My namesake, Christopher Davies, was killed in Afghanistan last month, The 22 year old from St Helens served in the 1st Battalion Irish Guards; he was hit by small arms fire while taking part in a security patrol in Helmand province. By all accounts, and there are many of them, he was a model professional soldier and a very popular man with all who knew him.
The European Parliament has just expressed its views on the need for a new strategy in Afghanistan. It says nothing that can't be found from other sources but is still worth citing.
It says that a revised strategy should face up to the deterioration both in security and in socio-economic indicators in Afghanistan despite almost a decade of international involvement.
The insurgency is financed largely by the money extracted by war lords and local mafia bosses to protect the US military supply chain. We are paying for the weapons used against us.
The number of people living below the poverty threshold has more than doubled since we commenced military operations.
Up to 80% of international aid has never reached the people of Afghanistan. Most US aid never leaves the USA.
Scant regard has been paid by the international community to the involvement of Afghan people.
Afghanistan is today the source of 90% of the world’s illicit opium yet when coalition forces entered Kabul in 2001 no opium poppies were being grown in the country. The opium trade now accounts for 26% of Afghan GDP, with most of the money going to government officials and regional brokers (only 4% to the Taliban).
Of 94,000 men in the Afghan National Police 90% are illiterate and 30% go missing within a year of joining.
Parliament recognised that negotiations with the Taliban are essential for a political solution.
If we had really tried very hard indeed, would it have been possible for us to have made an even worse mess of things than this?
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
CAMERON WAS RIGHT – PARLIAMENT BLINKS FIRST
When David Cameron announced that he had agreed with other leaders an EU budget increase of 2.9% , and that was that, I accused him of not having read the Lisbon Treaty. “Was he not aware that the European Parliament had equal powers in the making of the budget?” I asked.
Whether or not he has read the Treaty the Prime Minister got the politics right and I got them wrong. In the face of the European Council’s refusal to change its position, the European Parliament simply backed down.
So much for my assertion last month that the Parliament was “united and determined” in demanding future negotiating concessions.
A majority of MEPs supported a 6% budget increase by way of an opening gambit, but negotiators abandoned this almost immediately. The real battle was to try and secure arrangements for involvement of the Parliament in preparing long term budget plans, and for discussing transfer of funds between different budget lines. These ended up being shunted off into the long grass for debate at another time.
Why did the Parliament give in so easily and so meekly? Our negotiators argue that they secured an increased level of future expenditure commitments, but I'm not convinced that this is worth a great deal. In my view, faced with the option of no increase in the budget at all, no new External Action Service, and payments to farmers and for regional development being curtailed, a majority of MEPs simply backed down.
A 2.9% increase and nothing definite on negotiating rights suddenly seemed attractive when compared to hearing David Cameron utter the words: “No budget increase at all? Make my day!”
Whether or not he has read the Treaty the Prime Minister got the politics right and I got them wrong. In the face of the European Council’s refusal to change its position, the European Parliament simply backed down.
So much for my assertion last month that the Parliament was “united and determined” in demanding future negotiating concessions.
A majority of MEPs supported a 6% budget increase by way of an opening gambit, but negotiators abandoned this almost immediately. The real battle was to try and secure arrangements for involvement of the Parliament in preparing long term budget plans, and for discussing transfer of funds between different budget lines. These ended up being shunted off into the long grass for debate at another time.
Why did the Parliament give in so easily and so meekly? Our negotiators argue that they secured an increased level of future expenditure commitments, but I'm not convinced that this is worth a great deal. In my view, faced with the option of no increase in the budget at all, no new External Action Service, and payments to farmers and for regional development being curtailed, a majority of MEPs simply backed down.
A 2.9% increase and nothing definite on negotiating rights suddenly seemed attractive when compared to hearing David Cameron utter the words: “No budget increase at all? Make my day!”
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
DON'T PLAY GAMES WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
I thought the opening of my climate change speech was rather good. "I have no interest in football," I said, "but I have seen pictures of the manager of a team playing its last game of the season, 2-1 down, and facing relegation, and in considering the outcome of the Cancun conference I thought of our Climate Action Commissioner.
The manager is saved by the scoring of a goal. The result is a draw. A vital point is secured and relegation avoided.
"It's not a triumph. But it's not a defeat. The manager lives to fight another day."
