Iraq
June 30, 2004
(For Noticias)
One of the most fascinating things about the British political system is the obsession with holding inquiries into recent events. In many societies, governments only reluctantly concede inquiries when they are in desperate problems. In Britain they are a form of pre-emptive strike to head off future criticism or opposition.
After 9/11 Tony Blair declared Britain would stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA, and later said that there may be a blood price to pay for the relationship with our neighbours over the North Atlantic. The first payment was made in Afghanistan where, from miles up in the sky, US planes bombed an unsuspecting population, some of whom had probably never heard of Osama Bin Laden.
The success of Afghanistan is plain to see: an appointed Government that has trouble leaving Kabul; drug production at pre Taliban levels; and a looming election campaign between warlord Dostum and the appointed Karzai.
A few months later, in spring 2002, Blair and Bush met in the odd surroundings of the Presidents dude ranch at Crawford, Texas. Many believe that was when the decision to go to war in Iraq was made and that the assertions of Weapons of Mass Destruction and even Iraqi involvement in 9/11 were essentially about buying time to deploy troops, and to prepare for the actual war which began 11 months later.
Bush never really claimed the issue of WMDs was of paramount importance. Why should he? His purposes were part of the Project for a New American century, which essentially saw the US as controlling energy supplies, and being the major military force in the world. Since the US had supplied Iraq in the past, it was obvious that there were reasons for not over-stating the obvious.
Tony Blair on the other hand, faced with huge domestic opposition, persistently claimed that he was determined to operate within international law, and that the purpose of the entire policy was to disarm Iraq. We had the dossier produced in September 2002, the first UN resolution, and then the United Nations Weapons Inspectors. As the opposition to the war grew with a huge 200,000 strong demonstration in London in September 2002 as a pointer to public opinion, Blair relied heavily on the truth of the WMD argument and the UN approval. But he failed to gain a second UN resolution and joined Bush in preventing Hans Blix, the Chief Weapons Inspector, from returning to Iraq in January 2003.
In the face of Britain’s biggest ever demonstration of February 15th, Blair won Parliamentary approval for the war. This was significant as it is the first time ever that Parliament has had the opportunity to vote for a war. The vote was won with Tory support and opposition of 139 Labour MPs, the biggest ever Parliamentary rebellion against the leadership of a ruling Party.
As soon as the war “ended” on May 1st, Blair wanted to be exonerated, hence inquiries were set up by the Parliamentary Select Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Defence, neither of which produced any serious criticism. They structured their investigations into anything but the main issue on the justice of the war and its effects. The Intelligence Services Select Committee is unique. Its members are appointed by the Prime Minister, and report to the Prime Minister. It found little wrong; which was a huge surprise!
Following the death of Dr David Kelly, the public inquiry headed by Lord Hutton was dramatic and far reaching, and very searching in its questions, but fundamentally wrong in its conclusions. The Chair, Chief Executive and Defence Correspondent of the BBC did not declare war, and did not mislead or deceive people, yet were forced to resign. The editor of the Daily Mirror was the most outspoken against the war, and therefore his later resignation was a result of “shareholder” pressure.
Blair’s problem was that at the end of this, nobody was any more convinced of the justice of the war, than they had been at the time of the big march, so he set up another inquiry under Lord Butler to look at Intelligence.
This report was debated in Parliament just before the summer recess. It is a typically British Civil Service Report; beautifully written and presented but never really conclusive. Apparently everybody bears responsibility, nobody misled anybody and we must all understand that. Thus information that was plain wrong and published, is unchallenged and the results of the war are ignored. Parliament was misled into believing that Iraq was a threat; the sources of much of this evidence were people who wanted the war anyway but nobody is to be criticised.
Meanwhile in Iraq the death toll mounts. 15,000 Iraqi civilian have died since March 2003, nearly 1,000 US and British troops, and an unknown but very large number of Iraqi conscripts. Al Qaida, who certainly were not in Iraq in the past, are very definitely there now, and the chaos continues.
