21st Century Vision

US Power Declines In Central Asia

The leaders of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan told US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld what he wanted to hear during his recent Central Asian tour – that the American military can maintain its existing presence in the region. Yet, after Rumsfeld’s departure, regional leaders resumed extolling the benefits of strategic cooperation with Russia, signaling that the defense secretary’s visit may have succeeded only in temporarily relieving the pressure on US forces to leave Central Asia.

During his July 25-26 visit to Central Asia, Rumsfeld secured assurances from Kyrgyz President-elect Kurmanbek Bakiyev and his Tajik counterpart Imomali Rahmonov that the US military is welcome as long as necessary. Most importantly, Bakiyev and other Kyrgyz officials endorsed the continued use by American forces of an air base outside Bishkek. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Earlier in July, both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan had backed a resolution adopted by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional political and economic grouping dominated by Russia and China, that called on the United States to set a withdrawal date for its forces in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The SCO resolution claimed the improving social and political climate in Afghanistan meant that the United States no longer needed to maintain support bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Rumsfeld during his stops in Bishkek and Dushanbe refuted the notion that Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts had progressed to the point where a strong US military presence was unnecessary. The defense secretary described the US air base in Kyrgyzstan as vital for the support of ongoing US military operations to contain Islamic militants in Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld proclaimed US ties with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to be in sound shape. For example, during a joint news conference in the Tajik capital Dushanbe, he characterized the United States and Tajikistan as "solid partners in the global struggle against extremism."

While Kyrgyz and Tajik leaders may see value in maintaining strategic cooperation with the United States, there are many signs suggesting that officials in both countries now see Russia as their primary security partner.

On July 26, shortly after Rumsfeld had departed Bishkek, the Russian news agency Itar-Tass published an interview with Bakiyev, in which the president-elect said that Moscow has "always held and will hold a special place in Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy." The Kyrgyz leader indicated that Kyrgyzstan would boost strategic cooperation in the future.

"We think Russia’s presence in the Central Asian region is, first of all, a safeguard of stability and security," Bakiyev continued. "International terrorism, religious extremism, illegal trade in drugs and arms, organized crime and various kinds of violence – all this requires ever closer cooperation and joint actions based on complete trust."

Meanwhile, Tajikistan has significantly strengthened its strategic and economic relations with Russia over the past year. Ties binding Dushanbe and Moscow are currently far stronger than those between the United States and Tajikistan.

During an October 2004 visit to Tajikistan by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow agreed to forgive $350 million in debt in exchange for control of a satellite surveillance complex in Nurek. Russian and Tajik officials also concluded several deals, in which Russian companies pledged to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Tajik infrastructure and industrial projects. In addition, Dushanbe agreed to grant Russia a permanent military base on Tajik territory. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Russia has largely been silent about Rumsfeld’s Central Asian trip. Some Russian media outlets claimed the United States extended $200 million in financial assistance in order to secure continued access to the Kyrgyz air base at Manas. But Kyrgyz officials denied the reports. Political observers expect that Moscow will continue to use regional multilateral organizations, including the SCO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, to undermine the American geopolitical position in Central Asia. 

US Challenges Kyoto

The Guardian has reported that The United States and Australia have been working in secret for 12 months on an alternative to the Kyoto protocol and will reveal today a joint pact with China, India and South Korea to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The deal, which will be formally announced by the US deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick in Laos today when the five "partners" hold a press conference, comes a month after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get George Bush to commit to any action on climate change.

Details of the agreement are not yet public but it is clear it is designed to give US and Australian companies selling renewable energy and carbon dioxide-cutting technologies access to markets in Asia.

It is thought the pact does not include any targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which the rest of the developed world has signed up to under Kyoto.

The existence of the pact appeared to come as a surprise to Downing Street yesterday.

The government eventually issued a statement through the Department for Environment welcoming the agreement but warning that it could not replace Kyoto. It also made clear that Mr Blair would continue to discuss climate change with America, China and India, as part of his G8 presidency.

If this is true then it is clear that the US is seeking to divide the world community over perhaps the most important issue of your time. And it is doing it so that it can protect its own profligate consumption of fuels that on a per capita basis does more harm to the environment that that of any other country in the globe.

Environment groups across the world yesterday expressed doubts that the US was doing any more than safeguarding its own trade in technology.

Tony Juniper, Director of Friends Of The Earth, said that only a legally binding treaty, which set targets and timetables to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would achieve the 60% reductions, which scientists said were required to save the planet from climate change.

"I fear this is another attempt to undermine Kyoto and a message to the developing world to buy US technology and not to worry about targets and timetables."

