Democracy's wedge

31 January 2005

Something remarkable happened yesterday for over 8 million people. They voted to choose their government. The majority of those eligible to vote in Iraq did just that. Despite the threat of death or attack. Despite huge military presence and body searches before voting. Despite in many cases long walks to and long waits at the limited number of polling stations.

Across the Middle East you can almost hear the sound of squirming leadership; if democracy take a firm hold in Iraq, it could have a significant, if unpredictable, impact on such neighboring countries as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, all of which are run by autocratic regimes. Their leaders have now seen elections embraced by Afghans and Iraqis. The political changes in the Middle East could be turbulent, troubling and for many euphoric.

The issue for the new Iraqi leadership is to maintain the strength of democracy; freedom, choice, accountability, responsibility.

Having come this far to go back now would be to fail the 8 million who voted yesterday. That must be unthinkable. To support the process of change will require foreign troops. It would be better if this were a UN led force. But whoever is there needs to be there because the elected government wants them there and needs to be accountable to that government.

The daily suicide attacks will not suddenly stop. The bombs wont go away; at least not yet. The future difficulties are huge. But there can be no going back. The US, the UK and yes the UN as well owe that to these 8 million people.

If Iraqis are to maintain their belief in the election process, it must move the country towards the things that they want and have voted for. That means Iraqis running their country and the US troops committing at an agreed time to leave. Democratic nations are not occupied nations. The Americans more than any country really should understand that.

It was a hopeful day; it needs momentum and it needs co-operation. An established democratic government in Iraq could be a clarion call to the Middle East.

*****************************************************

The following first hand account is from the Toronto Star. The Star is no fan of the Bush administration; it is a moving account of one family's vote:

Thailand's damaged tourism industry

27 January 2005

Thailand's battered tourism industry was hurt again yesterday after the speedboat crash off Samui which killed at least 15 of the passengers.

The industry will be further damaged by the self-denial that is carried on among authorities and with the connivance of the media.

The boat was returning to Samui in the early hours of the morning after the full moon party on the beaches of Koh Pang Nan. The speedboat had 3 200 horsepower engines; it was designed for 2. It was carrying some 45 passengers. It is licensed for about 30. There were apparently no lifeboats on board.

Thousands of people make the monthly trip from Samui for the full moon parties on the beaches. In the mornings the boats rush to take as many passengers as they can back to Samui; getting there and back as fast as they can for the next load.

The passengers will have been up all night; many will have been drinking; many will be high. Sources on the island allege that the driver was drunk as well. The water was calm and there is no evidence of any debris that might have caused a collision.

People come on holiday to play but to play safely. Thailand needs to take its responsibilities seriously.

Why we should honour Zhao Ziyang

21 January 2005

The last time that Zhao Ziyang was seen in public was at dawn on May 19th 1989 when he met with protesting students in Tianenmen Square. At the time Zhao was the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. He was clearly sympathetic to the anti corruption cries of the students,

But he did not come to the Square to tell them that their call was being heard; he came to them from a meeting of China's leaders and military. He came to warn them; he was powerless to stop the violence that would come on 4 June. It is for this day that he is most remembered.

But his legacy is deeper and rather conflicting. Who was Zhao? He joined the Communist Party in 1938 and by the 1960s he was Party Secretary of Guangdong province bordering Hong Kong. He was purged in the chaos of the Cultural Revolution and posted to Sichuan.

But Deng Xiaoping was to trust Zhao to implement a wide series of economic reforms. In doing so Zhao became one of China's most popular leaders. But he is also accused of cronyism; and of policies that drove hyper inflation.

In 1980 Deng made him Premier and in 1987 Party Chief. In 1984 Zhao signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong's handover.

But Zhao's voice was that of a reformer. In a speech to the Central Committee in 1987 he proposed limiting the Communist Party's control over government. He went on to propose a social consultative system, legal and democratic reforms and press laws to enshrine freedom of speech. None of his proposed measures have been adopted.