The anti war movement were never supporters of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath regime, indeed many of us opposed arms sales to Iraq in the 1980s. We opposed the war to save lives and stop the US warmongers in their tracks. We did not succeed but have built a movement around the world that has helped to isolate Bush, and hopefully prevent war against Iran or Syria.
As for the inquiries; the one that has not been held is how the political decision making happened on both sides of the Atlantic. Wars kill, maim and destroy lives. But some people make money from arms sales and oil and “reconstruction”. The victors are faceless and very rich.
Selling off the libraries
June 25, 2004
(From Highbury & Islington Gazette)
In 1952 Islington Council proudly opened a new library in Hanley Road in a modern building on two floors. For 52 years, the Arthur Simpson Library has kept pace with the times, provided a reading, recreating and learning environment for the people of the area. It has been loved and used; it has been a place of discovery for generations of inquisitive youngsters.
I received a list of Islington Council properties for disposal and there was the library which is no longer a place of learning but a “development opportunity”. It will be sold off to the highest bidder, and the social value of the site lost in the lottery of an auction.
The Council defends their action on the grounds that a new library has opened in Blackstock Road, alongside the new City and Islington College building. This is true, and I am delighted about the library and the building. But the point is, a new library is needed and welcome in Finsbury Park but I doubt that any youngsters from the estates on Crouch Hill will be allowed to make the journey on their own. The result of all this is that the Council receives a tidy sum for a building, the people lose a library and a public facility.
The new College in Blackstock Road is an amazing building, and the high point of the last month for me was opening the Adult Learners Week in the splendour of the Government funded new building. This is what further education is all about: providing those who either could not or did not achieve (at school) a new opportunity. It also provides for refugees from troubled and war torn lands, to educate and contribute to our community. Well done City and Islington for opening the doors of education to so many.
The sale of the library is not my only concern. In the big sale last year when the Council disposed of a huge portfolio of properties in a job lot for £34 millions, it included the freeholds of community centres and some commercial properties. The buyers, Derwent Valley Properties, paid £200,000 for The Factory Community Centre. This is a former piano factory in Matthias Road, Newington Green, and for many years has been part funded by Islington and Hackney as it is on the border of two Boroughs. Of late, Council funding has been reduced but the Centre has been adept and successful, at raising funds to cover its needs. It had plans to establish a community nursery in the derelict premises next door. Islington Council obdurately refused to provide a signed lease, then sold the building to Derwent Valley without even giving the community an option, say or alternative. The property company have now offered to sell the premises to the Factory, for well over three times the sum they paid. So much for all the guarantees the community were given when the Council embarked on this crazy sales policy.
As if this is not enough. For the want of a small grant for core funding, the Council ensured the closure of the purpose built Ormond Road Workshops, which gave craft space, tuition, opportunity and space for everyone including many with learning difficulties. The closure of the centre has been followed by vandalism and neglect, and no opportunity for craft learning. It is an appalling waste of resources and a very poor message to the community as a whole.
All is not bad news. The six Sure Start schemes across Islington are helping many children to get a good start in life, and many hard pressed parents into College or work. This is one with community nurseries, toy libraries, training, advice and support. I attended the annual meeting of Holloway Sure Start at the Andover Community Centre and was impressed by its achievements, and the confidence it gave to so many parents. It is a shame that in stark contrast, Council cuts in youth services have resulted, according to the Children’s Fund, in 500 places on holiday play schemes being lost. There is not much point in complaining about youth hanging round with nothing to do if we take away their facilities, or charge so that the places are not taken up.
Housing is a huge issue for everyone, especially for families living in substandard or overcrowded conditions. I have been very critical of the lack of investment in new homes for Council and/or Housing Association tenants. If we rely on market mechanisms, the issue will not be solved, so I do support London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s call for half of all the homes in new housing developments to be kept for people in need of affordable rented accommodation.
