2013-06-19T21:21:57-04:00 Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=mark-seddon Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mark Seddon Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1533373 2012-05-21T19:00:00-04:00 2012-07-21T05:12:12-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
The fact that all three constituencies; Cheadle, Hazel Grove and Withington are all held with slender majorities by Liberal Democrats might in other circumstances explain what brought the two MPs together, since both real Labour and real Tory supporters loathe the Liberal Democrats. And it is the case that the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg are horribly exposed on the issue of having an EU referendum, since prior to the last General Election, that is exactly what Nick Clegg was promising. It is this perennial slipperiness of the political Establishment, that brought campaigners together in Manchester, for if MPs and candidates can be made to see how strong their electorates feel on an issue such as this, and pledge - on video - to vote for and in/out referendum, there is precious little wriggle room come the next General Election.

Referendum campaigners are pretty confident of getting a fairly overwhelming vote in favour of having an EU referendum when all three constituencies go to the polls on 19 July. In Thurrock, Essex, over 80% voted in favour in a turn-out of 30%. This in an area with a historically low turn-out of voters in elections and this in a constituency where barely 24% had voted in the previous local government elections.


(Left to right) Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, David Nuttall, Conservative for Bury North, Cllr Anthony O'Neill, (Conservative) Heatons North Ward, Stockport Council

Clearly fast-moving events elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Greece and Spain, are giving added impetus to the whole issue of Britain's relationship with the European Union. They are also driving the issue closer and closer to the decision makers in the main parties. In recent weeks, we have seen a growing number of establishment Labour figures accepting that a referendum may have to be held. Pro EU supporters such as Lord Mandelson, have re-entered the political fray and have made oblique noises designed to be interpreted by different people to mean different things. But there is no doubt that recent pronouncements from Peter Hain and Ed Balls show that the political landscape is set to change quite radically. A senior Labour MP told me that his Shadow Cabinet friends certainly detect a shift in thinking by Ed Miliband. No clearer signal of these shifting political sands was the appointment of Labour MP, Jon Cruddas, to front up the party's current, all embracing Policy Review. Cruddas is on record, having spoken to the People's Pledge on video, as supporting an EU referendum. His political antennae, especially when it comes to what many working class voters are thinking, is key to Labour beginning to win back some of the five million of those voters it lost the last time around.

There is of course no guarantee for either side - those who would stay in, or those who would exit that once out of the bottle, the genie can be returned. Currently, voters attitudes to the EU are hardening further, as the Euro-zone splinters apart under its own contradictions and German recalcitrance. Conversely it is just possible that a new Euro zone, centred on Germany and the Benelux countries, could one day begin to make the EU more popular as an institution. But for now, these are imponderables. For Ed Miliband and Labour, this is make your mind up time. The Labour leader will be by now aware that in making a firm commitment to hold a referendum at the next election it would throw the Coalition into utter chaos and split the Conservative Party from top to bottom. Miliband's new policy supremo will also be able to see just how popular this move would make Labour with its traditional base.

Of course, should Ed Miliband, make this seismic shift, he will be accused of populism, seeking cheap electoral advantage and potentially playing with fire. But in truth, and for all of those pundits who have been trying to find Miliband's 'Clause Four moment', the moment when he breaks with the all party consensus over the EU, is just that moment. All of the signals are that he now knows it.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1293729 2012-02-22T19:00:00-05:00 2012-04-23T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/ Vladimir Putin's blog, published today on The Huffington Post, is a very clear statement of intent from a man who believes that he is president in waiting. It is also one from a man who knows that his first term in office as president is largely remembered as a period when Russian military pride began to be restored after the self immolation of the Soviet Union.

When I was a teenager, the military of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies were stationed roughly as Winston Churchill famously predicted they would be when he talked in 1945 of an "iron curtain falling across Europe"; from "Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic".

The Soviet fleet straddled the globe, and Moscow could count on sturdy allies from Angola to Somalia, Cuba to Vietnam, and often with the deep water bases to go with them. Up until 1989, Warsaw Pact forces faced its Nato opponents across a divided Germany, whose borders were those created from the ashes of the Second World War.

When Vladimir Putin promises to build a professional army earmarking 23 trillion Roubles to do so over the next decade, he is at last doing what many in NATO always thought would be the logical step for the Russian military to take.

Clearly the days of the conscript army are drawing to a close, and Putin sees the need for a professional army that is equipped with modern equipment and which is able to move swiftly in a new global disorder which he refers to as "new areas of instability and deliberately managed chaos". Where Western political and military leaders may take fright is when Putin refers to "determined attempts are being made to provoke such conflicts even close to Russia's and its allies borders".

There can be no mistaking the fact that Putin is referring directly to, amongst others, Russia's long time ally, Syria, especially when he goes on to say that "the basic principles of international law are being degraded and eroded especially in terms of international security". There is no question that Russia, along with China, is deeply suspicious of anything that pertains to 'humanitarian interventionism', believing, post Iraq, that this is cover for further US expansionism.

If there is conflict it comes in the juxtaposition of Putin's statement that in a "world of upheaval there is always the temptation to resolve one's problems at another's expense through pressure and force". But then he goes on to make it clear that the country under his leadership would not allow Russia's interests to be threatened, when he says that "It is no surprise that some are calling for resources of global significance to be freed from the exclusive sovereignty of one nations". This says Putin "cannot happen to Russia, not even hypothetically."

