I’m proud to be a Londoner. Though I am away for now, part of me is always in the vibrant and diverse city that I have grown up in and where I have my home. It has been strangely dislocating to be so far away during the traumatic events of the last week – not knowing what has happened to family and friends, and alienated from the process of shock, bereavement and coming to terms with the attacks. With the luxury of distance, and now a little time, there are two thoughts I’d like us to keep in mind as we think about how to respond to these murders.
- First, we are not at war. The metaphor of a “war on terrorism” is a useful shorthand, but only in the same sense as the “war on drugs” or the “war on poverty”. This metaphor is now ubiquitous, so that it is almost impossible to speak about international affairs without lapsing into it – we now all routinely talk of battles, defeat and the enemy. But this is not literally a war, and by lazily falling back on military language we risk missing those parts of the problem that do not fit the military analogy. In particular, when we eventually find how to rid the world of this violence, it will not be through a military victory, but because we have somehow created the conditions in which it is no longer in anyone’s interest to prolong the conflict. Just as we did not “win” the “Cold War” in any military sense but through the convergence of ideas, we will not win the “war on terrorism” by killing people. As we look to the future for a long term solution, we should guard against allowing the way we use language to obscure the real choices that we face.
- If we are to bring violence to an end, we need a better understanding of its causes. Again, there is a danger that political rhetoric will obscure and not enhance our comprehension of the challenge. Despite the repetitive claims to the contrary by some political leaders, it does not seem to be true that Muslim militants are opposed to western democracy and freedom. Many Muslims are enthusiastic supporters of pluralism and freedom – a recent Pew Global Attitude Survey reports optimism among Muslims that they will move towards western-style democracy. The writings and speeches of senior Al-Q’aeda leaders do not attack western countries for the way they organize themselves at home (see this transcript of one of the Bin Ladin videos, for example.) We need to keep clearly in mind that the target of the hatred of the criminal fanatics is not western democracy but western policies in the middle east. Many Muslims believe that Western governments have become one of the most important barriers to freedom and self determination, supporting authoritarian regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Pakistan (as well as Sadaam Hussein, who was installed in Iraq by western powers). Fanatics are exploiting that dissatisfaction with western policies to provide support for their murderous activities. While we continue to pretend – as President Bush did today – that this is a battle for democracy, we will fail to understand the challenge, and we will consequently fail to find a solution to it.
I cannot resist making some less important, and perhaps slightly more partisan remarks:
- I am impressed by the way that both Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone have responded. They have rightly taken the view that our existing democratic institutions are the best way to find and punish the perpetrators of these crimes, and that it would be a victory for the criminals if they were to succeed in forcing us to dismantle our liberties and change our way of life. There has been no wild talk of invading foreign countries from UK politicians (compare this to Mr Bush’s speech today ). There has been no stoking up of fears and prejudices: just a calm, responsible call for life to continue as usual. Mr Blair, in particular, has displayed an uncanny knack of hitting the right note at times of national importance.
It has been impossible not to be moved by the resilience of Londoners. This sign in a window in Covent Garden brought tears to my eyes. London has been attacked: but there has been no backlash, no panic, and no lynch mob. We want our police to find out who did this and bring them to justice, but we will not allow these crimes to change our values. And while I am being sentimental, I am full of admiration for our emergency services. Those guys and gals are saints; and we don’t pay them anything like enough for what they do for us.- Surely this must be the final nail in the coffin of ID cards? It could be clearer after the London bombings that ID cards would not have kept us safe. Quite apart from the civil liberties arguments against ID cards, we surely have higher priorities for spending that kind of money?
- This is another entry in the grim roll of events that the Intelligence Services did not see coming (up there with the invasion of Kuwait). We spend a lot of money on our intelligence services, and we do not get a very good service for it. The budgets should be handed to the “user” departments, such as the FCO and MOD, for them to “buy” intelligence from whoever they want.
- The events highlighted the importance of the traditional news gatherers – as opposed to bloggers. While conventional news gatherers got information, photographs and news rapidly to the public, the bloggers were reduced to a secondary role, largely reporting on what the primary newsgatherers were saying. Even the photos on Flickr were mainly photos of what was on the TV, or grabbed from the BBC News website.
