So President Obama is in China for the first time. (First time as President that is – no idea whether he may have spent time gallivanting around there in his youth.) In the international fixture calendar, this ought to be the Big One: the Liverpool-Manchester United of summitry. But I think it’s unlikely that we’ll need to hold the front page this time.
That’s partly for good reasons. There do not appear to be any major conflicts threatening to boil over. Nowhere in the world are the giants of the 20th and 21st centuries respectively facing each other down like boxers at the weigh-in. China does not feel the need, as Russia often does, to act all truculent so as not to be ignored. They know no one’s going to ignore them.
Of course the Chinese never lose the opportunity to score a point. The opening Foreign Ministry communiqué (issued by Mr Qin Gang, an old mate of mine and probably the only government spokesman in the world who has also umpired at Wimbledon) focussed, on, of all things, Obama’s much-appreciated refusal to meet the Dalai Lama prior to visiting China. As a black president, said Mr Qin, Obama was in a better position than his predecessors to appreciate the fight against slavery, which is what the Chinese were conducting when they overran Tibet in the fifties. (Can’t you just see the Dalai bestriding the old plantation with his assortment of whips?) Obama was also reminded of Abraham Lincoln, whose concern for the unity of his country is now matched by that of President Hu Jintao. So there we have it: main item of concern a minor squabble in which the US has already made the necessary concession. Advantage People’s Republic of China.
This is not to say that the meeting room in the Zhongnanhai Party Complex does not contain the odd large grey pachyderm. As I mentioned in my post of 3rd August, the economic issues between the two giants are deep-seated, and they constitute a total stand-off: the Chinese are not going to take the risk of freely floating their currency just to please Uncle Barack, and the US still owes China two trillion big ones and isn’t going to be wiping out the debt any time soon. And if there is a real prospect of agreement between the two major climate change players in advance of the Copenhagen summit, they’ve certainly done a good job of preserving secrecy on the matter.
It’ll certainly do Obama no harm to get a handle on how China works, and to ensure that the mood music is good (which is what he does best). But I imagine they’ll have been scraping the barrel for anything of substance to put in the final communiqué. Still, better jaw-jaw than war-war, as the man said.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Friday, 13 November 2009
How the Civil Service sabotages the campaign against forced marriages
I heard something astonishing the other day. I’m not easily astonished, and still less by the vagaries and abysmal stupidities of the Civil Service in which I spent 20 years of my life. But this one fair took my breath away. I’m assured it’s true, and my knowledge of the bovine inflexibility of the bureaucratic mind does not incline me to doubt it.
As we know, there is a problem in this country regarding forced marriages. Some families, generally originating from the Indian subcontinent, attempt to remove their children, usually daughters, from the UK in order to marry them off to someone from their country of origin. Our government, laudably, takes this problem seriously, and has established a unit in the Home Office dedicated to rescuing these unfortunate girls and bringing them back to the UK.
The sensational news I heard was that these girls are expected to pay for their own flights home. And, if they do not have the money, they can be given a loan to buy their ticket, but they must surrender their passports until it is repaid in full, thus preventing them from leaving the country in which they are in danger. This demand is made in the name of consistency, as all other Brits needing help with repatriation are treated the same way.
Now, I have no quarrel with the principle of self-funded repatriation. If you get into trouble in a foreign country, you should not expect HMG to pick up the tab for bailing you out. Embassies and consulates are not made of money, and, besides, it creates a moral hazard if cock-ups are allowed to be cost-free.
But can’t these people see that forced marriages are an entirely different case from the tourist who had his ticket nicked when he was plastered? The moral hazard argument falls away, because the girls did not choose to put themselves in such a position. And the demand for money creates far more difficulties for these girls than it would for tourists. Most tourists can drum up money from somewhere, whereas if you are going to kidnap your daughter and marry her off abroad, the first thing you do is make sure she doesn’t have access to the price of an air ticket home. And, if the tourist has no money and needs to borrow some, who is usually the first port of call? His family. Get the point?