Yet Putin speaks a language that few Western politicians would be brave enough to admit to, when he says: "The huge resources invested in modernising our military industrial complex... must serve as fuel to feed the engines of modernisation and growth". If Stalin had his belching steel mills and Stakhavonite workers, the brave Russia of Putin's future will have it's anti-missile factories and aerospace defence industries.

All of this, says Putin has to be done in order to "develop our economy and strengthen our democratic institutions". The trouble is that Putin's attachment to democracy is largely based on him winning elections, never losing them. Of all the arguments that Russia's President uses to justify his next great leap forward, this seems to be the least believable.

Mark Seddon is the former UN Correspondent for Al Jazeera English TV]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1264839 2012-02-09T05:28:17-05:00 2012-04-10T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
He did so in vain.

In 2012, as the world watched the Syrian regime roll in tanks to crush, kill and maim its own civilians in grotesque numbers, a bunch of corrupt gangsters staged a coup d'état in the small Indian Ocean state of the Maldives. The democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, was forced to tender his resignation, as elements of the police force sided with members of the dictator era regime, Islamic fundamentalists and grubby businessmen happy to sell their souls and Maldivian democracy for a juicy cut of business to come.

In Britain, the former colonial power, which played host to Mohamed Nasheed when he headed up the democratic opposition in exile, the House of Commons All Party Group on the Maldives went through the motions, waxing on about the importance of democracy in the Maldives while parading the accepted wisdom that Nasheed had somehow stepped down of his own volition, and been replaced by his vice president.

Prime minister David Cameron, despite having boldly declared that "Mohamed Nasheed is a friend of mine", a few months back echoed this pusillanimity with his own: "this country does have strong links with the Maldives", said Cameron, onion in hand, "and a good relationship with President Nasheed, but we have to be clear. President Nasheed has resigned, and we have a strong interest in the well-being of several thousand British tourists and in a stable and democratic government in the Maldives."

On the basis of that performance, just who would want to be a friend of David Cameron?

Yet news that Nasheed had been picked and beaten up by some the thugs who had overthrown him had already been beamed around the world by the Opposition Maldives Democratic Party before Cameron had risen to his feet. It had got to the United Nations, and the UN Secretariat, and it most probably reached the EU Commission, although the statement released on behalf of Baroness Cathy Ashton condemning the coup was as flaccid as that from Cameron. Later in the day, pictures of a brutally beaten chairman of the MDP Party emerged, followed by YouTube video of the police standing over prone, blooded bodies in the streets of Male.

I confess an interest. I have known Mohamed Nasheed for many years, although not nearly as well as my old school friend David Hardingham, who with others kept the flame for democracy alive in the Maldives when others were just interested in the place as a tourist resort. At my old newspaper, Tribune, we supported Nasheed's brave campaign for democracy against the Gayoom dictatorship, especially when Nasheed was arrested and tortured.

When that dictatorship was sufficiently brow beaten to allow the first ever democratic election in 2009, Mohamed Nasheed was elected president. But his problems persisted with a judiciary stuffed with Gayoom's cronies and Gayoom's son, who built alliances with dodgy businessmen and hard line Islamacists, some of who had been trained in Saudi Madrassahs. They were bent of recreating their old police state kleptocracy.

Yet whatever the provocations, president Mohamed Nasheed would never give in to those who urged that he take a tough line with those who were now clearly bent on seizing power by violence. He has paid the price for remaining true to his non violent, democratic principles. The 'Maldives Spring' pre-dated that of the Arab Spring by six years, and the president soon became an acclaimed international figure, sometimes referred to as the "Mandela of the Indian Ocean". He held one of his first cabinet meetings under water, in order to make the world sit up and take notice of global sea level rises; rises that threaten to inundate the Maldives altogether.

Maria Ahmed Didi MP (MDP) arrested by police in Male' on Wednesday 8 February for taking part in pro-Nasheed demonstration

The poor benighted Maldivians, who largely inhabit the most crowded island in the World, Male, surely deserve a whole lot better from the international community? The mealy mouthed response from the British in particular just will not do. Diplomatic relations should be immediately suspended until the rule of law is once again established.

The Commonwealth should immediately threaten to expel the Maldives, as it did when the military seized power in Fiji. And the behemoth that is the European Union should threaten sanctions unless Mohamed Nasheed and his supporters are freed and returned to their rightful place - in government. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1258520 2012-02-06T19:00:00-05:00 2012-04-07T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
The seemingly venal role played by the Russians and Chinese at the United Nations Security Council, has to all intents and purposes signalled a green light for an almighty offensive by the Syrian regime, determined as it is to snuff out all resistance to what has long been minority Allawite rule.

I've reported from inside Syria on a number of occasions, as well as from the United Nations where I was based as Al Jazeera's UN Correspondent. I have few illusions about the nature of the Ba'athist state that is Syria, although in common with others did believe for a time that President Bashar al Assad was a closet reformist. As for the United Nations, it remains the sum of its many parts, and just because China and Russia decided to set themselves against an unusual Western and Arab alliance, does not mean that the institution is somehow a failure. This is the shorthand of despair, property of the unilateralists.

To many, especially those facing the heavy weapons of their own regime in Syria, the decision to veto a Security Council resolution calling upon Assad to step down by the Chinese and Russians seems inexplicable and inexcusable. Commentary on virtually every Western media outlet has been uniform in its condemnation. Sometimes journalists have fallen into a vernacular of saying "There is nothing we can do". By way of explanation for the Russian veto, there is reflection on that country's historic ties with Syria which date back to the Cold War and the Soviet Union. But there is something else. Both Russia and China do not accept the idea of 'regime' change by international order. For today it is Damascus, yet one day it could be Moscow or Beijing.

