable time to answer any charges against them.

These provisions constitute the bedrock of civil liberties in Britain.

———————–

Posted in Jordan, Justice, Politics, Torture, UK, UN | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

L’Être et le Néant

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

 

Paris, 7 February 2012

 

BEING AND NOTHINGNESS

 

We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;

 

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.

 

We turn clay to make a vessel;

 

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.

 

We pierce doors and windows to make a house;

 

And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.

 

Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.

  

Dao De Jing (also transliterated as Tao Te Ching), Chapter 11. Translation by Arthur Waley.

With apologies to Jean-Paul Sartre

———————-

Posted in China, France, Literature, Philosophy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

DAS VIERTE REICH / THE FOURTH REICH

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context.

 

VON JETZT AN EUROPA SPRICHT DEUTSCH

6 February 2012

What Bismarck and Hitler failed to achieve by military means – the unification of Europe under German hegemony –  a latter-day Prussian, Angela Merkel, Germany’s new Iron Chancellor, is aiming to achieve using Germany’s financial firepower.

Last Monday 30 January 2012,  25 of the 27 member states of the European Union – all bar the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic – succumbed to pressure from Berlin and agreed a treaty setting up a new fiscal union, inside the European Union, with a common financial regime involving the obligation to run balanced or surplus budgets.

Of the 25 countries signing the fiscal compact, the core group to which it applies as a priority are the 17 states, headed by Germany, that constitute the eurozone, ie those countries that have adopted the euro as their currency.

This means that the governments of countries which have signed up to the new monetarist regime will no longer have the right to run up Keynsian deficits to counteract economic recessions. The new regime will be policed by the European Commission and disputes will be decided by the European Union’s commercial court, the European Court of Justice.

At the behest of Germany and all singing to a German hymn sheet, the signatory countries have agreed to surrender control of their economies to a Berlin-dominated Brussels.

According to a Guardian editorial on 30 January 2012, this is not a fiscal union. It is “fiscal imperialism”. The newspaper comments: “The clear implication of the fiscal compact proposals…is that every country within the eurozone must turn itself into a version of Germany, with tough budgetary controls even amid severe recession.”

Writing in the Irish Times on 1 February 2012, commentator Vincent Browne maintains that the indefinite surrender of sovereignty to Brussels – implicit in the treaty – means that Ireland, an independent nation since its liberation from Britain, has become a province once again.

If successfully implemented  – the “if” is a big one – the treaty represents a quantum leap towards the creation of a European political union and ultimately a United States of Europe – with the text of the European Constitution dictated, under pressure of hard times, by Europe’s paymaster, Germany.

What is more, there will be no going back.

In the edition of the UK’s Guardian newspaper for 31 January 2012, Merkel is quoted as saying of the new treaty:

The debt brakes will be binding and valid forever. Never will you be able to change them through a parliamentary majority.”

As Antigone1984 has not ceased to emphasize, this sinister remark typifies the default European Union attitude to democracy, ie they can do very nicely without it, thank you very much.

However, as this comment comes from the German Chancellor, we cannot help recalling that the Nazis used the term Tausendjähriges Reich – thousand-year Reich – suggesting that Hitler’s Germany would last for a thousand years.

We must state loudly and clearly that Angela Merkel is no Nazi.

Nonetheless, her words will give pause for thought to democrats everywhere.

Only last week the Germans demanded the appointment of an EU commissar or viceroy to oversee the Greek economy.

A leaked German document revealed in the Guardian on 30 January 2012 apparently called, in effect, for the appointment of an EU proconsul with the power to veto the Greek budget, saying Athens’s inability to meet fiscal targets had made the post a precondition of further rescue funds from its troika of creditors (the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund).

“Budget consolidation has to be put under a strict steering and control system,” noted the document (according to the Guardian report). “Given the disappointing compliance so far, Greece has to accept shifting budgetary sovereignty to the European level for a certain period of time.”

The Guardian reported that, under the plan, European institutions would have direct control over Greek budget decisions in what would amount to an extraordinary depletion of a member state’s independence in conducting its own affairs.

The proposal sparked an outcry, not only from the Greek Government, but also from countries normally aligned with Berlin.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Danish Prime Minister who is currently EU President, said that Brussels would defend Greece against any assault on its democracy.

Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said: “It’s not in order that German politicians say that we need commissars and that Greece be put under supervision…Germany should be more careful.”

The Germans bottled out and withdrew the proposal in the teeth of this opposition, but what no one except for Antigone1984 appears to have realized is that the new fiscal compact will introduce for all signatory states precisely the kind of supervisory regime that the German leaked document was proposing for Greece.

However, we should remember that the treaty agreed on 30 January 2012 has only been adopted by 25 people, the elite EU leadership. In order to have the force of law, it must still be ratified either by national parliaments or by national plebiscites.