There has been some good news: the London Housing Board has allocated £8 millions for the Tollington Estates which together with money from sales and housing investment means that over £30 millions is to be spent on making life better for these tenants. I hope that Homes for Islington now get on with it quickly and make the estates more secure and better to live in. All our children deserve a decent home to grow up in. We must all make demands for new affordable housing to be built, to maintain the great diversity which is our Borough.
Chagos Islands
June 23, 2004
Last week in the High Court the plight of the Chagos islanders, the plucky group thrown off Diego Garcia and the archipelago over 30 years ago, once again was being aired. This time it was an application for the right to appeal against the refusal of the courts to allow a claim for compensation for the hardship they have suffered in over 20 years of poverty and isolation in Mauritius and the Seychelles.
The three judges sagely listened to the case and gave a reserved judgement. Once again, the ever patient Chagossians have to wait for permission to have their day in court. However, the Foreign Office is not so patient nor so open in its dealings.
Whilst the rest of the political community in Britain was concerned with the Local and European elections on June 10th, the Foreign Office was bothering her Majesty.
They asked her to approve two innocuous sounding orders in Council, namely the British Indian Ocean Territory (Legislation) Order 2004 and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, which she duly did.
These orders have horrendous consequences for the Islanders, and for anyone concerned about justice and peace. They effectively veto the decisions of the Courts in Britain in 2000 which granted the Islanders the Right of Return to their homes.
To understand the significance of this it is necessary to go back to the Cold War and the Vietnam War. In the 1960s the USA was desperate to get a base in the Indian Ocean for its long-range nuclear bomber aircraft and a staging post between Europe and the far east. The British Government of Harold Wilson was politically supportive of the US in Vietnam, but keen not to get militarily involved, and under pressure agreed that a base could be built on the largest of the Chagos Islands, Diego Garcia.
The problem was that there was an indigenous population both on Diego Garcia and the other islands of the archipelago some distance away. The Foreign Office, memorably, did not think this would be a problem and thought the population to be the equivalent of “Man Fridays” in the story of Robinson Crusoe. The Chagossians were living on plantations growing coconuts and on fishing, all employed by one company.
To clear the islands, those who went to Mauritius for education or medical needs found themselves unable to return, over time the rest of the population were rounded up, put on ships and taken to the Seychelles or Mauritius and simply dumped there.
This was envisaged from the 1966 Treaty between the USA and Britain which was to allow a “facility” for the US on Diego Garcia. In American documents it was revelealed that they required the Islands to be “fully sanitised” and “swept”. Even more specifically British documents at that time described the objectives as “to ensure that Britain and the United States should be able to clear the territory of its current population”.
In 1966, the then Permanent Secretary of the Colonial Office, Dennis Greenhill, wrote that “the object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls, who have not yet got a Committee (the Status of Women Committee does not cover birds).” He then added in ink “that unfortunately, along with the birds go some few Tarzans and Men Fridays, whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to Mauritius etc. When this has been done I agree we must be tough”.
When the last Chagossians had been removed and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles the “communications facility” was rapidly built, and now boasts two and half mile runways, a deep water port and 4000 US service people. For nearly thirty years it has been used by all the high technology planes of the US. From the pristine waters of the Indian Ocean the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq has proceeded.
The British and Americans thought that the inconvenience of the people had gone away. Years of legal actions have won an initial compensation payment into a Trust Fund in Mauritius which was largely swallowed up by land agents, and the community continues to live in poverty in tin shacks around Port Louis. I visited many of these families two years ago and saw the human tragedies of being removed from a settled and sustainable way of life, to being paupers with a dream of returning home.
In 2000 a Court action brought by the Chagossians enabled them to legally return to the Islands under British law. A year later the British Overseas Territories Bill was amended by the Foreign Office after Parliamentary pressure from Tam Dalyell and myself to allow all Chagossians the right of British citizenship and thus residence in the UK or the British Indian Ocean Territories. A feasibility study was conducted on the prospects of returning and living there, and the Foreign Office even went so far as to charter a ship to take a group back on a visit. The arrangements foundered when there was a point blank refusal to countenance any visit to Diego Garcia, even the area not covered by the base, to visit graves and ancestral places.