There is something else too. Both Russia and China watched as the United States and Britain bamboozled the UN with tall tales of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. They watched as Resolution 1973, designed to protect Libyan civilians drifted into a mission creep of daily British and French sorties across Libya designed at regime change. And much as the more sensible Western voices urge proportionate action, the hot head American neo conservatives, championed by the likes of former US UN Ambassador John Bolton, champ at the bit. Their target is Damascus and then Tehran. Bolton and his apocalyptic friends mean war. Israel, they hope, will be their willing Sepoy.

There is now a very heavy duty of responsibility on the shoulders of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. His has been a consistent voice, one that has grown more determined as the weeks of mayhem and murder have disfigured Syria.

He has dedicated his second term as Secretary General in part to supporting the Arab Spring. In this he speaks boldly and clearly for a global majority. And he does so in the same way when he continuously counsels calm and a diplomatic solution for the Iranian imbroglio. He now has the unenviable position of once again having to try and square the circle within the UN Security Council, a task which history shows is far from being impossible. He also has to calm the hot heads whose urge for precipitate action threatens to set the Middle East on fire.

But above all, as UN secretary General, he does in the words of the respected former UN diplomat and British Foreign Office official, Lord Michael Williams, have the ability to invoke 'Responsibility to Protect'.

Syria's civilians, now sheltering from their president's murderous attacks surely deserve the protection that the international community was prepared to afford the people of Benghazi. But this time, any command to enforce RP2 must belong to the UN Secretary General, and not be freelanced out. Regime change on the other hand is a matter for the Syrian people - and people the world over will help them achieve just that.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1202005 2012-01-12T19:00:00-05:00 2012-03-13T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
The 67 year old instead announced his priorities, aimed primarily at fostering the Arab Spring and helping the process of democratisation globally. Ambitious, as well as risky, Ban has the confidence of knowing that he will not have to seek election again, and he also knows that his agenda is both hugely relevant and popular. The Secretary General has nailed his colours to the mast as essentially a 'man of the people'.

Beleaguered despots throughout the Middle East and beyond now know that the United Nations will not be silent when the human rights of their citizens are abused. And Ban has not been slow in defending the record of the United Nations in Libya, particularly Resolution 1973. Had the UN Security Council, under Ban's leadership, not moved to institute that resolution and 'Responsibility to Protect', Colonel Gadaffi would have likely proceeded with his threat to dismantle Libya's second city, Benghazi, brick by brick.

For the record UN Security Council Resolution 1973 passed with 10 votes in favour, with five abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation). It authorised member States to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory. It also requested those countries taking military action individually or collectively "to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures". Furthermore the resolution requested "that Member States should inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take" and UN teams "will assess conditions and advise on humanitarian needs and threats in all areas affected by the conflict."

The military success of NATO in Libya does not mean that the UN will necessarily countenance similar tactics in altogether more complex Syria. Nor is Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the UN going to allow itself to be conveniently shoe horned into being depicted as agents for forcible regime change. Libya was in some respects a special case. However, what is apparent is that despite the UN's best endeavours Libya remains an unstable state and is still a threat to itself and the wider international community. The towns and oilfields are now littered with even more lethal unexploded ordinance than that which still remains from World War Two.

And this is where the UN's post conflict dilemma lies; how does it determine the likely long term effect of Resolution 1973? How much thought and planning has gone into cleaning up after the conflict has taken place? And what can the UN do to encourage the international community, and specifically members of the UN Security Council to destroy unexploded mines and bombs and collect the guns and ammunition before they end up in another giant arms bazaar?

In the case of Libya very little has been done to prevent weapons getting into the wrong hands. "We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world," Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a leader of the north Africa based Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], told the Mauritanian news agency ANI. He made this claim days after the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling on Libya and its neighbours to secure the loose weapons - including some 20,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles - before they fell into the hands of terrorists. The resolution specifically mentioned AQIM as a dangerous potential beneficiary.

Perhaps today's political leaders need to understand that while the military option may be an option of last resort, it is nonetheless a political decision that authorises military action. It follows that political leaders should therefore take responsibility for clearing up after they have achieved their military objectives. And if they don't, the United Nations needs to be able to ensure that they do.

Sadly, now that the UN mission in Libya has apparently been accomplished, the Libya Contact Group partners seem more eager to claim their economic spoils. France's Total has been promised to double their share of Libyan oil to 35%, Italy's Eni has provided Libya with a new Oil Minister and Anglo-America's BP and Exxon Mobil are ready to get for major expansion.

While the large Western corporations move back into Libya, Libyans seem unlikely to hand in weapons or help remove mines that protect their townships until their overall safety and security situation has been improved.

Until this does begin to happen Libyan civilians and foreign oil company workers will remain at risk and the country's economic recovery will remain on hold until the land is cleared of unwanted weapons and armed militias. Offering Western expertise in conflict resolution is unlikely to be taken remotely seriously by ordinary Libyans.

In light of the lessons learned by Libya's Arab Spring, it is now time that UN member states adopt a more responsible approach to the aftermath of UN resolutions that authorise military action and post conflict resolution.

That approach may have to come from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who is not afraid of showing leadership and sometimes spelling out some uncomfortable truths. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1167086 2011-12-23T05:43:21-05:00 2012-02-22T05:12:01-05:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
So far the United States - North Korea's historic enemy - shown itself to be cautious and seemingly willing both not to rock the boat. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton may not have extended the hand of friendship to Kim Jong Il's chosen successor - his third son, but has at least given the impression of waiting to see what will happen next, albeit with bated breath. But an absolute key figure in the next stage could perhaps be the former South Korean Foreign Minister and second term selected Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban ki moon.