The reality, in most cases, is that the girl will have no one to turn to for money; even friends from outside the family may let her down for cultural reasons. So, with no way out in sight, she may see no alternative to going back to the family and submitting to their wishes. What sort of concrete-headed zombie can’t see this?
There remains the argument, mentioned above, that the Government is not made of money. But let’s look at the figures involved: the Forced Marriages Unit repatriates about 300 young girls per year. These days you can fly almost anywhere in the world for £500. So the government stands to save £150,000 (probably rather less) by this measure. The total cost of the Forced Marriages Unit, with its overseas network, must run into several millions, money well spent in my view. But talk about spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar!
I once got carpeted for calling one section of the Foreign Office, in writing, “a bunch of brainless jobsworths”. I took my lumps and made my apologies with good grace, as no useful purpose can be served by addressing colleagues in that way. But does anyone really believe that the Civil Service is not full of brainless jobsworths? Where do they get them from? And don’t get me started on the MoD’s decision to take legal action to reclaim compensation from two seriously injured soldiers, undoubtedly at a cost greater than the sum being reclaimed…
As we know, there is a problem in this country regarding forced marriages. Some families, generally originating from the Indian subcontinent, attempt to remove their children, usually daughters, from the UK in order to marry them off to someone from their country of origin. Our government, laudably, takes this problem seriously, and has established a unit in the Home Office dedicated to rescuing these unfortunate girls and bringing them back to the UK.
The sensational news I heard was that these girls are expected to pay for their own flights home. And, if they do not have the money, they can be given a loan to buy their ticket, but they must surrender their passports until it is repaid in full, thus preventing them from leaving the country in which they are in danger. This demand is made in the name of consistency, as all other Brits needing help with repatriation are treated the same way.
Now, I have no quarrel with the principle of self-funded repatriation. If you get into trouble in a foreign country, you should not expect HMG to pick up the tab for bailing you out. Embassies and consulates are not made of money, and, besides, it creates a moral hazard if cock-ups are allowed to be cost-free.
But can’t these people see that forced marriages are an entirely different case from the tourist who had his ticket nicked when he was plastered? The moral hazard argument falls away, because the girls did not choose to put themselves in such a position. And the demand for money creates far more difficulties for these girls than it would for tourists. Most tourists can drum up money from somewhere, whereas if you are going to kidnap your daughter and marry her off abroad, the first thing you do is make sure she doesn’t have access to the price of an air ticket home. And, if the tourist has no money and needs to borrow some, who is usually the first port of call? His family. Get the point?
The reality, in most cases, is that the girl will have no one to turn to for money; even friends from outside the family may let her down for cultural reasons. So, with no way out in sight, she may see no alternative to going back to the family and submitting to their wishes. What sort of concrete-headed zombie can’t see this?
There remains the argument, mentioned above, that the Government is not made of money. But let’s look at the figures involved: the Forced Marriages Unit repatriates about 300 young girls per year. These days you can fly almost anywhere in the world for £500. So the government stands to save £150,000 (probably rather less) by this measure. The total cost of the Forced Marriages Unit, with its overseas network, must run into several millions, money well spent in my view. But talk about spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar!
I once got carpeted for calling one section of the Foreign Office, in writing, “a bunch of brainless jobsworths”. I took my lumps and made my apologies with good grace, as no useful purpose can be served by addressing colleagues in that way. But does anyone really believe that the Civil Service is not full of brainless jobsworths? Where do they get them from? And don’t get me started on the MoD’s decision to take legal action to reclaim compensation from two seriously injured soldiers, undoubtedly at a cost greater than the sum being reclaimed…
Impunity, not formal state oppression, is the real human rights problem in China
When Westerners complain about human rights abuses in China, the Chinese are apt to bridle. Partly this is out of sheer patriotic fervour, but a lot of it is rooted in the belief that the Westerner is just parroting recycled material from 30 years ago, and has not grasped how much things have improved for the ordinary citizen since Deng Xiaoping took power. Not just in economic terms, but in terms of simple personal freedoms.
