Sunday, June 26, 2016

Primary Colour is green - for money


Letter from America – Ian Williams

Tribune: Ian Williams
Published: June 10, 2016 Last modified: June 7, 2016


Those who advocated primary-style elections in the British Labour Party should learn their lessons from the shambles of the presidential process in the United States, if they had not already done so from the Labour leadership ­election. One of those lessons should be to realise the differences between US and European political systems.
American political parties are not parties in the European sense. They do not have members and little or no structure through which ordinary voters can influence the process.
That is why Donald Trump, until ­recently a Democrat donor, can become the Republican candidate, or why Bernie Sanders, a life-long socialist, is one car crash away from the Democrat nomination. (In case that looks as bad as it should, Hillary Clinton invoked Robert Kennedy’s assassination for staying in the race against Barack Obama when all electoral hope was lost!) American parties are essentially coalitions of candidates trying to seize the spoils of success.
As we approach the end of the grueling primary elections in the US, Hillary Clinton has been declaring victory for months because of the so-called super delegates, who are essentially self-appointed party functionaries who have not put themselves through any significant electoral process but who do know whence the cheques will be coming.
To be fair, much of Bernie Sanders’ success, like that of Jeremy Corbyn, comes from voters who had abandoned the Democratic Party and over the years of Vietnam, followed by the Bill Clinton years.
Like me, they had changed their registration to “Democratic Party” solely in order to vote for him or voted in states that allowed open primaries, where independents could vote in the Democratic primaries.
That highlights a major difference from the British system – in the US, the primary elections for party candidates are run by the government, just as if they were normal elections. Meant to rescue elections from smoke-filled rooms in Tammany Hall, the advent of television advertising in effect restricted primaries to people who either had money, or could raise it.
The Clinton family business was famous for courting Wall Street – for the same reason that bank robber Will Sutton explained his choice of target. “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Bill Clinton’s avowed purpose of eroding the influence of what he called “special interest” groups – such as the unions, minorities, pensioners who might oppose austerity measures, deregulation and free trade pacts. Blair like what he saw his chum doing and emulated him.
Money is the root of all evil in politics – and as soon as we had one person, one vote in the British Labour Party, Lord Levy’s money swung the balance for Tony Blair, while John Prescott had to pay off his own campaigning bills later. New Labour designed a procedure to elect the party leader so that influxes of cash from Sainsbury, Zabludowicz, Levy, ­Ecclestone and the like could combine with a rabid media to shoo-in the ­candidate that they wanted.
For both Corbyn and Sanders, new social media has been a gamechanger, upending previous assumptions. Initially, the Democratic Party establishment ­clearly regarded Hillary Clinton as the anointed and decided that saying anything negative about Sanders would just draw unwanted attention to his candidacy. The establishment tactic was to schedule the debates infrequently and at unpopular times which in retrospect proved quite effective.
The more voters saw of Sanders the more they liked him – and seemingly the more they saw of Clinton, the less they liked her but her early victories gave her crucial delegates. If Sanders had had more exposure earlier on, it is likely that he would have a lot more delegates at the Democratic Convention by now.
Polls show that many of his supporters are not instinctively going to vote for Clinton. They support Sanders precisely because of his distance from New ­Democrats and the Clinton family ­business. This is dangerous ground as show by polls indicating that in a race between Trump and Clinton, she is far less assured of success than Sanders. To be fair, Trump’s thuggishly authoritarian attitudes make him a frightening prospect, so we can only hope that Sanders’ ­supporters will hold their noses and vote for Hillary if necessary.
As a less sanguinary wish, many Bernie supporters, even if they discount the chances of assassination that she ­herself has raised, are watching with keen interest the FBI investigation of the former Secretary of State over her ­definitely careless and possibly criminal use of emails. An indictment before the Convention could, of course, mean that all bets are off.
And as a legacy, the Platform Committee that decides the policies Democrats will fight on have a significant and vociferous Sanders contingent, while he is lending support to like-minded candidates for Congress. Win or lose, we have not seen the end of the Sanders’ database.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Arabs and UNSC

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June/July 2016, pp. 44-45

United Nations Report

There’s More Than One Way to Skin the Security Council Cat

By Ian Williams


ian williams
Two months after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Arab League Ambassador Clovis Maksoud (r) confers with Security Council president Ambassador Noel Dorr of Ireland (l) and Soviet Ambassador Richard S. Ovinnikov, Aug. 6, 1982. The U.S. vetoed a Soviet draft resolution calling for a ban on the supply of arms to Israel until it fully withdrew its troops from Lebanon. (U.N. PHOTO/YUTAKA NAGATA)