Ban is in an extremely influential and powerful position over the coming weeks and months as an honest broker, who can speak not just on behalf of the UN but the Korean people as a whole. The World should listen very carefully to the sage advice that will be offered behind the scenes from Ban ki moon, who has historically been very much a historic supporter of 'constructive engagement' with the North. Some thought must already surely have been given to the role that ban can play behind the scenes, and if all proceeds reasonably smoothly, what public role he can play in helping to restore relations between South and North, while urging the Chinese to put pressure on the new North Korean leader to move towards reform and respect for human rights. North Korea remains possibly the worst State abuser of human rights on the planet.

For North Korea is arguably more isolated now that at any point since the early 1980s Neighbouring South Korea and historic enemy Japan are starkly disengaged, or as the North Koreans would claim 'engaging in hostile policy'. North Korea's sinking of a South Korean military vessel the Cheonan in 2010 in disputed waters put paid to any possibility of a thaw there. Meanwhile China, the North's long time, albeit sometime reluctant ally is still smarting at President Obama's recent decision to station American forces in Australia. China has continued to support the Kim dynasty in the North, despite having much more substantial trade ties with South Korea and despite the fact that many Chinese look at North Korea with a sense of embarrassment. North Korea for many reminds them of their own country during the tumult of the Cultural Revolution.

Yet, the North remains an invaluable bargaining counter for the Chinese with the Americans and Japanese in particular. For their part, the North Koreans, whose leaders include key figures from the Kim Il Sung era such as Head of State Kim Yong-nam, are adept at playing one power off against another. Having watched the collapse of Saddam Hussein and more recently the Gadaffi regime in Libya, the North's veteran leadership knows just how valuable its rudimentary nuclear weapons can be in acting as a deterrent. But in a period of instability, with the prospect of the military and the ruling Workers Party competing for influence under a callow unknown new leader, the World will need to tread very carefully and hope that China continues to act as a restraining force.

A fortnight ago I was in Panmunjom, in the centre of the most militarised border of anywhere in the World, this time from the Southern side. All was quiet on this Cold War era frontier bristling with barbed wire and machine gun posts. There have been skirmishes here since the Armistice Agreement was signed in 1953, but never a full blown conflict. Today, North Korea has rudimentary nuclear weapons and is about to enter a period of great instability.

Mark Seddon is a former UN Correspondent for al Jazeera English TV. His reports from inside North Korea appear in his latest book, Standing for Something, Biteback publishing
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1088267 2011-11-11T18:00:00-05:00 2012-01-11T05:12:01-05:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
This was 1978, and the situation was speedily resolved without a shot being fired, but with the Argentinians being quietly warned that a Royal Navy nuclear submarine was on patrol in the area.

Callaghan had never expected trouble to emerge from this neglected and forgotten outpost. His successor, Margaret Thatcher, however, did not have the foresight to learn from the earlier incident, and announced the withdrawal of HMS Endurance from Falkland waters, and for good measure awarded the islanders with new, not so British, passports. The Argentinians took their cue and the rest of course is history.

Today, more thoughtful officials at the United Nations in New York are looking nervously at a small, forgotten outpost in the middle of Iraq as being a possible source of greater conflict.

There are just over 1350 Kurdish Iranian refugees living near Irbil in Northern Iraq, where they have been since the fall of the Shah.

Once upon a time they could count on the shelter of Saddam Hussein and his Sunni backers, but today with the old enemies of Iraq and Iran closer than they have been for decades, the Kawa camp risks turning into a flash point.

The Iraqis say it is time for them to return to Iran, while the refugees says that if they do, they will be tortured. Their cause has been championed by amongst others, US Republicans and by Democrats such as Howard Dean. Their plight becomes even more relevant when seen though the prism of Iran's nuclear programme and the response of the West, and in particular by Israel.

This week's report by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) put that nuclear programme under much sharper analysis, drawing howls of outrage from Tehran.

The IAEA report barely made the headlines in Europe, beset as it is with more immediate problems. But crucially it claimed that Iran "has worked to design nuclear bombs". This does not mean that Iran actually has the nuclear bomb, but that it is likely striving to achieve having one. The Iranians have of course indignantly dismissed any claim that this is the path that they are on, and have continued to allow inspectors in to the country under the terms of the Non Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory.

Israel, which is a nuclear power, with nuclear weapons, but which is not a member of the NPT and does not allow IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities, has reacted strongly. Israeli hawks are thought to favour a surgical strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, while the Iranians have threatened to respond to any Israeli attack, by wiping Israel off the map.

Two weeks ago it was revealed in the Guardian newspaper that the British Ministry of Defence had been engaged in contingency planning to join with, if necessary, any American led response to come to the aid of Israel.

It would be tempting to write off all of this as typical sabre rattling. The problem is that this time the IAEA have gone further than ever before, while Israel and Iran sound more bellicose than ever before.

Both the US and Israel have refused to rule out any option to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Marry this to a deeply alarming economic situation in the West, and the potential for all of this to get out of hand is very great. Especially when you have an issue as vexatious as the Kawa refugee camp moving to the centre of the web, much as the Archduke Ferdinand unwittingly did in Sarajevo in the early years of the last century.