Zhao was liked. His economic reforms were widely seen as lifting many people out of poverty. He is widely credited with the creation of the special economic zones around Shenzen and the rapid growth and wealth of Guangdong province. It is no wonder that he is well considered by the Chinese (most of whom can trace their background to Guangdong) in Hong Kong. He believed that government should be responsible for the people and should be transparent.

In Tianenmen Square in 1989 Zhao did what no one else in the party had the courage to do. He stood with the demonstrators. For that he was immediately put under house arrest that only ended this week with his death.

The Communist Party's view is that Zhao betrayed the party by trying to split it. It will be up to future leaders to re-assess his contribution to Chinese history. For now his legacy is only proof that no man is bigger than the Party. His fifteen year house arrest has hardly been a rallying call for reformers. He has never enjoyed the same emotional impact or international support as, for instance, Aung San Suu Kyi. His death is unlikely to resurrect democratic ambitions. Not while increasing economic opportunities diminish the urge to protest.

In Beijing last week references on CNN and BBC to Zhao's death could not be seen - the screen went black with no sound. Internet reports could not be accessed. Strange it is that while the US government is promoting freedom through democracy US companies have constructed China's internet backbone and ways to filter out and search all material that the State considers harmful to national security. I wonder whether this note can be seen in China.

There will be no public memorial service for Zhao. His name is erased from the history books; his death got a small note from Xinhua noting the passing of comrade Zhao. The government concern appears to be that remembering Zhao will also mean remembering the changes that he promoted and the students that he stood side be side with.

NOTE: There is a remarkable personal tribute page to Zhao on the BBC's website here.

The Basic Flaw

21 January 2005

All roads lead to China

21 January 2005

I was not the only visitor to Beijing last week. The Irish President was visiting with a huge trade delegation. Appropriately he was staying in the "Kerry Hotel"!!

The Canadian Prime Minister and assorted business interests were in Shanghai last week and should be in Beijing today.

Even the Prime Minister of mighty Andorra was in town !

And Grenada formally dumped Taiwan after 15 years and signed up for full diplomatic relations with China. The Taiwanese ambassador to Grenada will presumably be asked to pack his bags in short order. Slowly China is picking off the now small list of nations (maybe 25) that has retained diplomatic ties with Taiwan rather than China. Sadly this has little to do with ideology and a great deal to do with economics.

And the latest to visit is British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, advocating an end to the fifteen year EU arms' sales embargo on China. This he said would not increase the sales of weapons to China. Is he dreaming; the French would be knocking down the doors of the PLA.

Bush's inauguration speech : be scared; very scared

21 January 2005

There was a worrying determination about Mr. Bush's second inaugural speech. He knows he has little time to implement his neoconservative vision. In two years time American politics will start to consider Bush's successor. A new race for the White House will start.

Bush and his supporters believe that weakness or even perception of weakness invites attack. Almost like a football team (proper football/soccer) he believes that defense starts in the forward line; in the opposition's territory. The best form of defense is offense may be this President's motto! And he really will not care much who he offends!

 A few quotes from his inauguration speech:

"By our efforts, we have lit ... a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world,"

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world,"

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors."

"We will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."

"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

"History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction set by liberty and the author of liberty,"

But where to start; North Korea, Iran, China, Burma, Zimbabwe, the Middle East, Palestine, Sudan? How do priorities get set; how does consensus get built or is it not needed? Where to start indeed; for a speech so grand in design it was very short of specifics.

Indeed the USA seems to enjoy close relations with some of the most oppressive regimes in the world - from China to Pakistan to Saudi Arabia.

So the reality is very different to the wishful talk. America's interests are very different from its ideals. Bush spoke to the latter but will serve the former.

The plea from Phuket

21 January 2005

A week ago I expressed my doubts about returning to Phuket - well, here is the alternative view and I will let my gentle reader make your own decision on when to return:
 

www.phuketmagazine.com

Least appropriate Tsunami charity efforts !!