THE GOLDEN DAYS HAVE never glistened quite as brightly as we think, but if there were a Golden Age of Arab Unity it was perhaps half a century ago, when an American-born Lebanese Christian, Clovis Maksoud, was an ambassador for the Arab League, first in India, then later in the U.S. and at the U.N. In those days, Arab Unity meant more than a vow ofomerta between governments to cover each thuggish dictator’s rear—certainly to Maksoud, who was a true, but pragmatic believer.
He died in May, in Washington, where he had long headed American University’s Center for the Global South, and where he could call upon his long experience, powerful intellect, and deep reservoirs of respect across the world.
His pragmatism showed in several ways at the U.N. One was when he deployed the rhetorical skills he had honed in the Oxford Union and “Maksoudized,” as it was known—fondly, one might add. Superb and soaring, polysyllabic and poetical, his speeches mesmerized audiences—but left them scratching their heads as they wondered what he had actually said. When I asked him about it while he was at the U.N., he smiled and explained, “I represent the Arab League—it is almost impossible to say anything concrete that will not upset at least one of the members.”
As Arab League ambassador to the U.N., Clovis Maksoud has also left a lasting legacy that is equally mixed in its effects. He crafted the deal that synchronized the Asian and African groups’ cycles to ensure that there would always be an Arab representative on the Security Council.
It is not in the Charter, but by longstanding agreement, temporary seats are apportioned on the basis of geographical regions: Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the West European and Other Group. Eastern Europe was essentially the Warsaw Pact countries, which have now almost all joined the European Union and NATO, or are trying to, but they maintain the fiction—claiming, for example, that it is their group’s “turn” to have a secretary-general. West European and Other was sufficiently elastic to include Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and thus allowed itself to be bullied into accepting Israel as a member.
In the U.N.’s version of geography, the Arab world is split between Asia and Africa, each of which has five temporary seats rotated on a two-year cycle. More often than not—as with so many U.N. positions—the fix is in. The diplomats at the U.N. courteously sort out a rota to avoid unseemly contests and surprises. One can tell decades ahead which member state will be “elected.” It is the same system that eviscerates the Human Rights Council by putting some of the most egregious offenders on it. At least the Human Rights Council made a pretense for a while of fielding more candidates than seats—even if they all knew which were the real candidates and which were for show.
The deal Ambassador Maksoud made was that every two years, Asia would reserve a seat for an Arab League member and in the alternate biennium one of the North African Arab states would rotate around. This was the cozy arrangement that returned dubiously Arab countries like Djibouti to the Council and regularly seats Security Council members who are in flagrant violation of the Council’s own resolutions. That is not an exclusively Arab problem, of course, but it lends neither prestige nor potency to the U.N. as an institution and the Security Council as its highest embodiment of the international community in matters of war and peace. 
When Ambassador Maksoud crafted the deal, his concern was that there be an Arab voice on issues like Palestine that united them, and that there was at least vestigial respect for the notion of Arab Unity. But, of course, that fell apart after the original Egypt-Israel deal and never recovered. It has now become a diplomatic career opportunity for salespeople of unelected oligarchs.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL ­ADVANTAGE
The point of being on the Security Council was more than adequately demonstrated earlier this year, when Western Sahara appeared yet again on the agenda. The imbroglio has dire potential beyond the Polisario (the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro) and Morocco.
Quietly but effectively, the issue has eroded the always parlous authority of both the secretary-general and the Security Council that have, with all their failings, done a lot to keep the peace since 1945. In March Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited the camps in Tindouf and, clearly upset by what he saw, called for the referendum on self-determination and referred to the Moroccan presence across much of Western Sahara as an “occupation.”
He had a similar epiphany when he visited Gaza early in his mandate and saw for himself the reality behind the clinically cleansed language of U.N. resolutions. When Ban made his statements Morocco went into unprecedented paroxysms of undiplomatic denunciation, claiming—totally falsely—that the U.N. and the international community accepted its annexation.
In a breathtaking abuse of language, Morocco accused the U.N. secretary-general of “semantic slippage” for using the term “occupation” and, along with even more incoherent indignation, noted with “utter dismay the verbal slippages, faits accomplis and unjustified complacency” of the secretary-general. It ordered the U.N. staff out of the territory it controlled. The kingdom staged mass “spontaneous” demonstrations against the secretary-general in the Moroccan capital, Rabat.
There were clear U.N. resolutions and decisions, not just about the territory’s status but about the U.N. staff. It was an unprecedented challenge to the Security Council’s authority. Remember, Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was put on trial for such temerity.
The International Court of Justice had ruled that the Sahrawis are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination, and dismissed Moroccan claims to the land and the fealty of its people. The General Assembly had called for the “occupation” to be ended, and the Security Council had from the beginning asked the Moroccans to withdraw. Security Council Resolution 690, passed in 1991, established MINURSO, the U.N. Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, to implement settlement proposals that Morocco had accepted in 1988.
Rabat had paid lip service to the referendum while it tried to pack the electoral rolls with its settlers, but when it became clear that the eligible voters wanted Morocco out, the kingdom insisted that the referendum must exclude any question of independence. Almost as revealingly, Morocco and France have fought successfully to ensure that MINURSO remains the only peacekeeping operation without a human rights monitoring component.
When Morocco ordered U.N. staff to leave, Ban sought the support of the Security Council—but did not get it, due to opposition from France, Egypt and Japan. After days of backroom wrangling, the most the Council could deliver was an anodyne appeal for the mission to continue.
Persuaded by his staff that the U.N. term was a “non-self-governing” territory rather than an “occupied” one, Ban, even though upset by the Moroccan tirades, explained that his use of the term was his personal emotional reaction to the plight of the refugees. He did not back down from the clear decisions of the U.N. over the years, but modified his entirely accurate statement for the exigencies of diplomacy.
He and his advisers were appalled by the lack of active support from major Security Council members which, in effect, handed Morocco a proxy veto via France and its African allies. If only to uphold the authority of the institution, the Council should have had much stronger resolution about Morocco’s behavior.
A COMPROMISED SYSTEM
Morocco and its friends have thoroughly compromised the U.N. system on the Saharan issue. U.N. officials have been bribed and browbeaten not to challenge the Moroccan version with anything as upsetting as the truth. Interestingly. the MINURSO website begins its list of U.N. resolutions in 1991, when it was set up, not in 1975, when the Security Council asked Morocco to get out!
Rabat has consistently refused to hold the referendum that the Mission was sent to prepare for. The king, like his father before, knows he would lose it. And, once again shamelessly backed by France, Morocco’s successful opposition to permit a human rights component in MINURSO is a telling indication of how he intends to keep it.
In May, the Security Council sent a delegation to talk to Arab League countries in Cairo, where many of them grandstanded, demanding (rightly) that the Council should enforce its resolutions on Middle East peace and settlements. They seem to be missing the point that France’s attempts to jump start the peace process at the eastern end of the Maghreb are compromised by its own behavior on the western end. Perhaps summing it up, it was reported that, at a recent gathering, a former French ambassador to the U.N. reprimanded his British former colleague for being a puppet of the U.S.—for which he got the deserved riposte, “Better than being the King of Morocco’s puppet!” 