Wiser counsel at the United Nations is urging caution, and in the shape of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are urging a "diplomatic solution to the nuclear stand-off". While calling for Iran to observe Security Council resolutions and saying that the onus is now on Iran to prove the peaceful nature of its programme, Ban Ki-moon and the UN are clear; that negotiated, rather than a military solution is the only way to resolve the issue.

Wise counsel such as this was largely ignored in the run up to the war in Iraq, and such were the consequences that few thought such blundering would ever occur again.

There is of course a tendency for lessons to be heeded by the international community as it suits differing agendas. But this time, the World and the potential protagonists have been warned, and this time by a UN Secretary General with a very real moral authority.

They should listen.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1029501 2011-10-24T19:00:00-04:00 2011-12-24T05:12:01-05:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
There would of course be no binding vote and no legislation; the debating device was designed to allow MPs to let off steam. The device would have the added benefit of allowing the professional political class to go through the motion of listening to unpopular, unfashionable opinions from the great unwashed without having to lift a lazy finger.

Except as we know, the Prime Minister David Cameron decided to elevate the popular demand for a referendum into a trial of strength, and one which he would have lost had not Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg come racing to his rescue. Cameron insisted on a three line whip, egged on by the Coalition's chief hostage taker, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and supported by the leader of Her Majesty's astonishingly loyal Opposition, Ed Miliband. What a lost opportunity! What an apology for an Opposition! The late John Smith, Europhile that he was, never lost an opportunity to harry the Major Conservative Government to the near bitter end over the Maastricht Treaty.

In the end over 80 Conservative MPs rebelled against their leader. They were joined by a record number of Labour MPs - not that they were deemed worthy of mention by much of the media, since it is pre-ordained that the issue of Britain's relations with the EU is primarily an issue for the British Right.

This Westminster farce took place against the backdrop of a mounting and increasingly insoluble crisis in the Eurozone. It took place as the European political establishment acknowledged that a Europe wide referendum on a new Treaty designed to shore up the Eurozone with the political and economic integration needed to save it is inevitable.

Meanwhile the serried ranks of cavorting clowns from UKIP and the BNP managed to keep sections of the media entertained, waving flags at Westminster, and harping back to a time and a place that may have existed sometime in the mid 1950s.

So here, I believe is an uncomfortable truth; one that British newspapers of Left and Right will either deliberately ignore or simply fail to comprehend. It is this; an overwhelming majority of people in Britain favour a referendum on Britain's relations with the EU. They comprise a majority of supporters of each of the main parties. Some of them may not be able to express themselves as well as the commentariat, while others may simply be woefully ignorant.

But a majority are simply plain, straight talking folk who are deeply worried that Britain - not a member of the Single Currency - could be dragged ever closer to the Eurozone mire. They do not trust or like their own politicians very much, but they distrust the leaders and nomenclature of the Brussels EU Commission even less. Deep down, they are fundamentally democratic.

Patronised and ignored, their rage, for once, was echoed on Monday night by the rebel Parliamentarians.

I declare an interest, as an internationalist, a European and a democrat. I have been campaigning for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, because I believe the issue is one of democracy and accountability. The People's Pledge, which I am supporting, does just that, but as neither a force for withdrawal or for staying in.

Today the European Union is divided into two sections; those countries who are part of the Eurozone, and which will out of absolute necessity now move with astonishing speed to integrate into full political and economic union, and those outside who will either be sucked into this vortex or keep a sensible distance. And since Europe's leaders have thus demonstrated a singular lack of competence so far, there is precious little confidence that they have the ability to make the right decisions now.

This, in practical terms, is where we are. And while Britain's professional political class effected an historical and empty collusion on Monday, events will continue to run ahead of them. That is until the grown-ups decide to step into the breach.

Mark's book Standing for Something: Life in the Awkward Squad is available from his Amazon page]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.981353 2011-09-26T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-26T05:12:02-05:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
Fast forward three decades, and the whole British political class is at it. 'Crisis? What crisis?' they all seem to be saying as the World teeters on the edge of a second seismic economic downturn. And what of the Euro-zone, the source for much of our contemporary woe? And what of Greece, the country at the epi centre of the great Eurozone melt down? Strangely enough we hear virtually nothing from the politicians. What of the attempts to shore up the Euro zone, to save Greece from itself and to tackle the giant Euro deficit which lies at the heart of those current crisis? Again from British politicians, barely a peep. And what of the logic being heard from German politicians and the Bundesbank, that the only way to save the core Euro zone is to apply the rules it was supposed to abide by when it was formed? Again, there is nothing from British politicians, because none dare face the truth behind the relentless logic that will drive Europe together fiscally and politically in full, integrated union. That means giving the European Commission and Central Bank extraordinary new powers.

These are all hugely important issues. Doubtless there will have to be another referendum across the European Union to allow this next step of integration or centralisation to take place. The Germans are talking about this, as are the French and East Europeans. In fact everywhere in Europe they are talking about it, except in Britain.

Last week The People's Pledge, www.peoplespledge.org, which is dedicated to achieving a full referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the planed new European state, commissioned a YouGov poll. As the Labour Party meets in Liverpool and the party's leader prepares to give his keynote address, will Ed Miliband speak about any of this great issues?

He should, since the YouGov poll makes it absolutely clear that Labour voters - and many of the five million lost working class Labour voters are absolutely clear; that before anything else is allowed to happen, Britain should have a referendum on the EU.