Then a long period of silent inaction, and the bombshell of the Order in Council that achieves everything that the secret deals of the 1960s wanted.
It seems the long arm of the US military action around the world can disregard law and justice, and to fit in with this, the Foreign Office is prepared to forget Parliament and ride over the Courts.
The outer islands are empty save for occasional sheltering yachters, the British Indian Ocean Territory administration collects an income from fishing licences and spends it on itself. The islanders have shown over thirty years that the hurt and the wrong of 1966 will no go away.
Last Wednesday in answer to a question tabled by Tam Dalyell about aid the Department of International Development junior Minister told me that the orders were because life on the islands was not feasible or sustainable!
Polling Day
June 16, 2004
The only significant success for Labour last week was Ken Livingstone’s victory in London. Ken won with a large majority and polled significantly above the Labour vote in the London assembly elections and the European poll.
Having spent a lot of time campaigning, the feeling I got was one of anger at the war in Iraq, not just for the decision to go to war and its consequences, but for the way in which the decision was taken. It is a question of trust and the arguments that were used.
At no time outside total war has foreign policy dominated British politics for so long, and this still shows no signs of changing. The perceived wisdom from the Downing Street spin machine has been that the public should “move on” and that the issue will pass. The problem is that having committed troops to the US war plan, then engaged in the occupation, we now have the problem of the non-existent exit strategy.
The United Nations vote last week has been hailed by the US and Britain as an endorsement of the strategy. In reality it is more of a recognition of the current position in Iraq; there is no UN force and the United States will continue to command the forces in consultation with the Iraqi administration which it itself appointed. Britain is the junior partner. The political fortunes of the Iraqi people are in the hands of the requirements of the United States policy objectives. From the British domestic point of view the fate of the labour government hinges on two forces over which we have no control; George Bush, and opposition forces in Iraq.
So far, Downing Street has shown no signs of learning any of the lessons of all this; indeed the various Ministers put up to defend the Government since the debacle of last Thursday and Sunday, all try to dismiss the anti Labour vote as a “mid term free hit”.
Whilst waiting impatiently for the London Mayor’s result last Friday I was forced to watch some of the Reagan funeral. A good show for a man who was the cold warrior of all time, illegally waging war in Central America, bombing Libya, and slashing welfare budgets for the poor. To be eulogised by Thatcher at least is historically consistent, but to then be praised by Tony Blair seems to me to have been a diplomatic shift too far, and merely demonstrates how New Labour sees Atlanticism above all else.
Whilst it is true that Labour Governments in the past have had bad local election results and recovered from them, or not as the case may be, this time the Party came third in the aggregate poll; to find a historical parallel a diligent researcher must go back to before the First World War.
In examining the results, the patterns seem to show that London was only better for Labour due to Ken Livingstone and his excellent record of opposition to the war, and positive support for his transport improvements.
Whilst the racist British National Party did not succeed in gaining European or London Assembly seats, they did gain some Council seats, and their support demonstrates what happens when xenophobic and racist bile is not adequately challenged. More worrying is the surge of support for the UK Independence Party which tries to present itself as merely concerned about overwhelming powers of the European Commission whilst it really represents a very right wing political agenda and is designed to attract xenophobic support. There is an issue of democracy in European decision making, there is a huge issue of the convergence criteria, and the powers of the Maastricht Treaty over national budgets, and these are issues the left should take up more in cooperation with left parties and Trade Unions across Europe.
The important lesson for Labour and the Left is, what happens now.
Livingstone’s success shows there is popular appeal for an anti war agenda within the Labour Party, and there’s support for increased public spending to fund transport and social objectives. The loss of support for Labour elsewhere demonstrates not only an anger over the war, but also serious concerns over private finance in the running of public services, this agenda for private sector values being one that is being imposed by central government.