My marriage is one example. Up to about 1984 my wife could have gone to prison for the crime of “li tong wai guo” – foreign connections. Now nobody minds who you talk to, meet or marry. Freedom of speech for the individual is almost total; there are no beady-eyed informers sitting around in bars and restaurants. Except, that is, if you are on some sort of black list, which you only really get on by attempting to organise dissidence. Freedom of association is still a bridge too far.
It’s also true that the State devotes huge resources to policing the Internet. I am sure the Party realises that this attempt is ultimately doomed, both for technological reasons and because economic development demands fairly open access to information. But, for the time being, they are prepared to make the effort in order to stifle organised opposition, and, crucially, to maintain the orthodoxy of the national discourse, not allowing certain ideas even to be contemplated.
And so, a bit of perspective is needed on human rights in China: the things we Westerners worry about most are nowhere near as bad as some of us seem to think. The formal state apparatus of tyranny oppresses a few people badly, but it is a fairly small number, and, many Chinese would argue, it only affects those who have deliberately stuck their heads above the parapet.
The most serious problems in this field lie elsewhere. They were pointed up by a recent Human Rights Watch report picked up by the Independent. The report tells of hundreds of people, mainly from the provinces, who claim to have been maltreated by local officials, and, despairing of getting justice from the tight-knit local government mafias, have come to the capital to seek justice from central government, as Chinese have always done since the high Imperial days. In the capital, of course, they are just a bloody nuisance, and are subject to two main dangers: (a) their local governments sending thugs after them to bring them back, and (b) arbitrary arrest and incarceration by unofficial quasi-police thugs in Beijing. HRW mentions the existence of “black jails” in the capital, into which people are thrown without any due process or any records kept, by goons accountable to no-one who beat and even rape their prisoners.
The government denies categorically that such jails exist, but no other Chinese will deny it. The activities of hooligans who derive their impunity from being generally on the side of government, but who remain both unaccountable and deniable, are as much a fact in China as in Zimbabwe. And the worst of it is that these brutal round-ups tend to coincide with great State occasions – such as the imminent visit of President Obama. They want the riff-raff off the streets for the motorcades and the TV cameras. Some of this might not be happening but for the visit of St Barack.
Impunity is the common factor in all aspects of this problem – the petty local officials who can mess you around and extort money from you with no comeback, the higher local officials who invariably back them up, making it necessary to go and petition central government in the first place, and then the “black jail” system that hits you (all too literally) when you get there, are all part of the same phenomenon. It’s this that represents the real human rights problem in China, not gulags or secret policemen or arrests of active dissidents.
It filters through into the mindset. My wife often sits beside me when I am writing these pieces, her heart a-flutter. “Surely you can’t write that – you’ll get into trouble!” I give the usual spiel about an Englishman, provided that he is not breaking publicly proclaimed laws, being able to do what he likes in perfect serenity. “But they won’t give you a visa next time you want to go to China.” We shall see. Tomorrow I am off to the Consulate in Manchester to apply for one. I’ll let you know if I get the elbow.
My marriage is one example. Up to about 1984 my wife could have gone to prison for the crime of “li tong wai guo” – foreign connections. Now nobody minds who you talk to, meet or marry. Freedom of speech for the individual is almost total; there are no beady-eyed informers sitting around in bars and restaurants. Except, that is, if you are on some sort of black list, which you only really get on by attempting to organise dissidence. Freedom of association is still a bridge too far.
It’s also true that the State devotes huge resources to policing the Internet. I am sure the Party realises that this attempt is ultimately doomed, both for technological reasons and because economic development demands fairly open access to information. But, for the time being, they are prepared to make the effort in order to stifle organised opposition, and, crucially, to maintain the orthodoxy of the national discourse, not allowing certain ideas even to be contemplated.