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Smoke and the only fire from the foot of the witchfinder's stake


Letter from America – Ian Williams

Written By: Ian Williams
Published: May 14, 2016  Tribune


A decade later, who remembers the alleged United Nations’ Oil For Food Scandal? Once the smoke had blown away, and the media had put down their mirrors, “the biggest financial scandal in history” had gone with the wind.
It was clearly about governments and their companies and had little or nothing to do with the UN. In fact, the media totally ignored the real scandal, which was that the programme’s surplus, some $10 billion, was handed over to the US occupation authorities who, in the end, could not say how they spent it. It was certainly nothing to do with the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, whom they pilloried and witch-hunted.
The American neoconservatives succeeded with this beyond their wildest dreams: to weaken and punish the United Nations and Kofi Annan, to destroy their moral authority which was an obstacle to American hegemony, as expressed in the Project for a New American Century. One of the purposes of that hegemony was backing up Israel – and in particular the like-minded Likudnik regime there.
Tony Blair’s support for the Iraq War largely derived from his genuine distaste for the regime of Saddam Hussein. It followed his intervention in Sierra Leone, and in Kosovo against the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic. The American instigators of the Iraq War generally had not shown any concern for Saddam’s murderous behaviour with Kurds and others in the 1980s while he was invading Iran. In fact, the Iraqi ambassador was the toast of Washington, which rushed to cover for Saddam over poison gas usage. They were more concerned about removing a threat to Israel.
Kofi Annan went out of his way to accommodate Israel at the UN, but once the BBC badgered him into admitting that the Iraq War was illegal, the pack was on his tail. The neocons and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were already calumniating the UN for its condemnations of occupation. The media followed with pitchforks and the torches and amplified each other’s ill-founded allegations and exaggerations. All it took was a coterie of well-connected ideologically committed pundits, like-minded journalists and publishers to whip up a perfect smoke storm. Of course, they did not mention their real motives, since the reality of its aftermath had already made support for the Iraq War very questionable.
Who in the media would risk a career to defend the United Nations – which in the US (and Murdoch media) was axiomatically corrupt, anti-American and anti-Israel? They weakened Annan and the institution as he tried to steer through changes that would make the UN more effective – although, ironically, the “Two Years Hate” in the American and British media possibly made Annan’s reforms more palatable to the developing world bloc since it suggested he was not in fact the superpower’s chosen one.
And so now to Britain and the Labour Party. The anti-anti-Semitism campaign is truly an anti-Jeremy Corbyn campaign. Did any of the fervent accusers of Ken Livingstone’s, maybe crass but on the whole verifiable statements, oppose the Iraq War? One suspects not. Many of them are connected to lobbyists for Israel. Have any of them condemned the settlements, or the verifiably illegal behaviour of Benjamin Netanyahu? No.
The spectacle of the Daily Mail, original sponsors of Oswald Mosley and apologists for Adolf Hitler right up to war’s outbreak, helping to lead the charge against leftists in the Labour Party under the banner of combatting anti-Semitism gives a choice of gagging or laughing.
Pillorying Ken Livingstone for defending Naz Shah, the Labour MP who had lifted a website image from the site Norman Finkelstein, an American son of Holocaust survivors, certainly suggests a witch-hunt. But who wants to stand up to defend anyone against such charges if you end up tied to the stake yourself?
For the record, the Labour Party supports the United Nations, which has ruled repeatedly that Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and is besieging Gaza. The International Court of Justice has ruled that those are occupied territories, that the Separation Wall is illegal, as are the settlements. Numerous international jurists have condemned the Israeli forces for their behaviour in the territories. The UK Government has supported those positions over the years. After Sabra and Shatila, so did the Labour Party. It is now apparently thoughtcrime.
Surely, Gerald Kaufman follows in the deeper, more historical humanitarian tradition of British Jewry in the Labour Party. But I forget. The former member of the British Board of Deputies was one of the first to find the pitchforks and torches massed outside his door.
Let us stick with UN principles. The Iraq War was illegal, as is the Israeli occupation. Let those who are delating Labour colleagues establish their credentials and say where they stand on those issues – and maybe admit that their real target is Jeremy Corbyn, and that they are prepared to destroy the Labour Party “in order to save it”.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