Some 53% of Labour voters support a referendum, while 33% are against, with 13% undecided.
The democratic logic is remorseless, as is the electoral logic. If Labour really wants to win the next General Election it needs to allow the British people to make their own minds up in a referendum about the country's future relationship with the European Union.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.972403 2011-09-20T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-20T05:12:02-05:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
Hammarskjold remains a totemic figure, a benchmark against which his successors are frequently compared. His has undoubtedly been a hard act to follow, but if he is looking down from somewhere high in the clouds, blue helmet still resting by his side, he would no doubt see many of the problems the UN wrestled with then, still festering and unresolved. In particular he would see that fifty years on the apparent curse that is the Democratic Republic of Congo's huge mineral wealth means that there is still terrible conflict and suffering in this part of Africa. But he could also see that there has been steady and quantifiable improvement in so much else, and that the organisation he helped shape and build is today in good hands.

Today another diplomat, who in common with Hammarskjöld has never really been identified with particularly strong political views, will stand where other Secretary Generals have in front of the World's Parliament, the United Nations General Assembly. Ban Ki-moon, the cerebral and unflappable Secretary General of the UN is about to embark on his second five year term in office. He does so at a time when the World is reeling from an added woe that affects every member state, rich or poor, although the poor proportionately more. The global economic downturn affects virtually everything and everyone. The global feeling of insecurity and in many places fear, adds to the pressure of conflict and exposes women and children to potentially more suffering. Ban's address to the UN also takes place as the Middle East in particular is convulsed by change and World opinion galvanised by the Palestinian push for statehood and international recognition. In this, the World is crying out for clear, moral leadership, because in so many countries the choice of political leadership is so palpably weak.

Ban Ki-moon will most likely present a calm and reassuring message to a global audience which is in the mood to be receptive. When he talks, as he will, about helping nations in transition, he will be able to point to hard and fast examples of where the UN has really made a difference, from Libya to Cote D'Ivoire. When he speaks about the need for security and peace, he can point to the powerful record of the UN's peacekeeping operations from Haiti to the Golan Heights. When he talks about the need for "more UN reform", those in the organisation will know that while turning a large ship around can take time, the UN is in better shape that it was five years back. Everyone seeking high office for genuine reasons seeks to leave an organisation in a better shape when he or she found it.

I hope that Ban Ki-moon will also talk about the role he has played in enforcing 'Responsibility to Protect' and the growing importance of the International Criminal Court. Without Ban's leadership, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 may have foundered, and the hundreds of thousands of civilians who for a while lay quaking with fear in Benghazi, Libya could well have become targets for Gaddafi's retribution. I hope too, that Ban will receive not just credit, but serious international support for the actions that will need to be taken against regimes such as that of Syria and Yemen that continue behave with utter impunity towards their own people. Week after week, often when attention was elsewhere, Ban has continued to shine the spotlight on the Assad regime in Syria.

Ban's overarching theme will be "together, nothing is impossible". This is not hyperbole, but practical commonsense born out of the United Nation's collectivism. The UN may sometimes be slow, sometimes it may disappoint on other occasions it may seem to lack teeth. All these deficiencies can largely be laid at the door of an organisation which is bluntly a sum of all its parts - a glorious international melting pot of sovereign nations, at its best when they are working with each other. When Ban says "together nothing is impossible", perhaps he will be referring to the international effort now desperately needed in famine stricken Somalia? Perhaps he will mean that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not insuperable if this maxim is followed? Or maybe it could be applied to conflict wherever it is taking place. For sure, every single delegate present, and every single person watching and listening will be able to take that phrase and apply it to a situation known to them.

In a World craving real moral leadership, honesty and integrity, Ban Ki-moon stands out. Throughout his first term he has given every impression of listening and learning. His humility throughout, a rare virtue. I shall be watching and listening as Ban Ki-moon speaks to the World and hope that those who really have the power to make a difference take note of every word he says.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.958097 2011-09-12T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-12T05:12:02-05:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
Blair used the occasion of the 9/11 attacks on civilians in America by civilian terrorists , not to apologise for getting it so horribly wrong over those non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Nor did he apologise to the countless Iraqis who have lost family, who suffered the indignities of a botched occupation or who even now suffer crippling injuries. He didn't apologise to the families of British servicemen or women who lost loved ones either.

Instead he offered up Iran as the 'next great threat', blissfully unaware that he was offering up the prospect of more death and destruction on the weekend that many Americans were commemorating their dead. But then self awareness has never been one of Tony Blair's strong points. Not content with outdoing the most hawkish of the remaining hawks, Blair's predilection for endless war, was rounded off in a separate interview that rejected the view that the failed war in Afghanistan and the illegal one in Iraq, had helped encourage Islamist extremism. "I hear this wherever I go in the Middle East", says that man who quite unbelievably was made the Quartet's Middle East representative.

Let us be quite clear, and for the benefit of The Times and the Daily Mirror, and all of those toadying hacks who spent years taking crumbs from Blair's table; the former British Prime Minister not only knows very little about foreign affairs, he knows even less about history. His actions in Government would suggest also that he should neither be trusted nor taken remotely seriously.

Iran does not constitute any threat to the United Kingdom, whatever Blair may think or whatever that country's blustering leader Ahmadinijad may imagine. Its influence in the region has of course grown as many of us said it would, with the defeat of Saddam Hussein's Sunni dominated rule in Iraq. And Iran does seem bent on developing a nuclear programme that could encompass the development of nuclear weapons, much as Israel has done. However, Iran does have plenty of reasons not to like the British very much, reasons that of course Blair will largely be ignorant. For not only did the British topple the popular Iranian Nationalist Premier Mossadeq in 1953 for daring to nationalise the country's oil industry, but successive British Government's help prop up the Shah and his brutish regime. Widespread allegations of torture by some British soldiers against Iraqis simply add to the poisonous brew.