World Appeal

The 60^th Anniversary of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced the massive, profound, long-lasting horror and trauma of atomic bombing on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. On our behalf, they tasted the hellish end of the world that nuclear weapons hold in store, and for sixty years the survivors have done everything in their power to communicate a single message: it must never happen again. Will they succeed in awakening the world from its insane nuclear trance? Or will the past be forgotten, and repeated.

Incredibly, some in the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea still believe that nuclear weapons have a legitimate purpose and can be used to their benefit. They fail to understand that any use of even a single nuclear weapon for whatever purpose will benefit only warmongers seeking to increase violence and terrorists seeking to destroy civilization. Any use of nuclear weapons will overwhelm any meaningful medical response.

The day of deterrence is done. The great majority of people and nations on Earth want nuclear weapons permanently gone. It is technically feasible to be safely rid of these expensive, heinous, and absurdly dangerous weapons by the year 2020. All that is needed is the political will, and we are the majority. The time has come to liberate ourselves, our children, and their children from the intolerable, unconscionable threat of annihilation. Please let your leaders know that you will accept nothing less.

Morality is at the core of the nuclear issue: are we going to base our world on a culture of peace or on a culture of violence? Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral: their action is indiscriminate, killing people alive now and generations as yet unborn. And the consequence of their use might be to bring the human race to an end. We do not believe that the people of the world would accept a policy that is inherently immoral and likely to end in catastrophe.

We all have a common interest: survival. We have to move forward from a now outdated security system based on nuclear deterrence and alliances, to one based on cooperation and allegiance to humankind. In the words of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, signed by Albert Einstein as one of the last acts of his life: “We appeal, as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

Above all: Remember your humanity.

Signed by members and supporters of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Changing The Global Balance In Health

The Global Health Watch 2005-2006, an alternative world health report written from the perspective of civil society, identifies the World Health Organization as being insufficiently resourced, hampered by internal management problems, undermined by the power games of rich nations and distracted from its core aims to build universal health systems and tackle the underlying causes of ill-health by a proliferation of uncoordinated initiatives.

David McCoy, co-editor of the Watch said: “The imbalance in power between rich countries and poor countries, as well as between the unaccountable corporate sector and public bodies is an important underlying determinant of ill health. The Watch calls for a response from the global community to restore balance and democratic accountability”

Key Points For Action:

• All global, bilateral and regional trade agreements should subject to health and equity impact assessments.  An international delegation of public health experts should be nominated and mandated to attend WTO negotiations and provide public health warnings to national governments as well as submit a high-level report to the WHO. This could start with the Hong Kong talks in December 2005.

• Hundreds of millions still lack access to even basic care. And in most of the world, where health care has to be purchased directly out of pocket, it regularly pushes people deeper into poverty. Reverse the commercialisation of health care systems.

• To pay for a strengthened and effective World Health Organisation new Global Taxation systems are required.  Corporate Tax Evasion costs up to US$255 billion annually in lost tax revenues.  Governments should agree to set up an international tax authority with a mandate to eliminate tax evasion and raise revenue for development at the global level.

• Governments should explore – and implement – new forms of development financing such as the currency transaction tax.

See Global Health Watch website…..

Trade & Open Markets

We recently asked Theresa Villiers the MP for Chipping Barnet questions about trade and open markets and specificallyw hich countries apart from the UK are pressing for liberal clauses in EPAs, and which for illiberal ones?

We also asked if she could confirm that the UK's position is unchanged: that the EU should guarantee developing countries flexibility and the right to decide whether, how and when to liberalise their own markets?

This is her answer to us.

Looking at the general issues raised, I believe that developing countries should decide for themselves the extent to which their economies are arranged along free market lines or whether a more centralised/socialist approach is adopted. For example, each country should decide for itself whether public services should be provided directly by the state, by state owned entities or by private companies.

Looking at your specific questions, I don’t believe that any western governments (the UK included) are seeking to force radical free market policies on the developing world. Personally, I can see the benefits of such policies but this is an issue for the countries of the developing world to decide for themselves.

Lastly you ask me whether I agree with the argument that WTO rules require the markets of developing countries to be opened up to competition.  Obviously, the WTO exists to encourage market opening and I believe that opening up domestic economies to competition from the rest of the world can confer significant benefits on the developing world. However, I understand the desire of developing countries to protect certain vulnerable industries and I believe that they should be able to do so, particularly in the light of the shameful trade barriers of the western world. I believe that this should be permitted within the framework of existing WTO rules and future free trade treaties.

Niger Food Crisis

The United Nations top aid official has accused the international community of neglecting the food crisis in Niger. Some 150,000 children will die soon without aid, out of 2.5m who need food, said Jan Egeland.