A line in the Sand for International Law

Letter from America – Ian Williams

Written By: Ian Williams
Published: March 19, 2016 Last modified: March 18, 2016
The paths of two much mis-underestimated, highly ethical individuals crossed recently. A year before he became leader of the Labour Party, I saw Jeremy Corbyn at the House of Commons report back from a visit to Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. It was an impressive performance. Invoking Western Sahara is no way for a politician to win votes, nor even for a writer to win commissions! Second, the audience was loaded with Moroccans whipped in by their ­government to support its claims to the territory.
He dealt with them impressively, listening respectfully while calmly stating facts and restating principles in a way that averted provocation and conflict. I did not know it then, but he was foreshadowing his remarkable self control in the face of fanatical New Labour types who cannot believe they lost with all the certainty of Moroccans who cannot believe that anyone could question their right to rule the Sahara.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon went to Western Sahara earlier this month and stated a few home truths about the continuing occupation there and compounded his sins by visiting the headquarters of Polisario, the Saharwi independence front. Morocco went into paroxysms of counterfactual denunciation and claims that the UN and the international community accept its annexation. In a breath-taking abuse of language it accused the UN Secretary General of “semantic slippage”, for using the term “occupation” and expressed, among even more incoherent indignation noted with “utter dismay the verbal slippages, faits accomplis and unjustified complacency” of Ban.
In reality, away from whatever they smoke in offices of Morocco’s highly paid Public relations company, the International Court of Justice has ruled that the people of Western Sahara are entitled to self-determination. The UN Security Council has ruled that Morocco should withdraw from the territory and allow an act of self-determination. For more than 20 years, there has been a UN mission there to conduct a referendum – and Morocco has officially accepted those terms – even though in international law they do not really have any option. The world’s maps all show the territory separate from Morocco.
The Security Council resolution in 1975 called for Morocco to withdraw from the territory, and it has been defying it ever since. However, underlying their indignation, which highlights Ban’s courage, is that Morocco and its friends have thoroughly compromised the UN system. Successive UN officials have been bribed, suborned and browbeaten not to challenge the Moroccan version with anything as upsetting as the truth. ­Interestingly, MINURSO’s own website begins its list of UN resolutions in 1991, when it was set up, not in 1975, when the Security Council asked Morocco to get out.
Morocco has had outright support from France, and it benefits from good relations with Israel. In the words of then US ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan about Sahara and East Timor in 1975: “The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. The task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.” Since then, it has tried to tidy things up but not enough to annoy the Moroccans, and one supposes that the issue was clinched by the $5 million-plus paid to the Clinton Foundation by the Moroccan-owned phosphate company that is looting Western Sahara’s phosphates.
Hillary Clinton, as US Secretary of State, tried to push Barack Obama’s administration to accept the dubious “autonomy” plan promoted by King Mohammed that excluded the option of independence for Western Sahara from the terms of the referendum. One should add that Polisario is about as compromised as any other “liberation movement” of the seventies in terms of its adherence to human rights. But the most convincing element of the Sahrawi claim is the Moroccan refusal to allow a referendum. The King knows he would lose it.
History should provide a pre-emptively answer to anyone who asks why we should worry about “a quarrel, in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing”. Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN, pledged to uphold the UN Charter, and with a few notable exceptions has been fairly good at it. The UK delegation has been reluctantly supportive of what Robin Cook would have called the ethical dimension of foreign policy over the Sahara, but is palpably discomforted by all the sordid reasons it should go along with others who would happily sell the Sahrawis down the sand dunes.
Both Ban and Corbyn see that an injustice perpetuated like this attacks the basic principles of the United Nations. In the face of the frantic Moroccan assault on Ban Ki-moon, Britain, and indeed ­Jeremy Corbyn, should be signalling ­support for the Secretary General’s brave initiative, aimed as it is at rescuing­hundreds of thousands of people from life in exile of under occupation.
About Ian Williams
Ian Williams is Tribune's UN correspondent