And so, a bit of perspective is needed on human rights in China: the things we Westerners worry about most are nowhere near as bad as some of us seem to think. The formal state apparatus of tyranny oppresses a few people badly, but it is a fairly small number, and, many Chinese would argue, it only affects those who have deliberately stuck their heads above the parapet.
The most serious problems in this field lie elsewhere. They were pointed up by a recent Human Rights Watch report picked up by the Independent. The report tells of hundreds of people, mainly from the provinces, who claim to have been maltreated by local officials, and, despairing of getting justice from the tight-knit local government mafias, have come to the capital to seek justice from central government, as Chinese have always done since the high Imperial days. In the capital, of course, they are just a bloody nuisance, and are subject to two main dangers: (a) their local governments sending thugs after them to bring them back, and (b) arbitrary arrest and incarceration by unofficial quasi-police thugs in Beijing. HRW mentions the existence of “black jails” in the capital, into which people are thrown without any due process or any records kept, by goons accountable to no-one who beat and even rape their prisoners.
The government denies categorically that such jails exist, but no other Chinese will deny it. The activities of hooligans who derive their impunity from being generally on the side of government, but who remain both unaccountable and deniable, are as much a fact in China as in Zimbabwe. And the worst of it is that these brutal round-ups tend to coincide with great State occasions – such as the imminent visit of President Obama. They want the riff-raff off the streets for the motorcades and the TV cameras. Some of this might not be happening but for the visit of St Barack.
Impunity is the common factor in all aspects of this problem – the petty local officials who can mess you around and extort money from you with no comeback, the higher local officials who invariably back them up, making it necessary to go and petition central government in the first place, and then the “black jail” system that hits you (all too literally) when you get there, are all part of the same phenomenon. It’s this that represents the real human rights problem in China, not gulags or secret policemen or arrests of active dissidents.
It filters through into the mindset. My wife often sits beside me when I am writing these pieces, her heart a-flutter. “Surely you can’t write that – you’ll get into trouble!” I give the usual spiel about an Englishman, provided that he is not breaking publicly proclaimed laws, being able to do what he likes in perfect serenity. “But they won’t give you a visa next time you want to go to China.” We shall see. Tomorrow I am off to the Consulate in Manchester to apply for one. I’ll let you know if I get the elbow.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Time for a new nickname for the Conservatives. Don't let in the LTV
Given the animosity which has crept into the current election campaign (much of it among readers of this blog – but I do not complain, I remember how I felt in 1996) isn’t it time for a new generation of political nicknames?
My commentators, stung not so much by my expressed views as by my declared allegiance to Labour, have come up with such gems as “the Sewer Party”, “Liebour”, “ZANULab” and the impressively agglomerative “ZaNuLieBore”. But none of these have really stuck, though I accept that the distortion of the previous Prime Minister’s name into “Bliar” has.
In Germany, the parties are generally known by their colours. Social Democrats are Red (though “very pale pink” might be more appropriate these days), Christian Democrats are Black (from their historical clerical-Catholic antecedents) and the Greens speak for themselves. When, after the 2005 elections, a Christian Democrat-Free Democrat-Green coalition was briefly considered, it was called the “Jamaica coalition”, after the colours – black, yellow and green – of the Jamaican flag. But you couldn’t do that in Britain – talking about the Reds or the Blues would only mark you out as a football fan.
No really effective nickname has stuck to my own party. Some of my Tory friends refer to us as the “Trots”, but there are far too many Trot groups around for one’s meaning to be clear, especially as some of those are actually Stalinists.
The Conservatives at least have an old-style red-blooded nickname: “Tory” was a name used for barbarous Irish bandits in the 17th century. Their opponents, the Whigs, derived their name from Scottish rebels, and in the eyes of such as Dr Johnson their name was an insult in itself. Speaking of a contemporary poet at dinner, the great Sam said: “Mason’s a Whig.” Affecting to have misheard, the lady next to him asked: “A Prig, Sir?” “Worse than that, a Whig!” the great man continued. “But he is both!” But there are no more Whigs, and the term “Tory” has become totally innocuous, used neutrally by friend and foe alike.