21 January 2005

Full marks to the following for making an effort - though they might have chosen different ways to show their concern:

We can only be grateful that "Wet, Wet, Wet," did not produce a charity song!

Should we be returning to Phuket

Thursday 13 January 2005

Phuket thrives on its tourism business. And since the tsunami many local businesses are hurting badly. Tourists have stopped coming to Phuket. Thailand is doing fine; holiday makers have just changed venue and moved to Koh Samui, Hua Hin and the Eastern Seaboard.

Phuket's businesses argue that damage from the tsunami in Phuket only extends a few hundred metres inland and even that is only in certain areas. The vast majority of buildings remain intact and most businesses remain open and are operating as normal.
 

Local businesses accuse the Thai and international media of sensationalising the story; only showing the damage and helping to drive away the tourists. But they are missing the point.
 

I am not ready to think about a holiday in Phuket at this time and I am sure this is true for many local and foreign travelers. How can you happily relax on vacation when in local towns there are still piles of bodies in makeshift morgues with bodies being exhumed for proper identification? How do you rest when there are still volunteers searching for bodies? How do you react when you see people staring sadly at the notice boards in Phuket Town with photographs of missing children? What do you say to people who lost their loved ones.

This is still the story in Phuket and Koh Phi Phi and Khao Lak. Tourists are not staying away out of fear of another disaster; they are staying away because it does not yet feel right to have fun where so many people suffered such loss.
 

The counter argument says that by returning to Phuket we can help people rebuild lives and businesses. That will happen in time. But it does take time; months not weeks.  Tourism in Phuket will not be irreparable damaged if people stay away a while longer. It took time before the tourists came back to Bali after the 2002 bombing. It tool a while before travelers came back to Asia after SARS.

This disaster hit Thailand hard. Media interest is high since foreign nationals from over forty countries lost their lives in Thailand.  In time the story will be one of Phuket's recovery.

CNN's Tsumani coverage - is it news as entertainment?

Tuesday 11 January 2005

CNN continues to provide almost 24/7 coverage of the impact of the Tsunami disaster. And at this stage their coverage feels like overkill; it is almost like watching endless sad movies that seek to tug at the heartstrings. Here is another parentless child; another relative touring hotel ruins looking for a brother or sister; another body bag; another tale of rescue.

When is enough coverage too much coverage of a tragedy like the tsunami? When does coverage pass over the line from news to rather morbid entertainment or exploitation?

I suspect we all have different tolerance levels. There is a sense with CNN however that having invested in putting so many reporters in the field they are determined to get their money's worth. And there is also a sense that these tales of great sadness and sometimes of remarkable survival are being used to pump ratings which after all is CNN's big need against the likes of Fox News in the USA and the international broadcasters overseas.

Yes, this is a tragedy but how about covering other stories, too, and not repeating yourself all day long.

CNN has provided amazing stories of real people, real tragedy, making the numbers human. At the same time they have ceased to report the news but almost to make themselves a part of it. Their reporters are up front in the middle of the picture; they are the story. The disaster is the backdrop. From my perspective the BCC is generally much better at letting us look at he pictures while the reporter provides the background commentary.

At one stage CNN's Mike Chinoy was patting himself on the back for helping to load an aid plane - and there were the television pictures of him lifting a box. I am sure (I hope) that he meant well. He just did not need to tell us all that he was doing what any decent human being would be doing. Is it right for reporters to become stars on the back of a tragedy. Is that exploitation, or just good work?

There was another CNN anchor saying that she had cried many times a day at tsunami stories as she asked a reporter on the scene (the anchor is back in a comfy studio) how she stands the pain. Did we need the anchor inserting her pathos?

There is no doubt that the wall to wall TV coverage and the invasion of private lives and thoughts is driving record charitable contributions.