The eternal question facing many on the left, some who are leaving the Labour Party, has to be answered. The results do show anger and concern at the labour government but do not show huge swathes of support over the whole country for a left alternative to Labour. Whilst Respect did well in East London, it was not a pattern that was followed nationally. Indeed, with all the crises facing the Labour Government, now is surely the time to be arguing to retain the Union link with Labour, to use that link and try to influence both policy and internal elections within the Labour Party.
To break the link now will only please those who are trying to hang on to the discredited policies of New Labour that have brought the Party its worst electoral performance for over 80 years. Even Tony Benn’s diaries do not go back far enough to record anything so bad.
The Socialist Campaign Group are hosting a special conference on July 3rd entitled the launch of the Labour Representation Committee. This conference is important and vital and will be an excellent opportunity for activists from all over the country to come together.
The latest possible date for a General Election is June 2006. The alternative to a Labour Government with a left presence in the Party is not something else on the left but another Tory Government. Mrs Thatcher’s eulogy of Reagan was a sharp reminder of what life was like from 1979 onwards. For Labour the choice is clear - change the policy on Iraq and privatisation, to re-connect with those who have traditionally supported the Party. If the captain insists on directing a ship towards the rocks it is best to change course, or captain.
Our railways
June 8, 2004
On Sunday the Independent reported that the country was running out of car park spaces and that violence had sometimes broken out between warring motorists. The RAC predictably chimed in with a demand for more car parks, more roads, more motorways and fewer restrictions on the motorist.
In many ways, Britain still suffers from the twin pillars of early 1960s madness on transport.
Dr Beeching, on behalf of the Government pruned the rail network down to 10,000 route miles from the 20,000 that had been stable for about 50 years. His rationale was that there were too many branch lines and declining passenger and freight traffic had to be addressed in this way.
Professor Buchanan produced his report on Traffic in Towns which saw the private car as the way forward and this would be helped by urban arterial roads, separation of pedestrians and cars and an acceptance that this was good for us.
Forty years later, we are seeing long disused railways brought back to life, cars restricted in urban areas and pavements widened. Progressive modernity should have an eye to history.
Parliament is once again discussing railways and the new Bill has been given a second reading. This rather timid Bill roundly criticises the “botched” privatisation of the Tories. Actually on this, the Bill is wrong. The Tory Railway Bill did everything that privatisation requires. It sold public assets at knock down prices, allowed the buyers to sell anything they wanted to another buyer, poured public money into privately owned companies and guaranteed the income of anyone who agreed to run a (private) railway. Millions have been made in profits from an industry where the risks have been nil.
The 1997 Labour Government refused to renationalise the Railways. I remember John Prescott telling me in 1997 that it would be too expensive and the public would rather see better services and investment. Instead the Strategic Rail Authority was established to oversee the network run by Railtrack, Train Operating Companies and hundreds of contractors.
In a few short years, we had gone from an efficient if under-resourced public corporation to the highest ever level of subsidy and the most profitable operators in Europe. Incidentally, the fare levels are amongst the highest.
The inefficiencies of Railtrack persuaded former Transport Secretary Stephen Byers to put it into receivership and establish Network Rail, a strange concoction of a limited liability company wholly owned by one shareholder, the Government. This at least is a form of public ownership and has started well with an engineering led company and maintenance being done in house.
The abolition of the Strategic Rail Authority is good news and welcome. Public investment and strategic decisions should be taken by elected politicians.
Also welcome is the handing of authority to the Scottish Parliament for infrastructure and services north of the border, some powers to the Welsh Assembly and the Passenger Transport Executives and to Transport for London.
The problem area is that the Government sees no role for the public in running the train companies. In crude terms since privatisation the public have paid £10 billions in subsidies and the operators have posted aggregate profits of £1 billion. Enormous amounts are being invested in new track and signalling and will be for at least the next decade.