Friday, February 19, 2016

Huffpost on Boutros Ghali

Boutros-Ghali Outclassed Albright, Clinton & Helms

 02/18/2016 09:42 am ET | Updated 2 hours ago
Boutros Boutros-Ghali was not one for political correctness. Despite his urbane diplomatic ways he found it difficult to dissemble least of all when confronted with what one might call unwarranted arrogance or even common stupidity. Not exactly modest himself, at least he had a strong intellect to match his aristocratic pride. From one of the patrician families, he ended up in the party founded by Nasser, but when confronted with contumely because of his grandparent, the original Boutros Ghali, a prime minister had been assassinated by nationalists, he hyphenated the name and made it his own surname in place of Ghali.
He recalled to me once that while his grandfather had to wrestle with actual British power in Cairo, his grandfather's appointment had to be ratified by a firman from the Ottoman Court in Constantinople since Egypt had passed from practical independence to British neocolonialism while still being officially bound to the Sultan. A background in such arcanae was good preparation for the UN. When he was attacked for saying that the keystone resolution, 242, on the Middle East was not a binding Security Council Resolution, it gave rise to the epithet Boo Boo. But as he explained later, 242 in itself is not binding, but 338 which invokes Chapter VII of the UN Charter and 242, did make it so.
A Coptic Christian with a Jewish wife needed a thick skin in the days of heady nationalism and none more so than when he accompanied Anwar Sadat to negotiate peace with Israel. This was a dangerous era when posturing Arab nationalists were quite prepared to stand for their principles no matter what the cost to the actual Palestinians, not to mention Arab conscripts, would be. They were quite prepared to assassinate those who disagreed. Boutros-Ghali was no starry eyed idealist: he knew that the almost terminally disastrous 1973 attack was what had belatedly converted Israeli leaders to the idea that peace might have its virtues.
Later he would complain that the concomitant parts of the agreement, to attend to the Palestinian part, had been abandoned. The fervent nationalists never forgave him for his part in brokering the peace, and neither Sadat nor Mubarak had the strength to appoint him as actual foreign minister with his Coptic ancestry. When the UN vacancy came up it was almost a godsend for Mubarak in how to rid himself of this worrisome Copt who could be neither fired nor promoted otherwise.
In 1992, Africa and the non-aligned countries had said it was Africa's turn for the job, and as the US told the relatively unconvinced ambassadors from sub-Sahara African countries, Egypt was in the African Union! In fact, Boutros-Ghali was already deeply concerned and involved in Africa as part of Egyptian foreign policy and did his best to bring the continent a stronger presence in the UN.
The French supported him, partly because, being a French speaker educated at the Sorbonne, he promised to restore French in practice to the position it held nominally as one of the UN's two working languages. He seemed to offer a good compromise: nominally African, culturally Western, and from an Arab country. The Security Council appointed him, even though he was only a little younger than Javier Pérez De Culler, the retiring incumbent.
Boutros-Ghali was also perhaps one of the few Arabs acceptable, at least initially, to the Israel Lobby in Washington, because of his part in Camp David. But he genuinely tried to put Africa on the agenda of the UN, and demanded attention for a continent that was indeed dark as far as Washington was concerned. When he said 'Genocide in Africa has not received the same attention that genocide in Europe or genocide in Turkey or genocide in other part of the world. There is still this kind of basic discrimination against the African people and the African problems,' it might have been unpalatable-- but it was certainly true.
Boutros-Ghali was nobody's puppet but he had to deal with the new reality after the Soviet Union fell. Earlier SG's could play the great powers off against each other, but now, there was only one Great Power, and its Congress was run by anti-UN demagogues. In Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia the pattern in Clinton's Washington was to pass the problem to the UN, and then to refuse to provide the UN with the resources it would need, to cope. Boutros-Ghali once summed up his situation as follows: 'I can do nothing. I have no army. I have no money. I have no experts. I am borrowing everything. If the member states don't want it, what can I do?'
While Arab nationalists and Third Worldists saw him as an American puppet, he was in fact far more nuanced. Like many he doubted the capacity of Washington to run the world, even if it had the power. He knew that the UN depended on the US to be effective, but also that the US needed to UN to steer the New World Order. His astute assessment was, 'When the United Nations was allowed to do its job without substantial US involvement, as in Mozambique, the operation succeeded. When the United States felt a political need for the United Nations, as in Haiti, the operation also fulfilled its main objective. But when the United States wanted to appear actively involved while in reality avoiding hard decisions, as in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda, the United Nations was misused, abused or blamed by the United States and the operations failed, tragically and horribly.'
He continually and publicly pointed out when UN peacekeeping forces were being deployed to some crisis zone only to provide political cover for domestic political reasons but were not given the resources to succeed.
Washington treated the end of the Cold War as an opportunity (in the UN and elsewhere) to ride roughshod over any rival claimants to power. Boutros-Ghali, both on principle and on account of his proud temperament, refused to bow to the whims of Washington. He paid the price. While many blamed the US refusal to back him for a second term on his refusal to bury Israel's shelling of the UN camp in Qana, in South Lebanon, that killed scores of local civilians who had taken refugee there, he himself discounted that and privately attributed it to American realization that he was in effect trying to cobble together a "Loyal Opposition" to the US that would force it to listen to the rest of the world.
Ironically, the American veto that denied him a second term achieved that coalition. Madeleine Albright voted against everyone else as even America's closest allies, in exasperation voted against her. It was one of the low marks of American diplomacy. And Boutros-Ghali, sadly, might have been over-sanguine about the sophistication of American statecraft. She felt personally scorned by him, and almost certainly traded his head for her assured confirmation as Secretary of State by the antediluvian isolationist Senator Jesse Helms, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The French showed their gratitude by appointing him as head La Francophonie, which gave him, if not great power, at least great influence and the ear of some 80 member states. One can be sure that he conveyed an unsentimental view of the strengths and weaknesses of the "indispensable power," as Albright called it.
Ian Williams' new book "UNtold" - a graphic account of the UN, will be coming out from Just World Books in early 2017.