But these donations show another side to this story which is expressed rather cautiously here. Some 160,000 have died in this disaster. At a minimum some 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq since the British and US led invasion. But there are no fund raising activities led by television and newspapers for their families; there are no charity concerts or cricket matches; we don't see reporters standing in the ruins of Falluja, breathlessly describing how, in 30 years of reporting, they've never seen a human tragedy on this scale. Where are the memorial services and the multiple minutes of silence for Iraq's dead?

In Britain yesterday Tony Blair said to MPs that he had been moved to tears by the disaster and he praised the generosity of the British people. Mr. Blair seems rather less saddened by the Iraqi dead.

I have the greatest admiration for reporters that have seen and experienced things that are unimaginable. They have worked through the most shocking of conditions to bring this tragedy to life. But they should be reporters and not lead actors in this story. And the global outpouring of aid needs to be balanced by consideration of forgotten or ignored human suffering elsewhere.

Why I don't like Man Yoo.

Monday 10 January 2005

Arrogance. It should be their downfall and it should be why they deserve neither admiration or loyalty. Manchester United had a home draw against conference side Exeter in the 3rd round of England's FA Cup.

For the Exeter players the biggest day of their playing careers; a match against Manchester United's superstars in front of 67,000 supporters at the self christened theatre of dreams.

Yet when Exeter's players looked at the team sheets they would barely have recognised the United names. Sir Alex Ferguson spent the week reassuring the media of Man Yoo's commitment to the traditions of the FA Cup. He then sent out a team comprised of reserve and youth team players. It was an insult to Exeter and a bigger insult to 67,000 fans who all pay premium money to attend Man Yoo matches. They are not paying to watch under performing second team players

Ferguson's apology to the Man Yoo fans after the game rang hollow. They should get there money back.

Blair's broken trust

Monday 10 January 2005

Relationships are based upon trust. That can apply equally to business colleagues, politicians and families. The rift in the leadership of the British Labour Party has never been greater. British Chanceller Gordon Brown has lost all belief in the word of the prime minister. The chancellor is said to have told Blair directly: "There is nothing you could say to me now that I could ever believe."

The point here is that Brown is echoing the spoken and unspoken words of so many of the British people. Blair for all his good intentions has not been honest with the people, with his party, or with his closest colleagues.

He may hope that this storm blows over. But this time it should not. Brown is ambitious; he wants to be the party leader and British Prime Minister. He does not have Blair's glossy charm; but he has the intelligence and he clearly has the respect of the Labour Party.

Tony Blair has taken the Labour Party too far to the right. His alliance with GW Bush increasingly appears to be ideological rather than practical.

With an election due in the UK in some four months time it is likely that Brown will continue to make a very uncomfortable public show of support for the Prime Minister in the hope that this show of unity is enough to carry the election. At that time the party should move Blair aside and let him retire to the back benches, to his memoirs, and in time to the private sector.

Two weeks on

Monday 10 January 2005

It has been very hard over the last two weeks to be able to write or think of any news other than the devastation caused by the Tsunami. After a slow start the news organisations have provided extensive coverage of the disaster, the relief efforts, the search for loved ones and in some remarkable instances great stories of survival.

A few thoughts do come to mind:

Please do spare a thought for the journalists, photographers, camera crew and all the medical and relief workers across the nations of the Indian Ocean. They have been working long hours in shocking conditions; they have seen and experienced sights and events that the rest of us can hardly begin to imagine. I can honestly say that I have been fortunate enough never to be close to a dead body. The emotional toll on people who are helping and reporting this tragedy is huge as they try to give dignity to the dead and aid to those in need.

I worry for the global charity organisations fund raising efforts for the rest of this year. Many organisations and individuals have funds set aside for charity relief. But a large part of that funding will have been consumed by Tsunami donations. Many of the charities are going to find it hard to sustain their regular charity receipts as the year goes on.

The role of the Americans needs a specific mention. There is no other military force in the world that could and would send 16,000 troops into the disaster area to provide relief efforts. There is no other country that could provide transport planes, ships  and basic organisational talent in the way that the Americans have done. The Chinese have the manpower but not the hardware or logistical experience.