No sensible person would oppose this but they should question why the beneficiaries of this have to be private companies running in a protected environment.
Where operators fail the public sector has to step in. The failure of Connex South Eastern forced the SRA to put in management to run the South East Trains franchise. Under public ownership it has resulted in a better service with fewer complaints. The case for it staying in public hands is not just a Trade Union demand, but supported by the users who, after all, are in a good position to judge.
When the Tories privatised the industry they looked for quick profits and these came easily from rolling stock. All carriages and wagons were handed over to leasing companies and knock down prices. The new companies then sold themselves very quickly. The new owners making profits of millions in months. The leasing companies are now mainly owned by banks who are in a no lose position. Every franchise that is re-allocated goes back to them to lease the same carriages and wagons.
The case for taking the leasing companies into public ownership is overwhelming.
The structure of our railways is that the public pay all the costly bits but New Labour ideology seems to prevent us taking the next, logical step of actually benefiting from the enormous investments.
The Rail Unions and the TUC briefed MPs to back the Labour Conference which called for public ownership and protect our railways.
For under utilised rural branch lines the Department of Transport proposes that they become “Community Railways”. Under close questioning Ministers insist this is not a Trojan horse for another round of Beeching style cuts and bus substitution which soon leads to even busier roads.
The need for further expansion is obvious. In Scotland the Parliament has supported the re-opening of the Stirling to Kincardine line and the Waverly line as far south as Galashiels.
Twenty years ago the late Bob Cryer MP led a huge campaign to save the Leeds - Settle - Carlisle line. That line on the verge of extinction is now busy with passenger and freight traffic and its closure would be unthinkable.
We need vision such as the re-opening of the Bletchley to Bicester line to gain an east-west passenger and freight route.
Any study shows that railways are the most efficient and environmentally sustainable way of moving people and freight. They are nine times safer than car journeys and much quicker.
The Rail Unions have led the way in trying to protect our services - it is past time that we put the Tory madness behind us and took the whole industry into public ownership. The Bill will not to do that, but at the conclusion of a fine speech the RMT Group Chair, John MacDonnell predicted in a few years we would be back to pass another bill, this time the last hurdle at undoing John Major’s big idea of the 1992 election, and bringing back the railways.
An ESF world is possible
June 8, 2004
The European Social Forum comes to London this week end. A welcome contribution to political debate and hope. An even more welcome demonstration that there is more to political debate than the rather tedious Blair-Brown Axis, or even Michael Howard’s convoluted “programme”, (to help the richest!).
London Mayor Ken Livingstone, according to some newspapers, is subsidising the ESF with huge amounts of public money and this is upsetting the right wing media. Whatever the final sum is for the London taxpayers, it will be but a tiny proportion of the national subsidy to the annual Arms Equipment Fair in Docklands.
The bewildering array of events and debates at the Forum, show just where Forum is at – Palestine and Iraq feature hugely, as would be expected, alongside the enormous issues of trade and aid, environmental protection, treatment of asylum seekers and solidarity across the world.
The victims of global unaccountable power are those dying in war; but also those denied rights through racism and xenophobia.
This giant fair, in an age of instant communications and a plethora of media outlets, is a wonderful educational opportunity for all participants. It is also food for thought for all who want a more equal, just, and socialist world.
The ESF, a regional version of the very successful World Social Forums held in Porte Alegre and Mumbai, brings people together, and raises issues and demands. Issues that demand urgent attention, but also demands on how we organise and inform. In Europe, the tradition has become of self-believing political parties organised around a philosophy of demands. These parties, whether Communist, Socialist, Green or Radical, have become issue specific. Outside Europe, the social movements that have grown up are based on a range of demands. Thus one of the huge political forces in Brazil is the Movement of Landless Peoples, in India - the Dalit Rights Campaigns. In other countries consumer movements and education campaigns become the bedrock of political demands. Social Movements adopt a cultural identity that escapes most political parties.