Red Flags in old and new England?

Tribune Red Flags in old and new England?
Ian Williams

Comparisons of British and American politics often throw up superficial similarity. Nonetheless, the primary polling in the United States and Labour Party results in the United Kingdom do show some fascinating resemblances, as well differences.
Last year, few would have predicted the striking successes of Bernie
Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, two aging parliamentary backbenchers, in ­mobilising generations of voters who had seemed to have abandoned electoral politics.
Even for supportive optimists like myself, the degree of success has been a continuing revelation and a reproach to the somewhat jaded cynicism with which I have guarded my political hopes over the last decade.
In particular, while in Britain the concept of socialism was not anathema, except to the Express/Mail/Telegraph regiment of retired colonels, New Labour had certainly redefined it away from any radical approach to change.
It had become a vaguely aspirational term of good will towards Labour’s traditional constituencies, but ideologically it had completely bought the trickledown theory. If we let the banksters do their stuff, then all of us will benefit in the end.
In the US, of course, socialism was the stuff that fashioned McCarthyite nightmares. It was thoughtcrime to hint that socialism had any redeeming features at all. So what happened? Primary polls showed large numbers of Americans actually like the idea of socialism.
Indeed, many of the people who were otherwise inclined to show their dissatisfaction by supporting Donald Trump or the Tea Party were prepared to go the whole hog and support Sanders. Young people, women, educated people, blue-collar workers, all liked the idea.
Above all, Sanders won the support of women voters in the teeth of Hillary Clinton’s expedient feminism, which they seem to have realized is about the uplift of one woman only.
Sanders did far and away the best in demographic ranges that grew up after the Cold War and missed the pervasive anti-socialism of the era.
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton and her Third Way supporters have been relatively muted about Sanders’ socialism. Since they have thrown anything else they can at him, one must assume that their expensively-commissioned focus groups have suggested that this would not work.
Pathetically, their attacks have, if anything been based on questioning his radicalism – albeit in easily rebuttable ways. He was insufficiently rigid on gun control, allegedly had not been as involved in the Civil Rights Struggle, had not been pro-gay enough. Most of these attacks have boomeranged, because the Sanders rebuttals contrast his consistent stands with the wonkish and expedient prevarications of both Clintons.
Insofar as it is possible to be a “member” of the amorphous Democratic Party, Sanders was certainly not one. He stood for Mayor, for Representative and for Senator as an independent democratic socialist.
Yet Hillary and the Democratic oligarchy decided that it would just give him more publicity to challenge his credentials to run in the Primary. One suspects they regret it now.
But no matter how much he has challenged the Clinton New Democratic sense of entitlement, the Democratic politicians have not resorted to anything on the scale of the backstabbing personal and political attacks that Corbyn has had to withstand from the New Labour MPs and the old New Labour apparatus. If, as seems increasingly possible, Sanders wins the nomination, polls show him best placed to beat any likely Republican nomination.
The secret of Sanders’ success is the same as Corbyn’s. Neither of them evade like Blair or Clinton. He answers questions and states firm and unspun positions.
As he showed on LBC when asked whether he would offer Ed Miliband a cabinet position, Corbyn does not wait for some Peter Mandelson clone to whisper the appropriate prevarication in his ear. Instead, he answers. And people on both sides of the Atlantic appreciate that Hillary’s “No we can’t” does not inspire voters – but goes down well with bankers.
We have had too many magnificent defeats on the left, so I sincerely hope that both Sanders and Corbyn succeed. But even if they do not, they have taught us all a lesson about sincerity and commitment that we should build on for the future on both sides of the Atlantic.
The nearest thing to a natural socialist reservoir in the US has been the minorities. If black voters realise that Sanders is actually expressing their aspirations, it seems increasingly possible, he can win the nomination. Martin Luther King had a dream – not a feasibility study worked out with bank lobbyists.
