Britain And Saudi Arabia's Sickening Love-In

Yet again money talks, and all sense of justice and basic decency goes out the window- the UK has played host to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, spending our taxes on a lavish reception including a banquet with the Queen. This man and his regime aren't exactly reminiscent of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama- the attention and expenditure being lavished on the Saudis is based wholly and solely on money, given that the theocratic middle-eastern regime has control of large oil reserves and isn't shy about splashing out on military hardware manufactured in the UK.

Yes, everyone knows the importance of keeping other nations on your side, but there is a limit to what should be done. The UK may need Saudi oil and arms money, but likewise the Saudis need someone to sell their oil to and from whom to acquire their weapons of mass destruction- it's a game of give and take where both sides are mutually dependent.

I find it hard to watch western leaders lecture the world on human rights issues when they are happy to chomp on fine food in the company of people who oversee some of the worst abuses of people's rights anywhere in the world. Are the Saudis really so different from Saddam Hussein, save that they have been smart enough to keep on the right side of the Americans and British?

Abdullah's kingdom carries out public executions by beheading and stoning. While some people are also executed in private by firing squad, many executions are popular public attractions. Beheading is the punishment for murderers, rapists, drug traffickers and armed robbers, according to strict interpretation of Islamic law. In 2005, there were 191 executions, in 2006 there were 38 and as of July 2007 there were already 102 including three women.

In 2005, Saudi Arabia was designated by the United States Department of State (an ally nation of Saudi Arabia's, no less) as a Tier 3 country with respect to trafficking in human beings. Tier 3 countries are "Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so."

The Saudi government officially bans satellite television. Trade unions and political organisations are banned and public demonstrations are forbidden.

Political parties are also banned, but some political dissidents were freed in the 1990s on the condition that they disband their organisations. Only the Green Party of Saudi Arabia remains, although it is an illegal organisation.

I don't often turn down the offer of a free dinner, but I think if I had, for some bizarre reason, been invited to the banquet with Elizabeth II and Abdullah, I may have embarrassed myself by boking up at having to dine in the presence of such monsters and hyprocrites.

Globalisation: From the sweatshops of India to the factories of Limavady.

There have been a number of stories this week which bring home the often devastating human costs of economic globalisation. While globalisation has brought unprecedented growth to areas of the globe hitherto afflicted by economic backwardness it has had a profound impact on workers in both the developed and developing world.

It has recently emerged that the high-street chain Gap has been using factories employing child labour to produce often high-price clothing for a very low price. Gap are by no means the only company using ethically questionable labour; Mothercare, Primark, Asda and Tesco have been criticised by a recent Guardian report of using sweatshop labour in Bangladesh (this is especially concerning as Mothercare and Primark are signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative). Practices that have been outlawed in the West since the 1800s are commonplace in countries such as Bangladesh and India, which benefits Western consumers but at a cost to the workers in these countries.  The profit-margins are kept high at workers' expense in the fight to drive down costs.

The other side to globalisation is demonstrated by the announcement on Monday that the US-based microchip company Seagate is to outsource the work done in its plant in Limavady to Malaysia, citing the low cost of labour in the Southeast Asian country as the reason. Limavady is now to join the growing list of towns devastated by the lack of work as a result of outsourcing.
In indulging in the cheap goods flowing from countries which do not enforce their labour laws, often leading to Dickensian conditions, we in the West are feeding companys' incentives to outsource further. While families here benefit from these cheap garments and commodities it is often the same families which have their lives turned upside down when their jobs are taken away from them. Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' gives us cheap goods and takes our jobs at the same time while the only people benefiting are the bosses and shareholders of some of the already richest companies in the world.

Globalisation, despite the wishes of some people, will not go away so it needs to be made more equitable. There needs to be more effective enforcement of labour rights and trade unions must become more global to match the nature of the companies. As it stands, capital flows beyond borders but workers' rights and democracy does not. The bodies which govern the global economy must be reformed to rid them of the entrenched bias towards the vested interests of the G8 and the US Treasury and international law must be strengthened to regulate the activities of companies who disappear over borders in a way not seen since Bonnie and Clyde. It is only when the political and legal worlds catch up with economic one that globalisation will be in any way fair.

Time for a federal UK?

Almost 30 years after Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West Lothian, asked his question regarding the justness of non-English MPs voting on issues affecting England when MPs in England do not have such powers in other areas of the UK, is it now the time to ask if the anachronistic constitutional construct that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be changed?

There have been many adjustments in the last decade within the existing Union, namely the passing of the Scotland Act in 1998, the establishment of an Assembly for Wales, the repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 and the subsequent restoration of devolved government to the 6 counties. This has led to substantial policy differences in various parts of the UK, exacerbating the fears of those not benefiting from the new institutions. English, Welsh and Northern Irish students may well ask, with considerable justification, why they should have to pay tuition fees to study in Scotland while Scottish students and those outside the UK but in the EU do not; we are, after all, supposed to be in the same state.