- There are people who say that Tony Blair is in some way to blame for the London bombs because he involved the UK in the war in Iraq. I am no supporter of our adventure in the middle east, but I agree with my Dad that this is a quite preposterous allegation. We would have been a target anyway. The killings were the fault of the murderous bastards who committed them, and only them.
I’d like to think that President Bush knows the difference between an Attorney General and a General. Perhaps not. In his speech today, according to a press release put out by the White House, he welcomed his audience as follows:
I appreciate our Attorney General, Al Gonzales, who has joined us today. General, thank you for being here.
I recently migrated my Dad's blog from Blogger to WordPress.
To transfer the content, I used Andy Skelton's import tool, which seems to have worked perfectly, especially when combined with Catstutorials' illustrated guide. Many thanks to both of these.
I managed to find a way to get Blogger to redirect to the correct post on the new WordPress site. Here is how I did it.
First, I made a backup of the Blogger template.
Second, replace the Blogger template with this (you'll need to change this to match your domain):
<html>
<Blogger>
<MainOrArchivePage>
<script language="javascript">
var blog_root="http://www.yourdomain.com/blog/";
document.location.href=blog_root;
</script>
</MainOrArchivePage>
<ItemPage>
<script language="javascript">
var process_page="http://www.yourdomain.com/from_blogger.php";
var newpage=process_page;
var oldlink="<$BlogItemPermalinkUrl$>";
newpage+="?p="+oldlink;
newpage=newpage.toLowerCase();
document.location.href=newpage;
</script>
</ItemPage>
</Blogger>
</html>
And then put the following PHP file into www.yourdomain.com/from_blogger.php:
require($_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'].'/blog/wp-blog-header.php');
$title = $_GET['p'];
$vars = explode('/', $title);
$num = count($vars) – 1;
$filename = $vars[$num];
$slug = str_replace(".html", "", $filename);
$SQL = "SELECT posts.* FROM $wpdb->posts AS posts WHERE posts.post_name = '$slug' LIMIT 1";
$posts = $wpdb->get_results("$SQL"); if ($posts)
{ foreach ($posts as $post) {
$found_link = = get_permalink($post->ID); }
} else {
$found_link = "http://www.yourdomain.com/blog/";
}
header("Location: $found_link");
It works for me …
Update: thanks to Tom Sherman for correcting my typo.
Our thoughts are with our families, friends and colleagues as they cope with the terrorist attacks on London today. It is very strange to be so far from home when this is happening. Ken Livingstone, The Mayor of London, issued a moving statement:
This was a cowardly attack, which has resulted in injury and loss of life. Our thoughts are with everyone who has been injured, or lost loved ones. I want to thank the emergency services for the way they have responded. Following the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11th in America we conducted a series of exercises in London in order to be prepared for just such an attack. One of the exercises undertaken by the government, my office and the emergency and security services was based on the possibility of multiple explosions on the transport system during the Friday rush hour. The plan that came out of that exercise is being executed today, with remarkable efficiency and courage, and I praise those staff who are involved. I’d like to thank Londoners for the calm way in which they have responded to this cowardly attack and echo the advice of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair – do everything possible to assist the police and take the advice of the police about getting home today. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a terrorist attack. We did hope in the first few minutes after hearing about the events on the Underground that it might simply be a maintenance tragedy. That was not the case. I have been able to stay in touch through the very excellent communications that were established for the eventuality that I might be out of the city at the time of a terrorist attack and they have worked with remarkable effectiveness. I will be in continual contact until I am back in London. I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever. That isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith – it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I’m proud to be the mayor of that city. Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life. I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others – that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail. In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential. They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don’t want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.
Mike Johanns, the US agriculture secretary, has announced that the US will phase out cotton subsidies after Brazil challenged the US subsidies in the World Trade Organization. American cotton farmers currently receive more in subsidies than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso – a country in which more than two million people depend on cotton production; over half of whom live below the poverty line. In 2002, the US government spent three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa’s 500 million people. This is very welcome news for cotton producers in developing countries. According to Oxfam, the losses to Central and West Africa as a result of these subsidies amounted to about $300m a year. Eight cotton-producing countries in West Africa accounted for approximately two-thirds ($191m) of overall losses. The Oxfam study found that the small size of the countries concerned and their high level of dependence on cotton magnify the effect of US policies. For individual countries, US cotton subsidies led to economic shocks of the following magnitude:
- Burkina Faso lost 1 per cent of GDP and 12 per cent of export earnings.