Guaranteed to maintain attention I thought.
Commissioner Connie Hedegaard responded: "Let me first respond to Mr Davies. I'm very sorry but I follow football even less than he does, and I did not quite understand the analogy."
Oh well. Back to the writing desk.
The manager is saved by the scoring of a goal. The result is a draw. A vital point is secured and relegation avoided.
"It's not a triumph. But it's not a defeat. The manager lives to fight another day."
Guaranteed to maintain attention I thought.
Commissioner Connie Hedegaard responded: "Let me first respond to Mr Davies. I'm very sorry but I follow football even less than he does, and I did not quite understand the analogy."
Oh well. Back to the writing desk.
Monday, 13 December 2010
ISRAEL HELPS HAMAS
One of my Italian colleagues, Niccolo Rinaldi, has just returned from Gaza. He reports that Israel's partial lifting of the blockade has ensured that there are plenty of goods in the shops, although with 70% of the population receiving UN food aid there aren't many being bought. Worryingly, he also reports that there are very few women now to be seen on the streets of this teeming conurbation - in stark contrast to the situation in the more secular West Bank townships. His comment reminded me of a conversation I had in Gaza nearly 5 years ago with the wives of two Palestinan businessmen. It was soon after the elections that had brought Hamas to power, and they were both in tracksuits having just returned from the gym: "They'll have us all in burkas," they predicted.
Niccolo told me that, at their peak, there were 1,400 smuggling tunnels in operation between Gaza and Egypt, the entrances on both sides plainly visible and swarming with people and goods. Since the partial lifting of the blockade these had been reduced to 400, with some of them big enough to drive a car through. "And at the entrance to each there is a Hamas man, collecting "tax" on the goods in transit. Israel's blockade presented Hamas with its major source of income."
"It is, without doubt," he said, "the most stupid policy I have come across in all the years that I have followed foreign affairs."
Niccolo told me that, at their peak, there were 1,400 smuggling tunnels in operation between Gaza and Egypt, the entrances on both sides plainly visible and swarming with people and goods. Since the partial lifting of the blockade these had been reduced to 400, with some of them big enough to drive a car through. "And at the entrance to each there is a Hamas man, collecting "tax" on the goods in transit. Israel's blockade presented Hamas with its major source of income."
"It is, without doubt," he said, "the most stupid policy I have come across in all the years that I have followed foreign affairs."
Sunday, 12 December 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE – THE BALL IS STILL ROLLING
Even if every country does what it says it will do, world temperatures will rise by 4 degrees centigrade over the next century. That’s the best-guess scientific prediction.
A temperature rise of this magnitude would force hundreds of millions of people to move or risk death, so it’s extreme in itself. (Where do these people move to without giving rise to enormous political unrest?). But it also gives rise to the prospect of run-away climate change, leading, for example, to the release of methane from frozen tundra that will accelerate the process of global warming.
All this sounds fanciful when it’s cold outside. It’s hard to appreciate that across the world 2010 will go down as one of the warmest years on record, and that average global temperatures just keep going up and up. The climate change sceptics have an easy time arguing their case to a shivering public.
So one of the most important things to have come out of the UN’s climate change conference at Cancun is a reminder that every government in the world is expressing concern about climate change and saying that we must take action to curb it. Only Bolivia registered its reluctance to support the final document – because it didn’t go far enough.
The European Union had a minimum objective for these talks, it was to keep the ball rolling. The result has exceeded its expectations by quite a margin. UK environment secretary Chris Huhne can take a share of the credit for this by hammering out an agreement on the future of the Kyoto Protocol (which places obligations on only a limited number of countries) that kept everyone on board. I didn’t have the impression that my former MEP colleague took much interest in the global warming debate when he was in the European Parliament, but he’s proved himself a quick learner and an effective practitioner.
It’s been a miserable year for all those involved in trying to persuade governments across the world to recognise the need for action. The failure at Copenhagen sucked momentum from a negotiating process that requires the consent of every nation on the planet. It strengthened the resistance of those who would argue, not unreasonably, that the EU cannot take measures of its own in isolation without the risk of losing more jobs.