For him to get this far has moved the ground under American politics. If he is nominated, polls show him best placed to beat any likely Republican nomination. It would be genuine earthquake.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Letter from America – Ian Williams

Written By: Ian Williams Tribune : January 20, 2016
It’s a long road from when I interviewed Bernie Sanders for Tribune as mayor of small town in Vermont, or as the only avowed elected socialist in Congress. There is a genuine special relationship between the progressive wings of British and American politics. The upsurge of support for Sanders among Democrats parallels the huge groundswell of support for Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour  leadership election. To a large extent we can thank the Bill Clinton/Tony Blair axis. The recently released notes of the conversations between the two show them spending a lot of time on the “Third Way,” planning global meetings of the New Labour/DLC Axis, the Centre Left.
Before they took up office, several of us met Blair in New York when he and Gordon Brown came to “learn from the Clinton campaign”. Disturbed, even then, by the uncritical enthusiasm for Bill, we remonstrated that he would sell his grandmother in the street for votes. Blair blurted: “But he wins elections!”
Reckless about the feelings of grandmothers, let alone the traditional constituencies, the poor and minorities and trade unionists, whose cause would be given away, let alone sold, to win elections, Clinton set the model for New Labour – ostentatiously disavowing calumniated “special interest groups”, while pandering to the right.  Unlike Clinton, the Blair administration did a lot of good work – but party bosses did not want anyone boasting about it, in case it alienated the financiers whom they hoped would replace the unions as bankrollers for the party.
In both cases, the plan was to hollow out the popular base of the parties, denying members effective input on policy or candidates, to reduce it to a PO box for corporate donations. As we saw in the Labour Party, it became a self-perpetuating career escalator for machine politicians that eventually ruthlessly weeded out any signs of dissent and any ties with the unions apart from  topping up the collection box.
New Labour tried to introduce primaries, copying US practice, but the plan foundered on the different political histories. It was the unforeseen consequence of this emulation of primaries that it allowed Jeremy Corbyn to tap into the deep reservoirs of disaffection with machine politicians,  whose main manifestation hitherto had been abstention at one level or another from the political process.
Continuing the parallels, neither the New Labour establishment, nor Hillary Clinton’s courtiers, cocooned as they were in their incestuous world, realised how disaffected the core constituencies and potential activists were, let alone that Sanders and Corbyn could tap that resentment and potential enthusiasm.
Hillary, following in her husband’s footsteps with the corporate begging bowl, thought politics was all a matter of collecting big cheques from Wall Street and Hollywood. Sanders actually raised more money than her, from millions of individuals who piled their widow’s mites into his campaign. In the unlikely event of bumping into Blair again, I could cheerily say: “But he wins redneck male support.” There are, for once, real lessons for the British Labour Party.  Sanders has made a virtue of saying the unsayable. He has attacked bankers, called for a universal healthy service, supported unions, called for higher wages and more protections for workers. Rather than let the media and political elite set his agenda, he has set his own, which resonates with millions of people. He calls himself a socialist, which effectively disarms the opposition. Where conventional wisdom made “higher taxes” a magic curse dooming any candidate, Sanders made it a battle cry against the rich.
There are differences. Sanders came from so far off-field the media did not know what to do with him and Hillary’s supporters hoped that if they ignored him, he would sink into obscurity. He didn’t, and now their attacks only galvanise his supporters. Attention has also transformed Corbyn from an obscure backbencher into a media titan, and it can allow him to stick to the Labour agenda, with the refreshing change that the public had few expectations of previous trimming incumbents but have been primed by the daily hate sessions from the media to expect Corbyn to propound a full Labour agenda. And Sanders is only vying to be the candidate – while Corbyn already is.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