The Americans have done this with little fanfare. They have simply got on with it. GW Bush has enlisted the support of former Presidents Bush and Clinton to drive charitable support for relief efforts. It is not a party issue. It is simple humanitarianism. Sure it must help the perception of America in the Muslim world that they are doing so much to help Indonesia. Sure it has for a while taken Iraq off the front pages. Sure it is a reminder to us all that America's reach is vast and her capabilities enormous. But I am happy to believe that America is helping because of the simple fact that it can and it is needed.

Why the UN needs International Rescue

The UN has an unprecedented opportunity to show its worth. It is the only organisation that can coordinate the global releif efforts across Asia. This is not a role that should be given to a single nation or a small group of privileged nations. This point is well argued in this op-ed piece from David Aaronovitch in the Guardian.

David Aaronovitch
Tuesday January 4, 2005
The Guardian

We have never done this before. What the UN, the governments of the world and the myriad aid agencies are attempting is unprecedented - more aid is going to more people in more countries more quickly than at any point in human history. And that's lesson one: let's not pretend that this disaster is like all the others on a slightly bigger scale.

To me, the Indian Ocean tsunami, as with Darfur and the aftermath in Iraq, proves the need for a better UN, not a dead UN. A retreat to an organisation of 10 members, as Hames suggests, simply means closing the door on 130 nations and telling them that you don't care what they say or what they think. That would be a disastrous moral retreat and an intolerable political message. No, the task is to work at creating the super-UN, with accountable, permanent agencies, based on its existing expertise, ready to intervene and help where necessary - and to stay helping.

A new Year message from last week's disaster

1 January 2005

It has been an appalling, extraordinary and unbelievably grim week for those living around the Indian Ocean. The death toll from last week's tsunami now approaching 125,000; the number increasing by thousands daily.

And it is a disaster where the only emotion can be great sadness. There is no one to be angry at. This is simply nature's wake up call. It is not the product of terrorism or of strife.

It is also a massive reminder that in the end we are all equal. The rich and the poor, the tourists and the villagers. Millionaires in low-lying beachfront villas were as vulnerable as fisherman. Back-packers in off-the-beach bungalows were often unaffected. The dead from this tragedy, lying disfigured in their makeshift coffins waiting for identification look much like one another; except that in this case so many of the dead are children, who were not strong enough to be able to run from or stand up to the force of water.

The rest of us live on; giving thanks that we were not there and for so many people doing what they can in their own way to offer aid and support. The global response has been frenzied. Good can come from adversity. New Year celebrations have been reduced to fund-raising events. There has been a phenomenal outpouring of corporate and individual donations to help provide relief. Maybe that in part is due to the number of foreigners who died in this tragedy. It is not a localised crisis. The dead come from Europe and North America as well as the nations of the Indian Ocean. The response is very different from the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago.

Meanwhile Messrs Blair and Bush appear so fixated with Iraq that they have missed the outpouring of public empathy for this tragedy and failed to provide clear leadership and direction to their official leading to accusations of poor judgment and miserly aid. The US initially offered a meagre US$15m in aid. It was not unto Wednesday (29th) that Bush offered his condolences to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia. Bush and Blair are both holidaying and remain on holiday.

US aid is now up to US$350 million but compare this to the daily cost of remaining in the Iraq war. The cost each year of the US military is approx US$ 450 billion (yes, billion). The US non military development aid in 2003 was US$16 million.

The US is not alone in its misplaced spending. But if the US wants to continue to declare its leading world role then it needs to take a lead role in fighting poverty and leading aid.

At a new year we all wish for peace and prosperity. On a global scale peace and prosperity comes from the world's wealthy nations taking real action to help the poor, the weak, the hungry and the sick. There are many words. There are also opportunities. Blair has committed that the G-8 summit in Britain in July will make the fight against poverty and long-term climate change tow of the priorities of the summit. The events of last week show just how much action is needed.