I have long wished to popularise my own name for Her Majesty’s current Opposition. Not only is it modern and snappy, but it also honours one of Labour’s heroes, Aneurin Bevan. I would like more people to understand me when I speak of the evils and inadequacies of the LTV. Many will remember one of Bevan’s most trenchant comments on his political opponents, a three-word phrase which I have reduced to its initials.
All right, some of my younger readers may require an explanation. Nye Bevan once memorably referred to the Tories as “lower than vermin”. I have nothing to add to that, though happy to reduce it to a set of initials.
Don’t let in the LTV. You know how long it can take to get rid of them.
My commentators, stung not so much by my expressed views as by my declared allegiance to Labour, have come up with such gems as “the Sewer Party”, “Liebour”, “ZANULab” and the impressively agglomerative “ZaNuLieBore”. But none of these have really stuck, though I accept that the distortion of the previous Prime Minister’s name into “Bliar” has.
In Germany, the parties are generally known by their colours. Social Democrats are Red (though “very pale pink” might be more appropriate these days), Christian Democrats are Black (from their historical clerical-Catholic antecedents) and the Greens speak for themselves. When, after the 2005 elections, a Christian Democrat-Free Democrat-Green coalition was briefly considered, it was called the “Jamaica coalition”, after the colours – black, yellow and green – of the Jamaican flag. But you couldn’t do that in Britain – talking about the Reds or the Blues would only mark you out as a football fan.
No really effective nickname has stuck to my own party. Some of my Tory friends refer to us as the “Trots”, but there are far too many Trot groups around for one’s meaning to be clear, especially as some of those are actually Stalinists.
The Conservatives at least have an old-style red-blooded nickname: “Tory” was a name used for barbarous Irish bandits in the 17th century. Their opponents, the Whigs, derived their name from Scottish rebels, and in the eyes of such as Dr Johnson their name was an insult in itself. Speaking of a contemporary poet at dinner, the great Sam said: “Mason’s a Whig.” Affecting to have misheard, the lady next to him asked: “A Prig, Sir?” “Worse than that, a Whig!” the great man continued. “But he is both!” But there are no more Whigs, and the term “Tory” has become totally innocuous, used neutrally by friend and foe alike.
I have long wished to popularise my own name for Her Majesty’s current Opposition. Not only is it modern and snappy, but it also honours one of Labour’s heroes, Aneurin Bevan. I would like more people to understand me when I speak of the evils and inadequacies of the LTV. Many will remember one of Bevan’s most trenchant comments on his political opponents, a three-word phrase which I have reduced to its initials.
All right, some of my younger readers may require an explanation. Nye Bevan once memorably referred to the Tories as “lower than vermin”. I have nothing to add to that, though happy to reduce it to a set of initials.
Don’t let in the LTV. You know how long it can take to get rid of them.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Ashcroft vindicated - or maybe not
So Lord Ashcroft and the Tories are off the hook at last. All doubts have been removed about the residence status of the Tory Party’s vice-chairman and major donor.
Or so you might think if you saw William Hague on the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday. And even more so if you read the Independent’s write-up next day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-finally-come-clean-on-ashcroft-tax-status-1817257.html). Andrew Grice, the Indy’s political editor, writes “Tories finally come clean on Ashcroft’s tax status”, and goes on to say that they have “confirmed that he is paying tax in Britain”. Job done.
Well, call me a pedantic old socialist cynic, but I’m not sure it has been. Look at what Mr Hague actually said. "My conclusion, having asked him, is that he fulfilled the obligations that were imposed on him at the time that he became a peer." He added: "I imagine that [paying taxes in the UK] was the obligation that was imposed on him." How nice that Mr Hague should be so trusting, and that he should possess such a vivid imagination!
Mr Hague’s motives are obvious, and perfectly respectable: he wants to get the Ashcroft issue off the table before the election campaign begins in earnest. It is rather strange that Central Office should have chosen the Independent to put out their version of the story: but spin, like the Almighty, moves in mysterious ways its wonders to perform. What is even stranger is that the political editor of a centre-Left paper should swallow the Central Office version hook, line and sinker.