"Niger is the example of a neglected emergency, where early warnings went unheeded," he told the BBC.

The UN's Niger appeal in May initially failed to attract a single pledge. But the government there has also sought to downplay the scale of the crisis. It has refused demands to distribute free food and has been criticised for not doing more to prepare for the food shortages.

The crisis was widely predicted after last year's poor harvests, following poor rains and locust invasions.

Aid workers in Niger say that children are dying every day in feeding centres in the south of one of the world's poorest countries, much of which lies in the Sahara desert. They say that up to a quarter of Niger's 12m people need food aid.

The UN has now received just a third of the $30m it had asked for, Mr Egeland said. The UN under secretary general for humanitarian affairs also said that beyond immediate food aid, the world should help Niger improve its agricultural methods to avoid future food crises - but this programme had received even fewer pledges.

He said the $30m requested for both short - and long-term aid "was nothing". Europeans eat ice cream for $10bn a year and Americans spend $35bn on their pets each year."

---

Jury of Conscience - Iraq

A Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries hearing the testimonies of 54 members of the Panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom, this global civil initiative came to an conclusion at the end of June. Arundathi Roy, announced the Jury’s conclusions.

The Jury defined this war as one of the most unjust in history: ‘The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society. Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated.’

On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents, the jury has established the following charges against the Governments of the US and the UK:

• Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
• Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure
• Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems
• Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter
• Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors
• Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment
• Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
• Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied
• Willfully devastating the environment
• Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded
• Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq
• Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media
• Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions

The Jury also established charges against the Security Council of United Nations for failing to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity among other failures, against the Governments of the Coalition of the Willing for collaborating in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, against the Governments of Other Countries for allowing the use of military bases and air space and providing other logistical support, against Private Corporations for profiting from the war, against the Major Corporate Media for disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities.

The Jury also provided a number of recommendations that include recognising the right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions, and affirming that the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self-determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, we the Jury of Conscience declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq and the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq.

The Istanbul session of the WTI lasted three days and presented testimony on the illegality and criminal violations in the U.S. pretexts for and conduct of this war. The expert opinion, witness testimony, video and image evidence addressed the impact of war on civilians, the torture of prisoners, the unlawful imprisonment of Iraqis without charges or legal defence, the use of depleted uranium weapons, the effects of the war on Iraq’s infrastructure, the destruction of Iraqi cultural institutions and the liability of the invaders in international law for failing to protect these treasures of humanity.

The session in Istanbul was the culminating session of commissions of inquiry and hearings held around the world over the past two years. Sessions on different topics related to the war on Iraq were held in London, Mumbai, Copenhagen, Brussels, New York, Japan, Stockholm, South Korea, Rome, Frankfurt, Geneva, Lisbon and Spain.

They have compiled a definitive historical record of evidence on the illegality of the invasion and occupation that will be recorded in a forthcoming book.

Britain Must Take Responsibility

Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the terrorist attacks in London, a respected independent thinktank on foreign affairs, the Chatham House organisation, says today.

According to the body, which includes leading academics and former civil servants among its members, the key problem in the UK for preventing terrorism is that the country is "riding as a pillion passenger with the United States in the war against terror".

"Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign."

In the most politically sensitive finding, Chatham House, which used to be known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, concludes there is "no doubt" the invasion of Iraq has "given a boost to the al-Qaida network" in "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising", while providing an ideal targeting and training area for terrorists

This finding runs counter to the line from Downing Street, which has sought to detach Iraq from the London attacks.

This report has come out at the same time as Pakistan’s UN ambassador, Munir Akram has publicly declared that it is important not to pin blame the terrorist attacks in London on somebody else when the problem lies internally.

“Your policies in the Middle East, your policies in the Islamic world, that is the problem with your society and that is where the problem lies as far as this incident is concerned. It would be a grave mistake to point fingers at Pakistan or anybody outside your country."

Such outspokenness is unusual in diplomatic circles, particularly at such a sensitive time. The UN is a top posting, normally only entrusted to experienced diplomats.

Our MPs & Development

During the General Election campaign, we asked candidates the following questions about development. Here we compare the answers of the successful candidates who became out MPs. Unfortunately we can only compare the answers from three of our new MPs as Joan Ryan (Lab, Enfield North) chose not to participate in our exercise in edemocracy, during the election campaign, although she did attend one of our actual hustings in Enfield. Below are the questions we asked and the response from our “Development Group.”