But now the process has new life. The USA is still failing to provide leadership but it has joined with other developed countries in agreeing to start helping poorer countries meet the costs of climate change, and to curb the destruction of forests. Both India and China have shown a willingness to take the agenda forward, and they have agreed to international monitoring of emissions; this represents a major retreat for the notion of national sovereignty and acceptance that we are all in this together and must be able to trust one another. Who knows, maybe my meeting in China with key environmental legislators a month ago contributed a little bit to the change in mood.
The agreed target is to stop temperatures rising above 2 degrees centigrade. It’s a target that is probably already too late to achieve, and the measures announced so far are nothing like sufficient, but the agreement means that we can return to this year after year with new proposals for taking the agenda forward. We can ratchet up the requirements and obligations.
Next step for European politicians will be to consider raising our CO2 emissions reduction target for 2020 from 20% to 30%, setting an example and helping to promote low carbon investments. A month ago I would have said that prospects for securing agreement for this from EU governments were minimal. Now they are better – I go no further than that.
A temperature rise of this magnitude would force hundreds of millions of people to move or risk death, so it’s extreme in itself. (Where do these people move to without giving rise to enormous political unrest?). But it also gives rise to the prospect of run-away climate change, leading, for example, to the release of methane from frozen tundra that will accelerate the process of global warming.
All this sounds fanciful when it’s cold outside. It’s hard to appreciate that across the world 2010 will go down as one of the warmest years on record, and that average global temperatures just keep going up and up. The climate change sceptics have an easy time arguing their case to a shivering public.
So one of the most important things to have come out of the UN’s climate change conference at Cancun is a reminder that every government in the world is expressing concern about climate change and saying that we must take action to curb it. Only Bolivia registered its reluctance to support the final document – because it didn’t go far enough.
The European Union had a minimum objective for these talks, it was to keep the ball rolling. The result has exceeded its expectations by quite a margin. UK environment secretary Chris Huhne can take a share of the credit for this by hammering out an agreement on the future of the Kyoto Protocol (which places obligations on only a limited number of countries) that kept everyone on board. I didn’t have the impression that my former MEP colleague took much interest in the global warming debate when he was in the European Parliament, but he’s proved himself a quick learner and an effective practitioner.
It’s been a miserable year for all those involved in trying to persuade governments across the world to recognise the need for action. The failure at Copenhagen sucked momentum from a negotiating process that requires the consent of every nation on the planet. It strengthened the resistance of those who would argue, not unreasonably, that the EU cannot take measures of its own in isolation without the risk of losing more jobs.
But now the process has new life. The USA is still failing to provide leadership but it has joined with other developed countries in agreeing to start helping poorer countries meet the costs of climate change, and to curb the destruction of forests. Both India and China have shown a willingness to take the agenda forward, and they have agreed to international monitoring of emissions; this represents a major retreat for the notion of national sovereignty and acceptance that we are all in this together and must be able to trust one another. Who knows, maybe my meeting in China with key environmental legislators a month ago contributed a little bit to the change in mood.
The agreed target is to stop temperatures rising above 2 degrees centigrade. It’s a target that is probably already too late to achieve, and the measures announced so far are nothing like sufficient, but the agreement means that we can return to this year after year with new proposals for taking the agenda forward. We can ratchet up the requirements and obligations.
Next step for European politicians will be to consider raising our CO2 emissions reduction target for 2020 from 20% to 30%, setting an example and helping to promote low carbon investments. A month ago I would have said that prospects for securing agreement for this from EU governments were minimal. Now they are better – I go no further than that.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
WHAT NICK CLEGG MUST DO NEXT
The Liberal Democrats have been damaged by our divisions over tuition fees. The strongly held views of different MPs couldn’t be reconciled, and our role in government meant that we couldn’t share with Labour the luxury of being able to criticise without explaining how we would fund higher education.
Nick Clegg’s authority has taken a blow, but it is one from which he can recover. He will appreciate as never before that the inescapable rule for all political parties is that whether they do things well, or do things badly, they must do them together. Our influence over government policy depends upon us being reliable partners and our leader being able to deliver the votes.
Within the party Nick is unchallenged, but a lot of our MPs will be saying: “please don’t put us through that again.”
Morale has been shaken, and Nick needs now to rally the troops.
He should start with some mea culpa. It’s clear that the situation has not been handled well even if it’s unclear how it could have been handled better. Nick will need to provide reassurance that similar situations will be avoided in future, that elephant traps will be identified before we fall into them, and that MPs will have a greater chance to influence decisions before they are announced.