An interesting development this week has been in the form of the recommendations of the Conservative and Unionist Party's 'Democracy Taskforce' which is chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Ken Clarke. Sir Malcolm Rifkind has written a paper promising wholesale reform of the way the House of Commons operates. This includes the creation of an English Grand Committee of English MPs only to operate on the floor of the House and to vote on matters decided by the Speaker to be of concern to English constituencies only. Welsh MPs are to sit on the committee on a provisional basis as the Welsh Assembly only has secondary legislative powers (surely this applies to Northern Ireland too?)

The main problem I foresee with this is with regard to money. Tax is levied by the central government in Westminster and a certain amount is allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in accordance to the calculations of the Barnett formula. The rest is to be spent on the whole of the country which seems unfair to the English who have no regional legislative body. What has not been made clear is the extent to which English MPs will use money for issues decided by the Speaker to affect English constituencies exclusively and voted on by the English Grand Committee. The issues may be decided to be of concern only to the English but the affect on public spending certainly will not be and this seems hypocritical given the problem that has spawned the whole debate. Furthermore, the majority of Conservative MPs are English and this carve-up would benefit the Tories disproportionately. This is why I believe England should have its own regional assembly such as in Holyrood and which gets its spending power decided by the same mechanism as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As the Scottish Nationalists argue, the Barnett formula allows for a 1% real term reduction in the Scottish allocation once inflation has been taken into account and it has no real legislative basis. The Treasury could easily get rid of the formula and enforce politically damaging cuts if devolved governments were not run by the same party as the one that governs in Westminster (I am thinking of the SNP in Holyrood in particular). Would it not make more sense to split sovereignty (and the power of the purse) between a central government and a number of regional legislative bodies (in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England)? These regional bodies could levy their own taxes to pay for expenditure exclusively spent on regional issues and the taxes levied by Westminster could be used on issues which concern the whole of the UK (to be decided by all Westminster MPs). This would ensure a less arbitrary way of deciding on the fiscal powers of the various regions and, importantly, it would ensure that the politicians who decide how much money is levied by tax and where it is spent are directly accountable to their local electorates. This is the only equitable solution to the West Lothian question that I can see.

Durkan Condemns 'Prime Minister' Robinson

SDLP Leader Mark Durkan slammed a statement issued this evening by the DUP's Peter Robinson. Mr Durkan accused Robinson of prejudging the Executive meeting scheduled for tomorrow and of seeking to reshape events to suit personal political priorities.

Robinson claimed that Margaret Ritchie "rushed to make her statement without keeping the conditions set out by the executive."

He added: "Before she made her statement the minister was warned by officials she would be breaching the ministerial code but chose to dismiss the advice. Under the new ministerial code every minister is bound by executive decisions and must act in accordance with those decisions. The ministerial code has statutory authority. The DSD minister has therefore breached the ministerial code."

However the Leader of the SDLP commented: "We had hoped that following the extraordinary scenes in the Assembly yesterday, Mr Robinson might have taken the time to reflect on his approach and pull back from his attacks on DSD Minister Margaret Ritchie. Instead, in an unprecedented statement this evening he has sought to rewrite events of recent weeks. He is now attempting to treat tomorrow’s Executive meeting as a kangaroo court against a Minister who has taken a good decision, on good grounds, in good conscience and in accordance with her Pledge of Office."

The Foyle MP added: "One is entitled to wonder whether we are watching him lose the run of himself or something more sinister, but it is nonetheless clear that Minister Robinson is overreaching his responsibilities. He thinks he runs the Executive, he’s trying to run the Civil Service and yesterday he sought to dictate to the Speaker. Mr Robinson’s ambition is well known, but the Prime Minister Peter act cannot be allowed to continue. His message to Margaret Ritchie is ‘don’t do what I do, do what I say'."

"That makes him a hypocrite and a bully. We await with interest to see whether Margaret Ritchie is the only Minister prepared to challenge his power grab.

"The events of recent days raise a number of serious political, procedural and constitutional questions. While others seek to create smokescreens and divert attention from these questions, the SDLP remains focussed and will be seeking answers in the days to come."

The DUP's behaviour on this issue is extremely bizarre. Why are they getting so worked up about the cutting of funding for this UDA-linked project? I thought the DUP was supposed to be the party of justice and the rule of law. They certainly didn't let the provos away with much while they held onto their guns.

The attempts by the DUP to score political points on this issue are disgraceful. Margaret Ritchie made the right decision. The public backs her. Let's hope this blows up in the face of the DUP like, well, a UDA bomb.

Job Well Done, Margaret Ritchie

I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development for standing firm against the UDA, despite attempts by elements from within and outside the Assembly to undermine her. It is quite clear that the UDA should not get their grubby fingers on a single penny of public money.

Of course it comes as no surprise that the DUP threw their toys out of the pram upon hearing the Minister's statement. What exactly do they want- a continuation of funding for those who refuse to decommission? Funny how they didn't display the same attitude in relation to the IRA in recent years. Hypocrisy of the highest order, methinks.