Merkel is jumping the gun.

She knows, of course, that on the basis of the normal ratification procedure in the EU, in 24 of the 25 signatory states the treaty will be rubber-stamped at the behest of the main political parties in tame national parliaments. In one country, Ireland, there may be a legal obligation to hold a referendum, although the Irish Government is doing its level best to avoid this. The last thing the Irish elite wants is the people poking their noses into matters which are none of their business (ie the economic independence of the country).

None the less, this treaty is of such far-reaching significance that it cannot be excluded that the German apple-cart may be upset in the course of the ratification process.

Normally a treaty of this importance would take two or three years in the drafting before it was submitted for signature to EU leaders. Texts would be drafted and re-drafted in national parliamentary committees as well as at EU level. The abnormally short text of the fiscal compact was cobbled together on the back of an envelope in the space of about a month. It must be open to question whether national parliaments, however stage-managed by the political parties that control them, will simply switch on the green light without more ado.

Then again it is possible that in countries, such as France and Germany, which have constitutional courts, these may intervene to pass judgement on the compatibility of the new treaty with their national constitutions.

What is more, one may wonder whether the European Court of Justice might not have its word to say about the new hybrid role – as court of last resort for both the European Union and the new Fiscal Union – that has been foisted on it by the treaty.

Finally, there will be massive opposition to the treaty from at least half of Europe’s economists. The fresh-water monetarists will be rubbing their hands in glee, but the salt-water Keynsians will not flinch in their opposition to a treaty which, in their view, deprives Europe of an essential economic tool – the ability to use government borrowing to pump-prime faltering demand in times of recession.

The Guardian editorial on 30 January 2012, already mentioned, points out that “austerity for all is not working”, adding:

“The credit-rating agencies, whose very spectre was enough to scare European governments into furious cutting, have made it clear they are as worried about growth as they are about the need to reduce debt burdens.

“Austerity isn’t even working for Germany, where growth faltered at the end of last year. Even the strongest economies within the single currency will naturally suffer if their neighbouring export markets dry up.”

The cultural and social implications of this move towards federation are also enormous.

The Germans have performed a near-miraculous feat in reconstructing an economic power-house out of the ashes of war. As commentator Simon Heffer said on the Daily Mail website on 17 August 2011: “Germany lay in ruins in 1945, but it then invested in manufacturing plant, developed first-class education, innovated, raised its productivity and competed on quality not price. Over the next 60 years it won the peace as comprehensively as it lost the war.”

But the Germans are not the only ones. The French too experienced an economic renaissance during “les trente glorieuses [années]” (1945-1975). And likewise the Italians. Each of these countries has done it differently on the basis of their different skill sets, traditions and natural advantages.

Moreover, German reconstruction in particular has come at a devastating environmental cost. Look at German city centres today, say the main drag in Karlsruhe or even romantic Heidelberg. The steamroller of reconstruction has turned them into identikit monocultural deserts with the same plate-glass department stores and fast-food chains stretching as far as the eye can see. Not that Germany has a monopoly of this kind of urban desolation.

The citizens of the nations of Europe need to ask themselves: “Do we all want to be like Germany? Do we want a monocultural Europe? Or do we want to retain our diversity?”

If the fiscal compact is implemented, these questions will no longer be relevant.

However, there is another scenario.

As we write, after four months, the Greek Government is still in negotiation with the troika on the terms of a new bail-out of €130 billion that needs to be agreed before 20 March, otherwise Greece will default on its sovereign debt. Now it appears that, in addition to the €130 billion, another €15 billion has unexpectedly to be found to plug “a newly discovered black hole in the country’s finances”. The Spanish and Portuguese economies are at death’s door. The Irish economy is limping along with the life-support of a troika bail-out.

In other words, regardless of the fiscal compact agreed at political level in Brussels, the health of the real economy and its repercussion in the markets may ultimately decide whether the eurozone survives or not.

It is still very much on the cards that the Greek bail-out negotiations will fail and that Greece defaults, at which point it is likely to be pitchforked ignominiously out of the common currency and back into the drachma. Some analysts are predicting a similar fate for Portugal. And who knows what will happen in Spain or Italy?

Nothing less than the future of the European Union – as at present constituted – is at stake and the outcome is too close to call.

WILKINS MICAWBER

Why the mad rush to conclude a fiscal compact at this point in time?

During the last decade, with the blessing of their governments and little official oversight, banks and businesses in a number of peripheral eurozone countries – in particular, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain – took advantage of ultra-low eurozone interest rates to engage in an orgy of largely unregulated borrowing and spending, particularly on real estate. The bubble eventually burst in 2008, the loans turned sour, lenders and borrowers went bankrupt and the states in question ended up with huge deficits that they were unable to sustain. As a result, these countries came cap in hand to the EU and the IMF for bail-outs. In effect, as far as the EU is concerned, it is principally Germany, as the EU’s economic powerhouse and a rock of financial stability, that stands to bear the brunt of the rescue operation.