I’m not impugning Mr Hague’s veracity: he strikes me as an honest man, as well as far too intelligent to think he can get away with telling porkies on TV. But a moment’s thought should reveal to us that what has been said is some way short of a firm statement that Lord Ashcroft is paying UK tax. And further pondering made it clear to me that Lord Ashcroft might never have paid a penny of UK tax, and Mr Hague’s statement would still not have been a lie.
Supposing (just supposing) that Lord Ashcroft had, in good faith, interpreted the obligations laid on him as falling short of an absolute requirement that he take up full UK residency for tax purposes. Then he would have been able to give Mr Hague the assurances requested. Meanwhile, Mr Hague’s imagination might always have led him astray, as imagination will. He does not state as a fact that Lord Ashcroft committed himself to full UK residence.
As far as I am concerned, the question has still not been answered. It will not be answered without an unequivocal statement in the form “Lord Ashcroft assures me that he has been a UK resident and a UK taxpayer since financial year X-Y”. I hope Labour have not been discouraged from asking it by the Independent’s trusting assurances. It still has the makings of a potential major embarrassment for the Conservatives.
Or so you might think if you saw William Hague on the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday. And even more so if you read the Independent’s write-up next day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-finally-come-clean-on-ashcroft-tax-status-1817257.html). Andrew Grice, the Indy’s political editor, writes “Tories finally come clean on Ashcroft’s tax status”, and goes on to say that they have “confirmed that he is paying tax in Britain”. Job done.
Well, call me a pedantic old socialist cynic, but I’m not sure it has been. Look at what Mr Hague actually said. "My conclusion, having asked him, is that he fulfilled the obligations that were imposed on him at the time that he became a peer." He added: "I imagine that [paying taxes in the UK] was the obligation that was imposed on him." How nice that Mr Hague should be so trusting, and that he should possess such a vivid imagination!
Mr Hague’s motives are obvious, and perfectly respectable: he wants to get the Ashcroft issue off the table before the election campaign begins in earnest. It is rather strange that Central Office should have chosen the Independent to put out their version of the story: but spin, like the Almighty, moves in mysterious ways its wonders to perform. What is even stranger is that the political editor of a centre-Left paper should swallow the Central Office version hook, line and sinker.
I’m not impugning Mr Hague’s veracity: he strikes me as an honest man, as well as far too intelligent to think he can get away with telling porkies on TV. But a moment’s thought should reveal to us that what has been said is some way short of a firm statement that Lord Ashcroft is paying UK tax. And further pondering made it clear to me that Lord Ashcroft might never have paid a penny of UK tax, and Mr Hague’s statement would still not have been a lie.
Supposing (just supposing) that Lord Ashcroft had, in good faith, interpreted the obligations laid on him as falling short of an absolute requirement that he take up full UK residency for tax purposes. Then he would have been able to give Mr Hague the assurances requested. Meanwhile, Mr Hague’s imagination might always have led him astray, as imagination will. He does not state as a fact that Lord Ashcroft committed himself to full UK residence.
As far as I am concerned, the question has still not been answered. It will not be answered without an unequivocal statement in the form “Lord Ashcroft assures me that he has been a UK resident and a UK taxpayer since financial year X-Y”. I hope Labour have not been discouraged from asking it by the Independent’s trusting assurances. It still has the makings of a potential major embarrassment for the Conservatives.
Monday, 9 November 2009
The former East Germany got a raw deal out of reunification
Between 1978 and 2006 I spent a total of about six years living, working and travelling in Germany, so was well acquainted with it both with and without the Wall. As is the way of walls, it seemed pretty permanent while it was there, and as if it had never been when it wasn’t. In 1993, with a friend, I spent an afternoon walking the length of its former course before it all got built over. (While all the East Germans were streaming into the West to look for jobs, my friend and thousands of his fellow Bohemians had hopped the other way to find cheap and deliciously retro flats.) Later on the Wall came up in a conversation with one of my sons. It didn’t ring a bell. Come on, I wanted to say, you were sitting with me when we saw it happening on TV. And then I remembered that he’d been nine months old at the time.