Whatever action that may be taken against Iran for breaches of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty is a matter for the United Nations, but it is worth pointing out to Blair that Iran is at least a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, unlike Israel. Perhaps Tony Blair might like to bring this discrepancy to the next AIPAC Conference, when he flies in to be their guest?

The Iranian regime is of course not to everyone's tastes, including a growing number of Iranians themselves. It has brutally cracked down on demonstrators, and cannot remain immune from the popular revolts that have taken place across the Arab World. But Blair's strangely infantile but dangerous intervention can only help the Iranian hard-liners, which is of course what some of his critics may claim. In this I suspect they are wrong, because Blair clearly hasn't thought this one through.

By claiming that the Iraq War has had nothing to do with the growing radicalisation of some, Tony Blair is of course engaged in the usual and predictable denial game. He would have had a point had he said it wasn't the only factor.

Given Britain's record in the Middle East in the last century in particular it is indeed surprising that this country is not even more disliked than it is. With the honourable exception of the self interest that led to those such as the late Captain TE Lawrence being allowed to help Arabs overthrow Ottoman tyranny, just take a quick skip through the 20th century and ask yourself; "If I was an Arab Muslim, how would I feel?"

Arabs blame Britain for the Balfour Declaration and the appropriation of Palestinian land. The process is so well advanced now that barely a scattering of largely disconnected Palestinian 'Bantustans' remain. A bid for statehood by the beleagured Palestinians, overwhelmingly supported by the court of World opinion, looks set to be vetoed by the United States in the UN Security Council.Throughout much of the 20th century the US and the UK used their Security Council veto repeatedly to support Israel. Both countries turned a blind eye to that country's nuclear weapons programme. From the toppling of Mossadeq, to the invasion of Suez and the illegal war on Iraq, Britain in particular has a record to be ashamed of. It is this long and miserable record that has helped fuel resentment, and in isolated cases, terrorism.

Tony Blair presided over and a fairly inglorious, bloody decade in power. He cannot apologise and has difficulty with empathy, which is why he used the 9/11 memorial weekend to crassly rehearse his permanent war mantra. He clearly has no shame, and neither do those journalists who persist in granting him the oxygen of publicity.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.950449 2011-09-06T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-06T05:12:02-05:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
The discovery of some extraordinary archives in the ruins of the Ministry of Information in Tripoli by Human Rights Watch suggest that the British security services had much stronger links with their opposite numbers in Gadaffi's Libya than hitherto thought. And while the security services will be fearing even worse revelations, they must also be kicking themselves for not getting to the files first.

If the files are to be believed, the British not only knew about extraordinary rendition, they were complicit in it. Worse still, they handed information regarding Libyan exiles to the Gadaffi regime. In doing that they must have known that some of these people would be tortured and abused. All of this was done under the umbrella of tackling Islamic fundamentalism, and as we were informed at the time to work with the Gadaffi regime and wean it from its weapons of mass destruction programme.

While it made good sense to attempt to normalise relations with the notoriously mercurial Libyan leader, to suggest - as BBC Newsnight did the other evening - that Gadaffi was persuaded from his nuclear weapons programme, seems just a little far fetched. Neither was there any real evidence supplied, to my knowledge, of Gadaffi's weapons of mass destruction programme.

But it is increasingly clear that the relationship moved to one of realpolitik to a full-blown love-in. The British Government and British business, BP in particular, had very clear economic interests. But at some stage the day to day stuff of diplomacy and business appears to have blossomed into a full on friendship, with Tony Blair even helping Gadaffi's murderous son, Saif, with his PhD at the London School of Economics. Saif returned the favour with considerable largesse directed towards the LSE. One question that needs to be asked is; did Tony Blair's Foundation ever receive any money from the Gadaffi regime?

Even if it didn't Blair, Straw and Miliband were the politicians who had direct responsibility for the activities of the security services. On the basis of the evidence discovered in Tripoli they were acting beyond the law. When previous claims of British complicity in extraordinary rendition were made, David Miliband denied them, only for the truth to be dragged out by the courts. There then followed an equally long and drawn out attempt to silence those same courts.

But the collusion in Libya goes so much further than anything we have seen so far. It brings shame on Britain, and for the servicemen and women, who have recently risked life and limb over the skies of Libya, this is a terrible affront.

The idea, frankly, that Tony Blair can continue to act as the Quartet's envoy to the Middle East, is increasingly untenable. Given his links with the Gadaffi regime and his personal friendships with some members of the murderous Gadaffi family, he should stand down, and stand down now.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.937684 2011-08-28T19:00:00-04:00 2011-10-28T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
This is dangerous. You don't have to be a Euro sceptic nationalist of the Right to appreciate that under the guise of saving the Euro a substantial EU power grab is actually taking place right under our noses.

Essentially the EU Commission is now becoming the final arbiter of national budget making right, having set up what it calls the 'AGS' or Annual Growth Survey'. This innocuous enough sounding organisation actually sets out budgets it wants all member states to adhere to over the coming year, and if any individual country doesn't comply it faces hefty fines from the Commission of 0.2% of a country's GDP, or if a member state refuses to comply over a three year period, that fine jumps to 0.5%.