Sinn Féin weren't much better. In the Assembly today they repeatedly asked the Minister the wholly pointless question: "Have you been funding the UDA?" Sinn Féin and everyone else knows the nature of this scheme and the fact that it was inherited from the Direct Rulers. They had ample opportunity to raise questions about this funding both in the Executive and in the Assembly, but said nothing. If they were so concerned about who was receiving this cash, why didn't they call for the funding to be stopped the minute they walked through the doors of Stormont when power was devolved? Interesting how they waited until today to say anything in a vain attempt to win political points against Margaret. Thankfully, they failed miserably.

The fact is that the writing has been on the wall for the UDA and this project for some time. Margaret Ritchie informed the Executive of what was going on. The DUP and Sinn Féin could have raised their 'points' within the Executive, but instead they remained silent and let her get on with it. Then all of a sudden they act shocked at her decision and launch a completely misplaced and frankly embarrassing onslaught on the Minister on the floor of the house.

Thankfully the Alliance had a bit of decency and backed Margaret, unlike the two biggest parties. The Ulster Unionists said nothing in the chamber of consequence, apart from asking about the fate of people employed by the scheme. It wouldn't have killed them to have had the balls to back the Minister, but they don't know whether they're coming or going these days.

At last someone in Stormont is taking real action. The love-in is all well and good for the cameras, but the DUP and Sinn Féin have been too busy enjoying cups of tea and patting each other on the back to start making a real difference to the lives of people here.

Margaret Ritchie has shown the steel and determination to stand up to the UDA and the DUP/ Sinn Féin axis and start to dismantle the mess left by the British Government on this issue. For that, she deserves the full backing of all right-thinking democrats.

We Got Slated

I noticed a sudden jump in visitor numbers to El Blogador over the past day or so. It turns out that a Slate article linked to my piece yesterday on the Armenian Genocide. Well that's my name put on the USA's banned visitors' list now ;)

Bush Denies Armenian Genocide For Political Reasons

You would have thought that the American President would have wanted to keep a low profile on the international scene given his disastrous foray into Iraq.

Unfortunately George W Bush doesn't think logically like the rest of us.

With the US Congress intending to vote on whether the Armenian Genocide was, erm, a genocide, Bush has intervened to call on them to reject the move to recognise the killings as such.

The move by Congress relates to the forcible deportation and massacre of up to around 1.5 million Armenians by Turks from 1915 to 1917. To date 21 countries have officially recognised it as genocide.

However, Bush claims that it would do "great harm" to relations with Turkey if Congress passed the resolution, saying: "This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings."

But don't kid yourself that Bush's reaction is due to him having completed some sort of in-depth historical analysis of events, leading him to conclude that it was not in fact a genocide. It's a little more than coincidental that America is currently reliant on Turkey as a key ally in its War of on Terror. Indeed, US Secretary Of State Condoleezza Rice said that the legislation could provoke Turkey to withdraw its cooperation with the US on Iraq, and added: "The passage of this resolution at this time would be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East."

No mention of the facts or figures of the events of 1915-17 there. Just talk of another latter-day killing spree.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that 70% of US air cargo destined for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about one-third of the fuel used by the US military in Iraq. He added: "Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will."

No mention of the millions of Armenians that died at the hands of the Turks there either, funnily enough. There's a bit of a pattern starting to emerge.

I suppose Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just a couple of small fireworks.

This is the kind of self-serving attitude that has gotten the USA into so much bother in the past when it comes to international relations. For Bush and many of his predecessors, it has nothing to do with what is right or wrong, but rather a question of what suits the American Presidency best. Morality and justice don't come into it. We saw the same sort of buffoonery during US interventions in Latin America in the 1970s. It seems that some people never learn.

Hopefully, with the Democrats having won control of Congress, they'll ignore the selfish rants of the Bush regime and do the right thing- it would certainly make a change from America's recent track record in relation to international affairs which have been abominable to say the least.

More Holes Than A Block Of Swiss Cheese

Derry INLA has discovered that a senior person in its ranks has been doubling as a British agent for two decades. The paramilitary organisation found out that the man had been passing information to both MI5 and Special Branch since 1985.

Apparently he was a central figure in the organisation throughout the 1980s and 1990s and would have been aware of INLA 'operations' in the city.

Of course, this comes as no surprise. Whether it's the provos, Irps or indeed loyalists, it's been obvious for years that the British infiltrated the north's armed organisations to such an extent that each of them was compromised beyond belief- Donaldson in the IRA, collusion between North Belfast UVF and the security forces, and now this senior INLA operative in Derry- the line between British state and paramilitary groups was hopelessly blurred.

What still has to be revealed is the extent to which each of our friendly neighbourhood terrorist groups was infiltrated. If you'd asked the British Government twenty years ago where they'd like paramilitary organisations to end up, the chances are that they would have said a) decommissioned and participating in the democratic process, or b) reduced to nothing more than an ineffective handful of irrelevant armchair generals- looking at the situation we have now, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: the provos became the former, the INLA (and increasingly the loyalist organisations) the latter. This clearly didn't come about by accident- it's obviously by design.

As the process moves forward, it's only a matter of time before more truths of the Troubles leak out. Watch this space.