The speed at which it happened caught everyone cold, particularly in the West. Suddenly they had got what they’d always wanted, and how on earth were they going to cope with it? Firstly, the question of unification – yes or no? The Chancellor at the time was Helmut Kohl, for whom reunification was the ruling passion of his life. Nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of his dream (and Margaret Thatcher’s nightmare). Pleas for caution were disregarded in a tidal wave of national sentiment. When the first free elections were held in the East, they brought the Eastern version of Kohl’s party to power, which included Angela Merkel. Unification was now unstoppable.
Economic integration presented more intractable problems, but these were simply steamrollered by Kohl; though he must have known that setting the exchange rate for eastern and western marks at 1:1 would be disastrous, it was simply something that had to be done.
The result of this rush to unity was that the former East Germany, once one of the more successful of the Warsaw Pact states, is now the only one that has been unable to recover under capitalism. The economically active sector of the population high-tailed it to the West to find work. The East has been done up a treat, it’s true: beautifully renovated historic towns are ten a penny, but virtually nothing is going on in them. German unemployment is much higher than ours, and that is almost entirely down to the East; this is partly due to the fact that both men and women expected to be employed in the East, whereas in the West millions of housewives are happy to stay out of the statistics. It is virtually certain that an East Germany allowed to preserve its statehood, cheap labour and attractive exchange rates for a bit longer would have been in a better condition now; but there was no saying that in 1990.
The Social Democrat opposing Kohl in the unification election of 1990 was Oskar Lafontaine: he said exactly that, got thrashed, and is now a leader of the Left Party, ironically the only real “unification” party, with its main power base in the East. Another group with its main power base in the East is, sadly, the many-headed neo-Nazi movement, which feeds on unemployment, economic malaise, and lack of sense of purpose.
Yes, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a great and unforgettable moment; but it is a pity that those who were supposed to be the main beneficiaries got so little out of it.
The speed at which it happened caught everyone cold, particularly in the West. Suddenly they had got what they’d always wanted, and how on earth were they going to cope with it? Firstly, the question of unification – yes or no? The Chancellor at the time was Helmut Kohl, for whom reunification was the ruling passion of his life. Nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of his dream (and Margaret Thatcher’s nightmare). Pleas for caution were disregarded in a tidal wave of national sentiment. When the first free elections were held in the East, they brought the Eastern version of Kohl’s party to power, which included Angela Merkel. Unification was now unstoppable.
Economic integration presented more intractable problems, but these were simply steamrollered by Kohl; though he must have known that setting the exchange rate for eastern and western marks at 1:1 would be disastrous, it was simply something that had to be done.
The result of this rush to unity was that the former East Germany, once one of the more successful of the Warsaw Pact states, is now the only one that has been unable to recover under capitalism. The economically active sector of the population high-tailed it to the West to find work. The East has been done up a treat, it’s true: beautifully renovated historic towns are ten a penny, but virtually nothing is going on in them. German unemployment is much higher than ours, and that is almost entirely down to the East; this is partly due to the fact that both men and women expected to be employed in the East, whereas in the West millions of housewives are happy to stay out of the statistics. It is virtually certain that an East Germany allowed to preserve its statehood, cheap labour and attractive exchange rates for a bit longer would have been in a better condition now; but there was no saying that in 1990.
The Social Democrat opposing Kohl in the unification election of 1990 was Oskar Lafontaine: he said exactly that, got thrashed, and is now a leader of the Left Party, ironically the only real “unification” party, with its main power base in the East. Another group with its main power base in the East is, sadly, the many-headed neo-Nazi movement, which feeds on unemployment, economic malaise, and lack of sense of purpose.