Members of the EU Parliament are never slow in leaping up to disparage anyone who thinks that the Parliament is for the most part an expensive, moving, talking shop. But even they will have some difficulty in shouting this one down. For while the Parliament can offer an 'opinion' on whatever the AGS demands of any individual member state, it cannot amend those demands.

And when one considers that the medicine being handed down on high from the EU Commission and by extension the AGS is pure Friedmanite free marketeering, you have to wonder whether we are blundering unseen, into an elective dictatorship. The AGS enforces traditional austerity packages, demanding the people work longer, are 'more flexible' take lower wage increases and wants more regressive taxation. IN fact the the EU Commission, through the supremely undemocratic AGS is forcing the same policies that dragged Europe into recession and possibly now depression, and none of us can do a single thing about it.

It would of course help if there was a healthy discourse on what is happening around us and how our democracy is being snuffed out with barely a whimper of protest. But then the EU is always rather good in spending our money in marginalising dissent.

Fortunately none of this has stopped a broad, all party group coming together in Britain at least, determined as it is to let people have their say. The People's Pledge www.peoplespledge.org is demanding a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU - and by extension the country' continued subjugation to economic policies it has not voted for. For although Britain is outside the Eurozone and cannot be made to pay fines, it is quite possible that Britain could be punished by the EU for transgressing AGS rules, with for instance the withdrawal of EU structural funds (despite the fact that we have partly paid for them).
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.936931 2011-08-25T15:11:46-04:00 2011-10-25T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
Still, it seemed to me important to take advantage of any opportunities that were offered, because Britain is an increasingly parochial country and much that is reported is through the prism of the UK Government or the military. At the moment, the welcome victory of the Libyan rebels is being heralded as a kind of vindication for 'liberal interventionism' of the kind much trumpeted by Messrs Clinton and Blair.

Similarly siren voices are also drawing premature parallels between the chaos of post war Iraq and what is unfolding on the streets of Libya now. It seems to me that Iraq and Libya are very different countries, and what is happening in Libya is a popular revolt rather than a foreign military occupation.

In any event, this is all very well, except that it is patently obvious that Gadaffi and his clan would still be in power had not much of Libya risen in revolt. It is also quite possible that the revolt which began in the east of the country - as have previous rebellions - may have been crushed - without the leadership of Ban ki-moon, the United Nations and the UN Security Council. Lest it be forgotten, it was the Secretary General of the United Nations who played a pivotal role in helping to ensure that the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, allowing military action to be taken to defend civilians, primarily in Benghazi, from Gadaffi inspired attacks. While it is to the credit of Britain and France, and to the discredit of the Arab League, that military action was taken to do just that, British and French action in the days since have often given the impression of superseding the UN mandate. For the UN Security Council did not opt for regime change; that clearly is a matter for the Libyan people. Instead it invoked Responsibility to Protect, a vital doctrine, and one that should not be mistaken for 'liberal interventionism'.

There is another reason why 'liberal interventionism' can be seen in some quarters as lazy commentary. That it became associated with the disastrous intervention in Libya, there can be little doubt. And in other quarters 'liberal interventionism' is interchangeable with 'neo imperialism'. Which is why the UN's time honoured role as independent peace broker is infinitely preferable to anything else?

There are lessons to be learned once the proverbial dust settles and lessons that will not take away from the righteous celebrations now taking place across Libya. They might include an acceptance by individual members of the UN Security Council that any mandate to enforce Responsibility to Protect should include a clause that gives the UN overall command of any military operation undertaken in its name. In the case of Libya, that was ceded to NATO, and by NATO to Britain and France.

Right now, China is calling for the UN to take responsibility for helping to maintain the peace in post revolutionary Libya, and the blue helmets are the obvious choice should the new Libyan Government request them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.932806 2011-08-22T08:02:58-04:00 2011-10-22T05:12:02-04:00

Mark Seddon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-seddon/
I also interviewed some Syrian Government Ministers, Western analysts and followed President Assad around reporting on various speeches he made. On one occasion I travelled to Damascus to report on high level meetings between the UN Secretary General, Ban ki moon and the Syrian Government, at that time putting feelers out to Israel over a possible negotiated settlement in the occupied Golan heights.

I shared the optimism of the time, although more sage and experienced hands warned of the authoritarian grip that lay behind a seemingly well meaning President. Over recent months I have often wondered what became of that lanky, seeming well intentioned educated man, who at one point seemed poised to deliver Syrian from authoritarianism.

But the attempts to snuff our opposition at all costs, using soldiers and tanks revealed that underneath it all, the regime hadn't changed one jot. But all of a sudden the international community didn't seem to want to know. Syria's traditional ally, Russia, to this day supports the Ba'athist regime, while Europe and America, were unable to demonstrate the same commitment to supporting the human rights of the Syrian people that they were showing in Libya.

For a considerable period the only real voice of moral authority, the only person to attempt to exert real pressure on the Syrian regime, was the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. As elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa, Ban has been consistent and urgent. His envoys have worked around the clock, while Ban himself played a powerful role behind the scenes stiffening the resolve of the United States in particular. That there has now been an international call - with the exception of Russia - for Assad to step down, is largely the result of Ban's intervention.

The paradox is that despite the brutality of a Ba'athist regime that has been prepared to kill perhaps two thousand or so of its own people, the regime remains secular. The fear must be, if Assad's regime refuses the UN as honest broker, that a new Government may take a much less tolerant attitude to Syria's minorities, particularly the Christians. Doubtless this will be weighing on the minds of Ban and his envoys as the Syrian crisis moves to its likely climax.

Mark Seddon's blog appears as 'As I Please' for BigThink.com]]>