A criticism of the WSF and its regional components, is the lack of a specific declaration and process that can or should follow.
It seems that the way forward is for all the component parts of the ESF to take stock of what they have seen, and consider how it affects them and their role. More policy specific ideas and demands could follow.
The ESF is an excellent demonstration of pluralistic democracy at its best - a range of traditions and methods meeting, and a search for solutions to global problems.
The worldwide anti war movements and demonstrations of 2003 showed our strength, but also our weakness in that it did not stop the war.
Likewise, the analysis of globalisation shows a growing divide between rich and poor, vastly increased power of global corporations, and a trajectory of environmental damage and degradation alongside rampant consumerism. This system is bolstered by the power of banality through global media outlets. It is also bolstered by the power of the US military and its allies as Iraq demonstrates. In the face of all this it is easy to see how some people retreat into a shell of nationalism and despair.
Yet there are alternatives. The inspiration of the achievements of peoples in changing the situation is phenomenal. The apartheid regime in South Africa had all the power, yet was defeated by a combination of resistance in South Africa and international solidarity. The lesson of international solidarity is the key.
In the global economy, the overwhelming power of the doctrines of the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation, mean that national Governments in poor countries cannot challenge effectively. In richer, developed countries in Europe, individual Governments either meekly accept the doctrines, or just put it down to “world trends”.
The democratic deficit in the world and in Europe must be addressed. There are three areas of huge concern.
In Europe, the “convergence criteria” established in the Maastricht Treaty limits Government borrowing and spending, thus damaging social equity. The European Constitution goes further and enshrines this doctrine in a supra national law.
The International Monetary Fund, and World Bank, lend money in return for Structural Adjustment Programmes, whilst their counterpart, the World Trade Organisation promotes “free trade”. The sum total of these three for many is privatisation, lay offs, and loss of security.
The Global Institutions established after the two world wars, such as the International Labour Organisation and United Nations and its agencies, have difficulty countering the global doctrine of free markets. Lack of funding and recognition put global law a poor second to global economic power.
In Parliament in Britain, as in other European Countries, there is an inability to hold our own Government to account for what happens in global gatherings.
The Prime Minister attends the Group of Eight summits, and gives a perfunctory report. No votes are reported and no mandate requested from Parliament. Similarly, the more international bodies such as the UN are not reported on in any detail.
It is to be hoped that those Parliamentarians from national and European Parliaments who come to Alexandra Palace and Bloomsbury this weekend, will reflect on the need to respond to the power of the Social Forum. A Parliamentary network that could raise similar questions in each Parliament to hold our Governments, and by implication, the world’s institutions to account would be a good step forward.
This should not be an abstract exercise in constitutionality, but an immediate and practical network to amplify demands. If the WTO acts unfairly against small producers in one country, a protest in every Parliament must help. If democracy means anything, it is the right to be heard, and for those who wield power to be held to account.
The ESF presents the possibility of a huge unifying of social and economic campaigns for justice.
Obesity
June 2, 2004
The Health Select Committee has done us all a favour with their excellent report on the problem of obesity in Britain. Forty per cent of the population is obese or overweight, amongst the young the situation is appalling, with a generation of children being brought up on cheap, fat-laden foods, watching sport on television. A crisis of epidemic proportions of heart disease, and diabetes looms unless action is taken now.
To get some idea of the problem it is worth recalling that in 1992 the Government of the day produced a report, “The Health of the Nation” which set an obesity target of 6% for men and 8% for women by 2005. This is only a year away, yet, on the latest available information 22% of men are obese, with a further 40% overweight. For women the figures are 22% obese and 33% overweight.
Helpfully comparing obesity levels in equivalent European countries, the best results come from Norway, Italy and the Netherlands. England, Wales and Scotland come near the top, with only Albania and Greece markedly worse than the UK.
