Neighbouring Continents — Worlds Apart

Gordon Brown, his proxy Baroness Amos, and the leaders of Africa may be too weak to stand up to Robert Mugabe, but at least the German Chancellor Angela Merkel has spoken out against Zimbabwe's dictator, who has been in Europe this weekend for the EU-Africa summit, despite having been banned from entering the EU since 2002:

"The current state of Zimbabwe damages the image of the new Africa. Because this is so, we must take the chance here, in this framework, to put all our efforts together into strengthening democracy.

"We don't have the right to look away when human rights are trampled on. Intimidation of those with different opinions and breaches of the independence of the press cannot be justified."

Not that such words will make any more of a difference than our own Prime Minister's boycott of the meeting. Especially considering how South African President Thabo Mbeki is reported to have accused Merkel of being out of touch with the political situation in Zimbabwe. Quite what situation he was thinking of is anybody's guess — perhaps that of Zimbabwe as a world leader, with the world's highest inflation rate (what is variously reported as 8,000-15,000%), highest death rate (21.76 deaths/1,000 population — more than that for Sudan (14.39) and Iraq (5.26) combined!), highest number of AIDS orphans (1.6 million, almost one in four children, have now lost at least one parent to HIV), highest unemployment (at least 80%), and fastest-shrinking economy?

Unsurprisingly, the summit in Lisbon has now ended without any agreement being reached on the key issue of trade. The EU wants to replace expiring trade accords with temporary Economic Partnership Agreements by the end of the year, when a waiver by the World Trade Organisation on preferential trade arrangements for developing countries expires. However, anti-poverty groups have criticised the EPAs for failing to provide protection for Africa's poor farmers and its fragile industry.

21st-Century Family Dilemmas

Five years ago a lesbian couple in a civil partnership persuaded a friend to donate sperm so that they could achieve their ambition of possessing children of their own, without having to pay for the costs of using a licensed clinic. At the time, the friend was not planning to have children and was in a relationship with a woman who had been sterilised, so he agreed. Five years on and he has married someone else but the lesbians have since separated. As a result, despite having no legal rights over the boy and girl conceived (now aged two and four), the man is reportedly being forced by the Child Support Agency to pay thousands of pounds in child maintenance.

Confused? Not half as much as the children are likely to be! Such is the tale of Sharon and Terri Arnold and their friend Andy Bathie, a fireman from Enfield.

The moral of the story, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, is that if men donate sperm, they should do so through an HFEA-licensed clinic even though this will prove more costly for the couple hoping to conceive, or else they may find themselves taking on all the responsibilities that comes with parenthood... And to think, until just two years ago, donors were guaranteed the right to remain anonymous throughout the lifetime of any conceived children.

Another moral could be that we ought to give more thought to the long-term and social consequences of our short-term decisions and desires. Before we exercise our "rights", it would behove us to consider from what corresponding duty those rights are derived. For, as Gandhi once noted, "I learned from my illiterate but wise mother that all rights have to be deserved and preserved from duty well done. Thus the very right to live accrues to us only when we do the duty of citizenship to the world. From this one fundamental statement, perhaps it is easy enough to define the duties of Man and Women and correlate every right to some corresponding duty to be first performed. Every other right can be shown to be a usurpation hardly worth fighting for."

Another Victory For Mugabe

So, predictably, despite being subject to a European visa ban, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is to attend next week's summit of European and African leaders in Portugal. Gordon Brown had threatened to stay away from the talks if Mugabe was allowed to participate. However, a number of African leaders, who still hold Mugabe as a hero of the struggle that brought independence to his country in 1980, had threatened to boycott the summit if Mugabe was barred from attending. Britain is now expected to send a junior minister or diplomat instead.

Supposedly to discuss issues such as trade, climate change and AIDS, the Lisbon summit is now certain to be overshadowed by the question of human rights violations in Zimbabwe, where elections are due to be held in March. Once again, Mugabe wins and the people of Africa lose — not that the dictator will be in the least concerned about that.

Kidswear ... Made By Kids

Newsnight has just shown an excellent report by Simon Ostrovsky documenting the forced child labour that is involved in Uzbekistan's annual harvest of its "white gold" — the cotton that is then exported to Asia and ends up in the clothes that we buy from shops such as Matalan, Burton and Asda.