He can remind the parliamentary party that this is our first opportunity in generations to shape government policy. Liberal Democrats can be proud of measures that take the lowest paid out of tax, of commitments to democratic reform, and of helping some Conservatives (think Ken Clarke) release their ‘inner Liberal’. We can be pleased to have forged a pragmatic policy on Europe, halted the renewal of Trident, and stopped the Tories widening the income gap between generations by raising the inheritance tax threshold.
Nick can admit that there is bound to be more pain to come, but this is the price to be paid for being in government at a time of financial crisis. He can urge them to take no sanctimonious nonsense from a Labour Party that destroyed the country’s finances in the first place.
And, of course, he can lift the spirits of our MPs by being positive about the future. The hard bits have to be done now so that the good bits can follow.
A week is a long time in politics and there are 4 years to go before the general election. Liberal Democrats will be judged by our record over the lifetime of the Government, not by a single decision.
Nothing that has occurred in the debate over tuition fees will prevent Nick from being able to claim with good reason that that the record will prove to be a proud one.
Nick Clegg’s authority has taken a blow, but it is one from which he can recover. He will appreciate as never before that the inescapable rule for all political parties is that whether they do things well, or do things badly, they must do them together. Our influence over government policy depends upon us being reliable partners and our leader being able to deliver the votes.
Within the party Nick is unchallenged, but a lot of our MPs will be saying: “please don’t put us through that again.”
Morale has been shaken, and Nick needs now to rally the troops.
He should start with some mea culpa. It’s clear that the situation has not been handled well even if it’s unclear how it could have been handled better. Nick will need to provide reassurance that similar situations will be avoided in future, that elephant traps will be identified before we fall into them, and that MPs will have a greater chance to influence decisions before they are announced.
He can remind the parliamentary party that this is our first opportunity in generations to shape government policy. Liberal Democrats can be proud of measures that take the lowest paid out of tax, of commitments to democratic reform, and of helping some Conservatives (think Ken Clarke) release their ‘inner Liberal’. We can be pleased to have forged a pragmatic policy on Europe, halted the renewal of Trident, and stopped the Tories widening the income gap between generations by raising the inheritance tax threshold.
Nick can admit that there is bound to be more pain to come, but this is the price to be paid for being in government at a time of financial crisis. He can urge them to take no sanctimonious nonsense from a Labour Party that destroyed the country’s finances in the first place.
And, of course, he can lift the spirits of our MPs by being positive about the future. The hard bits have to be done now so that the good bits can follow.
A week is a long time in politics and there are 4 years to go before the general election. Liberal Democrats will be judged by our record over the lifetime of the Government, not by a single decision.
Nothing that has occurred in the debate over tuition fees will prevent Nick from being able to claim with good reason that that the record will prove to be a proud one.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
TUITION FEES: THIS IS NO TIME TO ABSTAIN
Splits weaken parties, and sometimes destroy them. The reputation of the Liberal Democrat brand is being undermined with each passing hour as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless.
The case for supporting the recommendations of the Browne inquiry is strong, and if I were in the Commons I would be voting with Nick. The real damage to the party comes not from our adjusting course to take account of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place.
Some Liberal Democrats will vote for the recommendations, some against. Some want to defer the vote, others want to abstain. In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke.
I would rather us have a reputation for being tough (but fair) bastards than for being indecisive.
Liberal Democrat MPs must now decide how to vote. If they want to limit the damage there should be only two options for them to consider . Either they vote for the recommendations, recognising that they provide funding for higher education in a progressive manner that protects those on lowest incomes, or they vote against on grounds of individual conscience.
There are times when an abstention is an honourable third option. This is not one of them.
The case for supporting the recommendations of the Browne inquiry is strong, and if I were in the Commons I would be voting with Nick. The real damage to the party comes not from our adjusting course to take account of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place.
Some Liberal Democrats will vote for the recommendations, some against. Some want to defer the vote, others want to abstain. In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke.
I would rather us have a reputation for being tough (but fair) bastards than for being indecisive.
Liberal Democrat MPs must now decide how to vote. If they want to limit the damage there should be only two options for them to consider . Either they vote for the recommendations, recognising that they provide funding for higher education in a progressive manner that protects those on lowest incomes, or they vote against on grounds of individual conscience.
There are times when an abstention is an honourable third option. This is not one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