- Mali lost 1.7 per cent of GDP and 8 per cent of export earnings.
- Benin lost 1.4 per cent of GDP and 9 per cent of export earnings.
These losses have generated acute balance-of-payments and domestic budget pressures, and pushed several countries to the brink of a renewed debt crisis. The economic losses inflicted by the US cotton subsidy program far outweigh the benefits of its aid. Mali received $37m in aid in 2001 but lost $43m as a result of lower export earnings. The cotton subsidy program has also undermined the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, costing countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, and Chad more than they have received in debt relief. It is scandalous that it has taken more than a decade to force the United States Government to agree to withdraw these subsidies. The fact that they are now doing so is a reminder of the importance of having a strong and effective World Trade Organisation capable of cajoling even the world’s only super-power to make politically unpalatable changes to policy. Without a strong, multilateral body like the WTO, there is no way that the Americans would have backed down on cotton subsidies. The so-called anti-globalisation protestors who complain about the WTO should bear this in mind: the world is a better place with it than without it.
There is now a 50% chance of being infected by an internet worm in just 12 minutes of being online using an unprotected, unpatched Windows PC, according to Sophos.
James Chaney has been a member of the Republican Party for 20 years. In a blog entry today, he explains why he is quitting the party.
Fifty years from now, the Republican Party of this era will be judged by how we provided for the nation’s future on three core issues: how we led the world on the environment, how we minded the business of running our country in such a way that we didn’t go bankrupt, and whether we gracefully accepted our place on the world’s stage as its only superpower. Sadly, we have built the foundation for dismal failure on all three counts. And we’ve done it in such a way that we shouldn’t be surprised if neither the American people nor the world ever trusts us again.
Raghuram G. Rajan, one of the authors of the much quoted and misquoted IMF working papers which look at the impact of aid on growth, has published a correction to the Financial Times article which, he says, misrepresents the IMF’s position.
Andrew Balls’ article "Aid will not lift growth in Africa, IMF warns" (June 29), reporting on my research with Arvind Subramanian, is misleading; nor does it represent the International Monetary Fund’s position. First, the aim of research papers is to inform and generate internal and external debate, but every research paper, including the ones on which Mr. Balls reports, clearly states that the views are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the IMF, its management or its board. What is more, the pessimism in your headline mischaracterises the implications drawn by us, as well as the position of the IMF. Your editorial "Time to prove aid works" (July 1) helps clarify what our studies do, and do not, say and is most welcome.
This is a pretty funny vision of what life will be like with ID cards.
Paul Mason is blogging the G8 and Live 8 for Newsnight. So far it is lively and interesting. And not just because he has already linked to this blog twice: on aid effectiveness and on trade.
Credit where it is due: President Bush made a speech about Africa yesterday. Two quick comments. First, I cannot see how the White House reckons it has trebled aid to Africa. President Bush said yesterday:
Over the last four years, the United States has stood squarely with reformers in Africa on the side of prosperity and progress. We’ve tripled our aid to Africa; we plan to double it once again.
The figures show that from FY 2000 to FY 2005 (estimated), U.S. aid to Africa will have increased by 78% in real terms or 93% in nominal dollars – not quite a doubling, much less a “tripling” of aid. Of this increase, 50% consists of emergency food aid (PL 480 Title II). You can see the full figures here. Second, it isn’t true that aid is only effective when given to good governments. President Bush said yesterday:
Over the decades, we’ve learned that without economic and social freedom, without the rule of law and effective, honest government, international aid has little impact or value. But where there’s freedom and the rule of law, every dollar of aid, trade, charitable giving, and foreign and local investment can rapidly improve people’s lives. (Applause.)
This sounds plausible; but none of the aid-growth regressions find that aid is completely ineffective in poor policy environments, and many of them find that the quality of the policy environment makes little or no difference to the effectiveness of aid. I have no objection to donors choosing to channel their aid to better governments where possible, but they should not mislead themselves or the public into thinking that this is justified by evidence that shows that aid is not effective in badly governed countries, or that it is substantially more effective where policy is good.
Mapping Worlds has produced a fascinating new map of the world showing countries in proportion to the amount of aid they give, and the amount they would give if they met the target of 0.7% of GDP.
Some rights reserved