Yes, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a great and unforgettable moment; but it is a pity that those who were supposed to be the main beneficiaries got so little out of it.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Does China care what happens in Afghanistan?
One more recent summit that passed under the radar of most people without Olympian boredom thresholds was last month’s Beijing meeting of Heads of Government of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Come again? Well, it’s a strategic cooperation arrangement between China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, focussing on Central Asia. OK, you can go back to sleep now.
But one event might make you perk up a bit: the Summiteers received an exploratory letter from an entity calling itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban to you, me and HM Armed Forces). They were, of course, seeking support from their Asian brothers in driving the imperialists from the region, amid heart-rending expositions of their suffering. “Our parent (sic) are not able to send their children to schools with a peace of mind, fearing they might be killed”. This clearly refers only to male children: parents of female children daren’t send their children to school because they might be killed by the Taliban. Farmers and traders are not able to go about their normal business because the Brits and Yanks might kill them. No Afghan farmer or trader ever got killed by the Tallies, after all. Anyway, they wrote to the leaders of the SCO asking for support. Any chance that they’ll get it?
Well, given that the Uzbeks are inclined to boil Taliban types alive, I imagine they’ll have one adverse vote. But what about the Chinese? They have maintained a studied neutrality in that part of the world. But do they have a dog in the fight? What stake do they have in Afghanistan, apart from the fact that it is a neighbour state thanks to about fourteen miles of border?
Quite a big one, actually. A recent Economist report pointed out that at Aynak, just south of Kabul, there is a huge copper mine, one of the biggest sources of copper in the world, and two years ago the Chinese invested more than $3 billion in it. After all, the SCO is really all about natural resources – if they don’t cooperate, the water wars of the later 21st century will be something to behold. And the Chinese know damn well that the Americans are a better bet to keep their investment safe than the Taliban. So I assume the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan got a dusty answer, if it got one at all.
But it’s amazing what the Chinese get away with in terms of poncing, mooching and bludging. The Afghan police force guarding the mine is funded by the Japanese. Security in the wider area is provided by the US Army. The Chinese don’t pay a single yuan, and retain the right to get all sniffy about “Western imperialism” in public. Still, at least they’re clear about which side their bread is ultimately buttered on.
But one event might make you perk up a bit: the Summiteers received an exploratory letter from an entity calling itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban to you, me and HM Armed Forces). They were, of course, seeking support from their Asian brothers in driving the imperialists from the region, amid heart-rending expositions of their suffering. “Our parent (sic) are not able to send their children to schools with a peace of mind, fearing they might be killed”. This clearly refers only to male children: parents of female children daren’t send their children to school because they might be killed by the Taliban. Farmers and traders are not able to go about their normal business because the Brits and Yanks might kill them. No Afghan farmer or trader ever got killed by the Tallies, after all. Anyway, they wrote to the leaders of the SCO asking for support. Any chance that they’ll get it?
Well, given that the Uzbeks are inclined to boil Taliban types alive, I imagine they’ll have one adverse vote. But what about the Chinese? They have maintained a studied neutrality in that part of the world. But do they have a dog in the fight? What stake do they have in Afghanistan, apart from the fact that it is a neighbour state thanks to about fourteen miles of border?
Quite a big one, actually. A recent Economist report pointed out that at Aynak, just south of Kabul, there is a huge copper mine, one of the biggest sources of copper in the world, and two years ago the Chinese invested more than $3 billion in it. After all, the SCO is really all about natural resources – if they don’t cooperate, the water wars of the later 21st century will be something to behold. And the Chinese know damn well that the Americans are a better bet to keep their investment safe than the Taliban. So I assume the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan got a dusty answer, if it got one at all.
But it’s amazing what the Chinese get away with in terms of poncing, mooching and bludging. The Afghan police force guarding the mine is funded by the Japanese. Security in the wider area is provided by the US Army. The Chinese don’t pay a single yuan, and retain the right to get all sniffy about “Western imperialism” in public. Still, at least they’re clear about which side their bread is ultimately buttered on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