UK Labour and the Bomb


Letter From America: Ian Williams

Written By: Ian Williams
Published: November 22, 2015 Last modified: November 22, 2015


Marshall Islanders shine light on nuclear hypocrisy
Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin were among the real parents of the British In­dependent Nuclear Deterrent. Churchill was the Tory PM who gave all the technology to Roosevelt, whom he naively trusted even as Washington drained the UK Treasury dry, but it was the 1945 Labour government of saintly memory, con­front­ed with US refusal to recipro­cate Britain’s wartime handover of nuclear secrets, that decided to implement an independent nuclear programme, despite the empty coffers and Labour’s ambitious social and economic agenda.
Seeing the fate of Socialist comrades across Eastern Europe, they knew they could not trust the Soviets, and recent history, including the nuclear deal and the catastrophically abrupt end of lend-lease arrangements, taught them they could not rely on the Americans. NATO was Bevin’s baby, famously intended to keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out. But the other part was a British bomb.
As an active member of CND, with loads of frequent blister miles from Aldermaston, I was always bemused by the active Communist Party members who campaigned with seemingly total sincerity against the British nuclear weapons, but regarded the “worker’s bomb” as a benign and defensive thing. But there was a genuine dilemma: Britain had been an offshore island bereft of support before in recent memory. There was in some way a case for an independent nuclear deterrent, even if it was only a tripwire to ensure back up in case of major threats.
But while we had “the bomb,” the means of effective delivery were missing. Once the Blue Streak missile programme was abandoned under Treasury pressure the Tories turned to Washington, which was happy to have the British pay for a fistful of Polaris submarines. But like the successor, Trident, there has always been considerable doubt about just how independent that deterrent is. Could we actually independently target and fire missiles without US acquiescence?
So the current debate is more complicated than a mere issue of upgrading Trident. There is the issue of whether Britain needs an independent nuclear capability, as Bevin and Attlee wanted. Trident, new or upgraded is not necessarily the answer to that question. The other issue is, of course, whether we can afford it, which also feeds back into that question. There are few Keynesian benefits to buying off-the-shelf US technology, with strings attached or not. At a time when austerity is pushed as the answer to everything, why does it not also figure in the nuclear equation?
Do we want an independent nuclear deterrent, or do we simply want to contribute to the American arsenal like the loyal sepoys we seem to have become? Can we afford an independent deterrent, especially one as expensive as Trident?
Then there is the question of our inter­national standing. The Republic of the Marshal Islands, dubious beneficiary of much of the US’s fusion bomb testing, has a case before the International Court of Justice against Britain specifically for its failure to honour its signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The case argues that although the NPT allowed the Soviets, the US, China, Britain and France, to keep their nuclear weapons while prohibiting other signat­ories from acquiring them, those nuclear powers on their part agreed to good faith negotiations to disarm, and committed themselves not stop the arms race.
At the UN the British government consistently votes against resolutions on effective disarmament and refuses even to countenance multilateral negotiations on disarmament, while it is clear that replac­ing Trident would breach the treaty oblig­ation to stop the arms race. Indeed the Trident system as an upgrade for Polaris was probably in breach of the treaty.
Britain’s behaviour has conse­quences. India, for example, consistently used the bad faith of the nuclear powers on disarmament as an excuse for developing its own nuclear arsenal. Labour has traditionally had an internationalist and multilateralist approach, and even Tony Blair thought it was important to try to get the UN to back the invasion of Iraq. The case unfolding at the The Hague and the deliberations at the UN should at least inform the Labour Party’s debate on Trident. Nye Bevan did not want to go into the conference chamber naked. Successive British governments have refused to go in at all!