There are global trends in obesity with 200 million adults in this condition worldwide, whilst the majority are in industrialised countries. This is not exclusively so with a problem in, for example, Ghana and South Africa. It appears that where fast food goes, health problems soon follow.
But it is a cruel and strange world where the media competes to discuss obesity problems whilst at the same time giving horrific reports from Darfur where the victims of war are starving, and that in much of sub-Saharan Africa, hunger and poverty go hand in hand. Obesity is also a problem of poverty. The Select Committee report quite specifically states “obesity mirrors many other health inequalities. Men and women working in unskilled manual occupations are four times as likely as those in professional employment to be classified as morbidly obese.”
Obesity is costly, rising to £3 billions in 2002, and grim for those who have the condition, with cancer, diabetes and renal failure amongst the resultant causes of death. It is easy to jump to conclusions about the causes of this issue. At the level of logic, weight increases are directly linked to an imbalance of food intake and energy expended. In part, this is the more sedentary lifestyle many follow with changed work patterns, but there are many other causes.
The power of advertising to sell instant snacks, readymade meals or fast foods is enormous, and the young are often prey to this. Children stuck in front of televisions watching McDonalds sponsored teams playing football interspersed with advertisements for high sugar drinks and confectionary, are a health advisers nightmare and an advertisers dream. The food industries repeatedly claim that there is no such thing as unhealthy foods, only unhealthy diets. Strangely this refrain is often repeated by Government and Sports representatives. The insidious effects of sport sponsorship are having the same effect as tobacco sponsorship did years ago.
The pressurised life that many people follow is such that the choices of preparing a meal from scratch, with full control of sugar, salt and fat content in the hands of the individual are unreal. When pre-packed readymade meals are purchased we have no control over the content or the manufacturing process. Therefore we must take control over what we are able to buy and that can only be done by education and regulation.
To gain an idea of where the various vested interests are coming from in this debate and the power they exert, it is worthwhile looking at the evidence they submitted. McDonalds, for example, gives an account of their growth in the UK and their new policy of fruit and low fat pasta sales. Essentially they blame obesity on lifestyle and lack of exercise, and then praise themselves for sponsoring sports programmes for which they gain hours and hours of free TV advertising: A self perpetuating circle of self congratulatory virtue.
The Co-operative Group on the other hand explains its origins as a non profit making supplier of food, and its conclusions are the need for better product formulation, labelling and information. The coop does not advertise high fast, sugar and salt products in children’s publications and programmes.
A bewildering array of experts gave evidence and the Select Committees 69 paragraph recommendations and conclusions will spark a debate. It needs to, and that debate goes to the heart of social inequalities, consumer pressure and the enormous and insidious power of the fast food industry over children’s lives.
For the first time in over a century children will experience shorter lives than their parents. This extraordinary statement comes at a time of unprecedented improvements in medicines and health care, and can only be attributed to unhealthy lifestyles. It seems the massive buying power and selling ability of the food chains and the advertising industry are not being met head on. The Government can and must do much more than calling for fruit to be available every day in schools. A return to the high quality school meals that most children used to enjoy would help. An increase in playing fields and sport in urban areas would at least give children the opportunity for exercise, a programme of free access to swimming, and sports facilities for youngsters would at least make them accessible to all. Teaching cooking and nutrition rather than food marketing in secondary schools would be a better priority.
The call for more effective control of advertising is not a moment too soon as is the recognition that road safety concerns and security of children mean far too many children travel by car when they should walk or cycle. Habits among children do last into later life so a health impact assessment as well as an environmental audit of new transport schemes seems a good idea.
To make the entire population healthier means some very powerful vested interests need to be confronted. The power of advertising to sell junk is literally killing people. The Select Committee Report reads like a litany of problems to be faced. We all owe David Hinchcliffe, the Committee Chair and MP for Wakefield, a debt of gratitude. He has shown what Parliament is there for: To represent the needs of ordinary people against the powerful. If we don’t take heed of this our health is at stake.