What is your attitude to development aid to poor countries?  In particular -

• The size of the aid budget
• Cancellation of debt
• The provision and pricing of drugs for diseases of poverty (Aids, TB and malaria)
• The outsourcing of jobs to countries such as India

All three MPs professed themselves in favour of the UN target of giving 0.7% of GNP as aid, though I noticed that both Conservatives only want to ‘work towards’ it by 2013. We’ve been ‘working towards’ this target for the last 35 years and we’re almost as far away as when we started. Andy Love (Lab, Edmonton) was able to say that Labour has ‘set a timetable’ for 2013. Andy went further and hoped that the aid budget would continue to grow ‘as our economic prosperity grows’, though it was not clear whether he just meant that 0.7% of a big cake is more than 0.7% of a small cake, or whether he wants to carry on towards 1%.

Andy Love was also the most enthusiastic about debt relief, welcoming the Labour decision to write off 100% of debt for the poorest countries, and for those using the proceeds to benefit their poorest citizens. He liked this idea so much he said it twice. David Burrowes (Con, Enfield Southgate) supports the principle of cancelling debts owed to the multilateral institutions (which is what the 100% cancellation was actually all about), while Theresa Villiers (Con, Chipping Barnet) approved of ‘the progress that has been made on bilateral debt relief’ (there hadn’t been much when she said that – perhaps she was confusing it with multilateral). She also claimed, somewhat hyperbolically, that the last Conservative government ‘led the world’ in providing debt relief. I’d be interested to see the evidence for that one. Both want reform of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) to make it faster and more extensive, and to ensure that the proceeds are used to fight disease and expand education. Both (still singing from the same hymn sheet) want to ‘promote responsible lending and borrowing to ensure a sustainable end to the debt crisis’. (To be fair to David and Theresa, Joan Ryan would, in like manner, almost certainly have been singing from the same hymn sheet as Andy Love if she hadn’t developed laryngitis).

On the diseases of poverty, Andy Love was again in the advantageous position of being able to quote concrete achievements in Aids funding and a doubled contribution to the Global Fund to fight Aids, TB and Malaria (GFATM), and pressure brought to bear on other countries.  David Burrowes has detailed plans for tackling Aids through education, provision of condoms, universal primary healthcare (I’m not sure where that comes into tackling Aids, though it’s a good thing in its own right), extension of ARVs, the quest for a vaccine and an annual report on progress – all good stuff if rather predictable. He also wants to establish new teaching hospitals in Africa to train health workers – a plus point for his programme, as long as he can find a way to avoid the newly-trained doctors and nurses ending up in the NHS. Worryingly, he does not mention funding for GFATM, which is the primary weapon against the diseases of poverty. Even worse, he makes no mention of TB or malaria, despite their being specifically mentioned in the question. This is not a minor omission. Malaria kills up to 3 million a year (mostly children), TB 2 million a year and rising, and tackling Aids without tackling TB is like trying to keep a shift afloat by pumping out the water without repairing the gaping hole in the hull. Theresa Villiers’ programme for Aids is remarkably similar to David’s, but she doesn’t forget GFATM. Indeed, she says that it was set up by the EU at the behest of Conservative MEPs (presumably including herself) – though Kofi Annan and the UN may dispute this claim. She does know that the EU has given GFATM 120 million Euros – and Conservative MEPs, notably John Bowis, did have a hand in that, though by no means alone.

On outsourcing of jobs, Andy Love is refreshingly global in his viewpoint: no negative economic effect here, while the developing country gets advanced technology and up-to-date business techniques. He also mentions the need to ensure the protection of workers’ rights. David Burrowes takes the Tory viewpoint to glorious extremes – outsourcing of jobs as the way to end poverty for ever! It’s also good for the UK economy, getting rid of all those expensive workers. Theresa Villiers, on the other hand, tries to hedge her bets, mindful that the expensive British workers are also voters. She rather grudgingly admits companies’ rights to make their profits wherever they can, but blames the rush to outsourcing on Labour over-regulation and too many taxes. In contrast to Andy, her view is entirely parochial - she doesn’t mention the effects on the country being outsourced to at all.

Comparing The Views Of Our local MPs

During the election, Enfield and the Barnets UNA put a series of questions to each of the candidates in the four constituencies we cover. In the next few weeks, we hope to contrast and evaluate the responses from the successful candidates, who thus became our MPs, to the questions we asked.

Unfortunately it can only compare the answers from three of our new MPs as Joan Ryan (Lab, Enfield North) chose not to participate in our exercise in edemocracy, during the election campaign, although she did attend one of our actual hustings in Enfield. The full answers of the other three, along with those of the unsuccessful candidates, can be found on our General Election Hustings Blog and you can visit the full answers there.