If you missed the programme, do watch it online to understand how what you buy and wear may be sourced by what amounts to modern slavery, with an estimated 450,000 pupils taken out of school for more than two months each year to harvest the crop by hand.

Our Arabian "Shared Values"

With Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells suggesting that Britain and Saudi Arabia could unite around our "shared values," I thought I'd see what this year's Country Report on Human Rights Practices said about Saudi Arabia:

The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to peacefully change the government; infliction of severe pain by judicially sanctioned corporal punishments; beatings and other abuses; inadequate prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, sometimes incommunicado; denial of fair public trials; exemption from the rule of law for some individuals and lack of judicial independence; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence; and significant restriction of civil liberties--freedoms of speech and press, including the Internet; assembly; association; and movement. The government committed severe violations of religious freedom. There was a widespread perception of serious corruption and a lack of government transparency, as well as legal and societal discrimination and violence against women. Other religious, ethnic, and minority groups faced discrimination. There were strict limitations on worker rights, especially for foreign workers.

Which somewhat explains why the likes of the Jerusalem Post are upset at America's First Lady, Laura Bush, donning the hijab in Saudi Arabia — as they conclude, it's not exactly a symbol of the freedom and liberty that her husband claims to have spent his presidency trying to introduce to the Middle East.

Irrespective of the cultural significance of the headscarf, Dan Hannan is surely right to observe about King Abdullah's state visit:

"When a free democracy lowers its standards in order to accommodate a sleazy autocracy, the former is diminished and the latter magnified. We are, all of us, slightly cheapened by the readiness of our leaders to appease a handful of rich men. And don’t fall for any nonsense about British jobs, by the way. We pay the same price for Saudi oil that other purchasers do, and they the same price for our luxury goods. Our foreign policy is not, or at least ought not to be, synonymous with the interests of BAE Systems."

I for one am looking forward to the new complete English translation of The Thousand and One Arabian Nights, undertaken by Cambridge University's Professor Malcolm Lyons and due to be published next year, the first since Burton's in 1885.

Biofuels "Crime Against Humanity"

Every five seconds a child under ten dies from hunger or disease related to malnutrition and there are 854 million hungry people in the world.

Last month I asked when we were going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on questions surrounding biofuels, food security and the environment. At last, people appear to have taken notice:

Earlier this month, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler described current approaches to biofuels as "a total disaster for those who are starving."

Last week, in its October 2007 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor.

Earlier this week, in the Parliamentary debate to establish the first fixed targets for biofuels, the Shadow Minister for Transport, Julian Brazier warned, "If biofuels are to play a successful part in the fight against climate change, it is absolutely vital that they come from sustainable sources. Without clear and binding rules on sustainability, this proposal could damage the environment not protect it. It would be madness if UK biofuel targets actively encouraged people to rip up the rainforest."

Now, the UN's Jean Ziegler has described the conversion of food crops to fuel as a "crime against humanity" and has called for a five-year moratorium on biofuels. He suggests the ban would allow scientists to develop ways to make biofuels from other crops without diverting land from food production, such as a pilot project in India using trees planted in arid areas unsuitable for food crops. He also criticised European governments for choosing a military response to those fleeing famine and chronic hunger from sub-Saharan Africa and wants a new human right to be created in favour of these "refugees from hunger."

Let us hope good sense will prevail over the economic interests of the climate change lobby.

When Strategic Interests Conflict

What's the difference between human rights abuses in China and human rights abuses in Turkey? On one the US is willing to ignore threats from its counterpart, bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal, its highest civilian honour on the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama today. On the other the US is backing off from legislation approved last week by a congressional panel to call a vote on a measure declaring the World War I-era killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks an act of genocide.

The proximity of Turkey to the ongoing conflict in Iraq might explain the apparent inconsistency...

And In Other News...

Now that Sir Menzies Campbell has stolen the headlines for the next few hours by resigning as leader of the Liberal Democrats, I feel it is down to me to bring a few of the day's other stories worth noting...

Perhaps most significant is the European Union's adoption of a package of measures against Burma's military junta, including an embargo on the export of wood and metals and gemstones. Less encouragingly, despite still being "seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan," the EU has eased sanctions that were imposed against the Central Asian republic after the Uzbek authorities rejected demands for an international probe into a deadly uprising in Andijan province two years ago. As a spokesman for Human Rights Watch has observed, "Suspension in the face of no progress is nothing less than capitulation."

As for leaked suggestions that Britain should switch to long-life milk to reduce the emissions that the climate change lobby claim are responsible for global warming, I for one will most positively be sticking with fresh, full-fat. In the wake of foot and mouth and bluetongue, the Government (whose lab was responsible for the former and whose mismanagement was responsible for its re-emergence days after the all-clear was given) should be supporting our country's dairy farmers, not adding to the pressure they are under.

You might like to read A Rough Guide to the UK Farming Crisis, which concludes:

"Farmers, environmentalists and people concerned about social justice have a common cause: the transformation of the current damaging and highly exploitative food system and the creation of a pattern of food production based on respect for the land and the needs of local communities rather than exploitation and greed. None of us will succeed in this cause until we learn to work together."

Muslim Leaders' "Common Word" Letter

This week's letter, "A Common Word Between Us and You," by 138 of the world's most powerful Muslim clerics, scholars and intellectuals to leaders of the worldwide Church is being hailed by many as something of a miracle. However, such a response is not just overly optimistic but hopelessly naive.

In a display of supposedly unprecedented unity, the letter calls for peace between Christians and Muslims, arguing that the most fundamental tenets of Islam and Christianity are identical: love of one (and the same) God, and love of one's neighbour.

There are two crucial points to make in response. Firstly, the Muslims who penned the 29-page statement are in fact seeking a one-way dialogue on their own terms: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes." Yet, as the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, quoted by Archbishop Cranmer, rightly notes:

"What the Qur’an condemns, we do not believe. Whatever our doctrine of God, there are fundamental issues that must be addressed, such as refugees fleeing because of their faith and because of persecution ... But what I would stress is that dialogue between partners must be conducted in the integrity of each faith. One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue must be conducted ... We may disagree about the nature of God but there are many other important areas of dialogue as well. There is justice, compassion, fundamental freedom, freedom to express beliefs, persecution of peoples. All these are matters of dialogue. Only one of them, the need for peace, is mentioned here."

Secondly, there is more to Islam than simply "peace" — there is also "jihad." And to quote the new Baroness Cox biography, "Eyewitness to a broken world" by Lela Gilbert:

"A key development in the concept of jihad is contained in this verse in the Koran:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Prophet, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizya (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Sura 9:29, Medina)

... It must be noted that there are other verses in the Koran that speak of peace and respect for other people, especially "People of the Book" — Jews and Christians... However, traditional Islamic teaching has resolved any inconsistency between the verses of peace and the verses of war by adopting the principle of "abrogation", whereby the later revelations of the Prophet abrogate, or override, the earlier revelations. Unfortunately, this means that the more aggressive militaristic interpretations of jihad, associated with violence and terrorism, prevails over peaceable interpretations.

The most fundamental tenets of Christianity have given rise to Western democracy as we know it. Yet the most fundamental tenets of Islam set it on a course of conflict with what we all believe (believers and unbelievers alike) on a whole range of human rights issues, from the freedom of religion to equality of the sexes. As Baroness Cox warned earlier this year, "The time has come to draw a line in the sand: to say that, while we in Britain value cultural diversity and enshrine the principle of tolerance, we must also ensure that such values and principles are not used in ways that destroy the fundamental freedoms on which our democracy is built."

Zimbabwe Petition Pressure Mounts

Every Saturday afternoon for the last five years, protestors have held a vigil outside the Zimbabwe Embassy in the Strand — with its colourful banners, singing and dancing, the group is easy to spot and welcomes new members! Tomorrow we will join one of the largest demonstrations ever to mark five years of protest against human rights abuses by the Mugabe regime and to campaign for free and fair elections in the country. Along with the Zimbabwe Vigil Coalition, we will be presenting a copy of The Difference petition to Kate Hoey MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Zimbabwe, to hand to the Prime Minister.

During last week's Conservative Party conference, almost 1000 people signed our petition, including a large number of MPs and MEPs such as Dan Hannan (pictured, right), with the total number of signatories now standing at 1100. However, we must continue highlighting this issue. For, as William Hague noted in his endorsement of our campaign: "The Zimbabwean people deserve our full support and their misery must not be allowed to continue."

A Question Of Convenience

As with the over-medication of children and euthanasia, I find myself asking to what extent convenience is the driving factor behind the request of Alison Thorpe, the mother who has asked doctors to give her 15-year-old daughter Katie a hysterectomy to stop her from starting menstruation — on the basis that Katie suffers from cerebral palsy and "would be confused by periods and they would cause her indignity."

If Mrs Thorpe's doctors are granted legal approval, a dangerous and disturbing precedent will have been set. And if anyone has difficulty understanding why that might be so, perhaps it's time to re-read Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (or to re-watch the 1975 film starring Jack Nicholson)

Hague on Mugabe's Knighthood

"Zimbabwe stands as a monument to the truth that while the power of a good government to do good is not infinite, the power of a bad government to do bad knows no limits."

Repeating calls he made in yesterday's Human Rights Commission fringe meeting, William Hague has not only echoed calls for tougher sanctions against Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe, but has just told the conference the dictator "Still enjoys an honorary knighthood from Britain. It is time it was stripped from him."

To much applause, he has also pledged that the next Conservative government will enact legislation that will require all future governments to submit any proposal for passing more powers to Europe to a national referendum.

If all these policy commitments prove sufficient to motivate those who would traditionally be inclined to support the Conservative Party to get out and vote, then Gordon Brown might find a closer fight on his hands - when he does pluck up the courage to announce a general election - than the opinion polls might presently suggest.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary has endorsed The Difference campaign, saying:

"I fully support The Difference magazine's campaign urging greater international action on Zimbabwe.

Robert Mugabe is a repulsive dictator who has brought devastation to his country for twenty-seven years and it is time for the international community to take firm and concerted measures against his regime. The European Union should apply additional European sanctions to Zimbabwe without delay: widening the scope of the EU asset freeze and travel ban to include all relatives and business associates of members of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, and subjecting the Governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank to similar sanctions would be a clear signal of our intent. Beyond the EU, Zimbabwe's neighbouring countries, in particular South Africa, must also join the rest of the international community in pursuing a clear strategy to resolve the crisis.

The Zimbabwean people deserve our full support and their misery must not be allowed to continue."

Why the Silence on Zimbabwe?

"Why is there such a crushing international silence on the outrages in Zimbabwe? Is it because a defeated and damaged people cannot get onto the streets in sufficient numbers for the western media to have good pictures? Is that what it takes to get western governments these days active and concerned about such flagrant abuses of human rights?"

Reflecting on all the noise being made over Burma, John Redwood asks some pertinent questions about the international community's media-driven foreign policy. Echoing sentiments expressed on this blog yesterday, he concludes, "Will someone in western governments please do something? Will the UN wake up from its slumbers and show it has the diplomatic skills to mobilise the international community against this evil?"

Majority Favour Military Intervention

Here are the results of our last poll on military interventionism abroad. From the total number of votes, it is clear that far fewer of you than usual were prepared or felt able to express an opinion either way. However, of those that did do so, a majority were at least in favour of the principle of intervening to prevent genocide or to defend the human rights of others, even if not everyone agreed whether the conditions for intervention had been reached in either Sudan or Zimbabwe. I wonder whether anyone thinks such an approach should be taken to protect the freedom of those protesting against two decades' oppression by the military junta in Burma...?

In 2000, British troops salvaged the UN operation in Sierra Leone. Should we now take military action in either Darfur or Zimbabwe?

Yes, both.  36% (8 votes)

Only Sudan.  5% (1 votes)

Only Zimbabwe.  27% (6 votes)

No, neither.  32% (7 votes)

Total voters for this poll: 22

Make sure you take our new poll on the review of self-defence legislation.

Beyond Disgrace and Disbelief

So, once again, China's economic interests and veto on the UN Security Council prevents the UN from taking any effective action in another world crisis. First Zimbabwe and Sudan, now Burma. And just yesterday UN chief Ban Ki-moon was saying, "To deliver on the world’s high expectations for us, we need to be faster, more flexible and mobile. We need to pay less attention to rhetoric and more attention to results — to getting things done... The Human Rights Council must live up to its responsibilities as the torchbearer for human rights consistently and equitably around the world. I will strive to translate the concept of our Responsibility to Protect from words to deeds, to ensure timely action so that populations do not face genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." Sadly, all just talk, once again...

The UN has proven itself this summer to be wholly irrelevant. There can be no more second chances for this sorry institution, not when so many lives are at stake. It is time for reform. At least France, Burma's biggest Western investor, is now talking about trade sanctions and even disinvestment.

UPDATE: Apparently Russia has also taken the opportunity to play games throw its weight around once more, threatening France instead of helping to send a unanimous message to the Burmese military.

So Much For Good Intentions

David Miliband may have learnt that it's not good enough to have good intentions, but neither is it good enough for the foreign secretary to appear completely unbriefed about one of the hottest international issues of the day — namely, the protests in Burma. His inability to provide a satisfactory answer to any of Jeremy Paxman's questions about British investment in Burma [the world's second highest] or commitment to pro-democracy movements there [none] on Newsnight was appalling.

Our government should be following President Bush's lead, who today announced a tightening of sanctions against the Burmese junta:

"The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members. We will continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma, and I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom."

Germany's Ethical Foreign Policy

Credit to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel for consistently taking a stand on human rights, defying Chinese threats in order to meet the Dalai Lama, the 72-year-old spiritual leader of Tibet.

An example for other Western leaders to learn from, perhaps...

Religion's Place in Politics

Those who claim that religion has no place in politics need to take a look at the latest developments in Burma's continuing demonstrations, where thousands of Buddhist monks have taken to the streets in defiance of Burma's oppressive military regime. Despite violence used against earlier rallies by pro-democracy activists, hundreds of monks are now leading protests right across the country's cities. The monks have also excommunicated the government and its supporters by refusing alms or donations from anyone linked to the junta.

Once again, it seems that when the going gets tough, people of faith get going. On the other hand, can you imagine similarly large groups of Christians or church leaders in this country taking such a lead on fundamental issues affecting society?

Jim Carrey on Burma's Unsung Mandela

Lest yesterday's Mandela freedom-fest in Parliament Square should go to our heads, actor Jim Carrey appears in a new YouTube video campaigning for the release in Burma of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and calling for the end of the General Than Shwe's oppressive military regime which placed her under house arrest in the city of Rangoon:

"She's a champion of human rights and decency in Asia, and a symbol of hope to all struggling people. Even though she's compared to a modern-day Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, most people in America still don't know about Aung San. And let's face it, the name's a little difficult to remember. Here's how I did it: Aung San sounds like 'unsung,' as in unsung hero. Aung San Suu Kyi is truly an unsung hero."

His video comes after nearly two weeks of street demonstrations in the most sustained defiance of the junta in a decade, sparked by a sudden sharp rise in prices for fuel and cooking gas on 15th August.

Mandela's statue should remind us — and our politicians, every time they pass it — that the global fight for freedom against oppression goes on around the world. The bronze figure should not merely "commemorate and celebrate for the ages triumph in the greatest of causes" but should daily call us to action.

Earned Legalisation for Illegal Immigrants

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, has taken up the call of human rights organisations for some kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Writing in Sunday's Observer, the MP widely expected to succeed Sir Menzies Campbell as party leader proposes an 'earned' amnesty for illegal immigrants who have 'lived in the UK for many years.'

Although Clegg is at least partially right in opposing Government plans to grant residence to tens of thousands of long-term asylum applicants, Shadow home secretary David Davis is even more correct when he says the Lib Dem's alternative ideas are "irresponsible" and "unfair":

"This is irresponsible because on the one hand it will encourage people to come here illegally as well as being unfair to those who have obeyed the law and tried to enter the UK legally. It will act as a green light to a new future wave of illegal immigrants who will be told by their criminal handlers that if they remain in the UK long enough they will be allowed to stay permanently."

As I noted back in April, precedents elsewhere in Europe make clear that amnesties do nothing to reduce the problem of illegal immigration and may in fact exacerbate it. Just this week, publication of the annual immigration and quarterly asylum statistics revealed that the Government continues to remove fewer failed asylum seekers than arrive and the number of migrants from accession countries claiming benefit has trebled in the last quarter alone.

We do not need an amnesty to solve this crisis. Neither do we need a common asylum policy to ensure further "harmonisation" across Europe on this issue. What we need is for tighter control of our borders and stricter enforcement of existing legislation, for instance to tackle illegal employment.