Moreover, Germany appears resigned, through gritted teeth, to bailing out these countries but only this once. In future, all the countries of the eurozone must adhere to the same fiscal and financial orthodoxy as Germany. Hence the fiscal compact signed on 30 January 2012.

It must be conceded that Germany has a point. Germans work hard – a cliché but true – put aside savings for a rainy day and spend prudently.

They personify the Micawber Principle (based on Wilkins Micawber, a fictional character from Charles Dickens’s 1850 novel David Copperfield):

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

However, Germany is not wholly blameless in the loans debacle.

The low interest rates which encouraged fiscal profligacy in the eurozone’s peripheral states were imposed by the supposedly independent Frankfurt-based European Central Bank in the interests of keeping the external value of the euro low so as to boost the export potential of Europe’s main export-based economy Germany.

Historical note:

The First Reich (The Holy Roman Empire)     962 – 1806

The Second Reich                                          1871 – 1918

The Third Reich                                              1933 -1945

The Fourth Reich                                             2012 –  …..

——————–

Posted in Europe, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER – UK PRIME MINISTER

5 February 2012

Tomorrow 6 February will be a time of great rejoicing throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, for it was 60 years ago to the day that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II acceded to the throne.

Pageants, processions and parties are planned throughout the kingdom in this year of the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty’s Accession. The Government has set aside two days of public holiday in June for national rejoicing. A flotilla of boats will parade along Thames in London to mark the occasion.

In short, pomp and ceremony will be deftly deployed to ensure that no doubts are allowed to surface among the populace at large as to the inestimable value to the nation of a royal family which, by reason of birth alone, inherits the right to the public funding of its glittering lifestyle.

Benefit scroungers? Who? Not they, surely?

However, our attention has been caught by a short snippet of news that appeared in the diary column of the UK’s Guardian newspaper on 12 January 2012.

This involved an exchange on a radio programme between Guardian commentator Jonathan Freedland and Katie Nicholl, royal correspondent of the UK’s Mail on Sunday newspaper.

Their conversation took place at a time of rapidly rising unemployment and savage public spending cutbacks. However, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, himself a direct descendant of King William IV, has repeatedly proclaimed that, as far as the economic downturn is concerned,  “we are all in this together”, that is to say, the burden of the economic crisis lies heavy in equal measure on the backs of the rich and the poor.

It is a theme to which Katie Nicholl apparently warms.

This is a time when the Queen is just as stretched as other people in the country,” she tells Freedland.

“Not quite ‘just as stretched’,” counters Freedland.

Well, there are palaces to rebuild and make better,” replies Nicholl. “They are under a lot of pressure.”

So that’s all right then.

As we have made clear in our Mission Statement, Antigone1984 is in favour of democracy and opposed to hierarchies of any kind, whether kings or queens, leaders, aristocrats or bosses.

The republic is the natural political organisation for the free man or woman. It is to the lasting credit of the founding fathers of the United States that, making a clean break with the monarchical regimes of old Europe, they opted for the constitution of a republic and thus set a commendable precedent for all republics thereafter. The French revolutionaries that toppled the Ancien Régime, for instance, were much indebted to the American example.

It seems obvious to Antigone1984 that democracy is not compatible with monarchy. Democracy is rule by the people. Monarchy is rule by a king or queen. Even in a so-called “constitutional” monarchy, where it is often claimed that the monarch is simply a figurehead, the monarch retains residual powers which are kept in reserve for deployment in moments of national emergency.  What is more, the monarchy, as the summit of the hierarchical pyramid, bestows legitimacy on all the hierarchical strata in a nation, starting with the aristocracy. Indeed, hierarchy in general, for example in the workplace, finds its ultimate legitimation in the monarchy.

It might surprise some readers to learn that in the United Kingdom before Members of Parliament elected by the people are allowed to take their seat in the House of Commons, they must swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch.  One might ask oneself in these circumstances whether a state in which republicans are banned from representing the electors is in fact a democracy at all.

Antigone1984 believes that hereditary monarchy has no place in a democracy and that the persistence of royalty is incompatible with the democratic governance of a modern civilised state.

Monarchs have subjects, democracies have citizens.

Lest all the ballyhoo and razzmatazz surrounding this Diamond Jubilee give readers the idea that the United Kingdom is and always has been a hotbed of monarchism, it should be borne in mind that the country also boasts a republican tradition, albeit one of much less significance. The dictator Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) had King Charles I executed in 1649 and set up two non-monarchical forms of government, the Commonwealth (1649-1653) and the Protectorate (1653-1659). Political writers with pronounced republican sympathies have included Charles Churchill (1732-1764) and John Wilkes (1725-1797).

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

The national anthem “God Save the Queen” will be sung lustily throughout the year by millions of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects to mark this special anniversary.  The original tune is attributed to various composers, including John Bull (1562-1628) and Thomas Arne (1710-1778). There are various versions of the lyrics but the standard version goes as follows:

God save our gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,

God save the Queen:

Send her victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over us:

God save the Queen.

 

O Lord, our God, arise,

Scatter her enemies,

And make them fall.

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On Thee our hopes we fix,

God save us all.

 

Thy choicest gifts in store,

On her be pleased to pour;

Long may she reign:

May she defend our laws,

And ever give us cause

To sing with heart and voice

God save the Queen.

RULE, BRITANNIA!

For those who like this kind of thing, here are the first four verses of “Rule, Britannia!”, an immensely popular patriotic song still much sung today. The lyrics derive from a poem by the Scottish poet James Thomson (1700-1748) that was set to music by the composer Thomas Arne (1710-1778), who is also associated with the national anthem (see above).

When Britain first, at Heaven’s command

Arose from out the azure main;

This was the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sang this strain:

“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

“Britons never will be slaves.”

 

The nations, not so blest as thee,

Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;

While thou shalt flourish great and free,

The dread and envy of them all.

“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

“Britons never will be slaves.”

 

Still more majestic shalt thou rise,

More dreadful, from each foreign stroke;

As the loud blast that tears the skies,

Serves but to root thy native oak.

“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

“Britons never will be slaves.”

 

Thee haughty tyrants ne’er shall tame:

All their attempts to bend thee down,

Will but arouse thy generous flame;

But work their woe, and thy renown.

“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

“Britons never will be slaves.”

Readers still curious about matters royal in the United Kingdom might like to check out the satire we published in this blog on 19 January 2012 on the proposal, during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, to provide the Queen with an £80 million yacht by way of a present to mark her Diamond Jubilee.

We reprint the post below for their convenience.

HAVE-YACHTS AND HAVE-NOTS

19 January 2012

At a time of global economic crisis, falling output and rising unemployment, the British Government is to make it a priority that that the Queen of England will get her yacht back.  As is well-known, the population of England is divided into the “have-yachts” and the “have-nots”.  The Queen lost her last yacht in 1997, when it was decommissioned, and so for the past 15 years she has eked out a meagre existence as a “have-not”. The year 2012 (ie this year, for those of you still awake) marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Queen’s Ascent to the Throne. The Government, whose members by definition are all “have-yachts”, wants to mark the occasion by ending Her Majesty’s humiliating “have-not” status. She is to become a “have-yacht” again. [NB The British Royal family is many cuts above those common-as-muck  Continental monarchs who ride about their kingdoms on plebeian bicycles.]The Queen’s yacht will cost £80 million pounds, but this has not dampened the ardour of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects. All over England the lame, the sick, the elderly, the unemployed are hobbling around their hovels overjoyed at the good tidings. “It’s worth getting me benefit cut again for,” said Gertrude of Bolton, who has contributed her wooden leg to a lottery to raise funds for the yacht. “I only get 50p a week anyway since the latest cuts and once I’ve paid me rent and me ‘eating and me food and a black patch for me glass eye, well there’s not much left out of that.” And, by the way, the Government has firmly scotched rumours that the Queen, who lives in a very large number of very large houses, is to be means-tested by a French firm to determine whether she should continue trousering the “Civil List”, which is a royal term for taxpayer’s money used to pay “benefits” to the Queen and her Consort (that is “husband” to you and me). The Government made that quite clear this week, when it decreed that the Royal Family, like the Banks, was “too big to fail” and hence would continue to receive benefits whatever happened, unlike those work-shy cripples and chemotherapy patients who were too lazy to get out of bed in the morning and do a decent day’s work like any ordinary “hard-working family” that was not a benefit scrounger. But let us go back to the yacht.  The government is said to believe that a large-scale celebration is needed to lift the country’s spirits. However, since, thanks to Government cutbacks, there is very little hard cash around, the Government has decided that the large-scale celebration will be strictly limited to members of the Royal Family and senior Ministers (but not Clegg). In a letter sent to the panjandrum overseeing the jubilee festivities, a senior Minister is quoted as saying: “I feel strongly that the diamond jubilee gives us a tremendous opportunity to recognise in a very fitting way the Queen’s highly significant contribution to the life of the nation….perhaps because of the austere times, the celebration should go beyond those of previous jubilees.”  Well said, Sir! And so say all of us!

—————-

Posted in Economics, France, Politics, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment