Indian democracy? What a good idea

When asked about Western civilisation, Mahatma Gandhi sardonically replied, “I think it would be a good idea”. If he were around today to ask the same question about Indian democracy, I think his answer would be much the same. Indian democracy? What a very good idea.

The rise of the Indian economy – alongside that of China – is purportedly a threat to Western hegemony. Unlike China, however, India is ostensibly a democracy.

According to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, democracy is government “of the people, by the people and for the people” – but the definition of “people” has changed throughout time. In Ancient Greece – the bastion of direct democracy – the franchise was restricted to male landowners whilst, in the UK, women didn’t get voting equality with men until 1928.

In India, despite full suffrage, government is certainly not for the majority of the people. Testimony to its growing economic power, only the United States, China and Russia have more billionaires than India.  Conversely, 80% of India’s population lives on less than $2 per day  and, according to a report by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 8 Indian states have more poor than the poorest 26 African nations combined.  Nearly half of India’s children are malnourished  and, following the worldwide recession, a further 100 million people were plunged into poverty.  The rise of India as an economic powerhouse has been meteoric, but its growth – in terms of socio-economic groups, regions and rural/urban areas – has been uneven and has encouraged gross inequality.

India’s Undemocratic Credentials

A key indicator of Indian’s undemocratic credentials is the composition of its parliament. According to Patrick French, author of India: A Portrait, political influence in India is hereditary and “the principle of nepotism, of politics as a family business, is now more deeply entrenched than at any point since independence”.

Last year, French did a study of India’s lower house, the Lok Sabha, and discovered that the younger the politician, the more likely they were to have “inherited” their position: 

Nearly half of all MPs aged 50 or under are hereditary, selected to contest a seat primarily because they are the children of senior politicians. No MP over the age of 80 is hereditary; every MP under the age of 30 is hereditary

As well as political parties becoming family fiefdoms, nearly all MPs are millionaires or billionaires. This situation creates a crisis of representation and further erodes the legitimacy of India’s democratic institutions. Politicians are drawn from an increasingly narrow economic elite and this disenfranchises the vast majority of Indians outside the political and economic aristocracy. 

Indian political life is permeated with widespread corruption which further undermines confidence in the political establishment. In April this year, senior politician Suresh Kalmadi was arrested on charges of embezzling millions in the run up to last year’s Commonwealth Games whilst former communications minister Andimuthu Raja stands accused of defrauding the national treasury of $40bn.  Corruption – like the prevalence of hereditary elites in parliament – is the symptom of a society where inequality reigns supreme.

Democracy and the Caste System

A key cause of ongoing inequality and its threat to democracy is the continuation of the caste system. K. M. Panikkar, in his 1933 essay Caste and Democracy, characterised the caste system as the “perpetuation of class predominance” as the priesthood sought to preserve their power by subjugating the lower castes.

Panikkar believed the caste system was underpinned by three core pillars: “inequality based on birth, gradation of professions and their inequality, and the restrictions on marriage outside one’s own sub-group”.  It survived because it withstood various challenges – including the rise of Buddhism and Islam – by evolving and adapting. As Panikkar described it, “caste is social Imperialism, perfected by experience and maintained by religious sanction”.

Panikkar anticipated the withering away of caste with the advent of democracy. “Since caste and democracy are opposed in ideals, contrary in methods and fundamentally different in results, they cannot co-exist in any conceivable set of circumstances ...  the caste system is bound to break in the mere attempt of the society to adjust itself to democratic ideals”

Yet the caste system and democracy continue to prevail in tandem. According to Rikke Nohrlind, Coordinator of the International Dalit Solidarity Network: 

The caste system may be outlawed in India, but legislation is poorly implemented, and the country’s 200 million Dalits – formerly known as ‘untouchables’ – continue to suffer appalling forms of discrimination. Murder, rape and other crimes against them are mostly committed with impunity, while many Dalits experience forced prostitution and other forms of modern slavery   

Affirmative action – including introducing quotas for government jobs, parliamentary seats and university admissions – has been employed in an attempt to uplift the social standing of Dalits and ensure they obtain proportionate access and political representation. In a society where the caste system is outlawed, however, positive discrimination can be counter-productive and further entrench group divisions whilst fostering resentment from outsiders. Moreover, whilst the underlining causes of social and economic inequality go untreated, any changes will be only cosmetic. Therefore, the adoption of affirmative action can be seen as part of a narrative of selective concessions relinquished by India’s ruling classes to perpetuate their control.

A further example of this is the myth of social mobility as a democratising and levelling tool. The example of Mayawati – leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party and chief minister of Uttar Pradesh – is often cited to demonstrate the equality of opportunity in India. Mayawati was one of nine children born into a family of Dalits in Delhi – but now she is one of the richest women in India and, according to Patrick French, “represents a grass-roots, democratic revolution”.  

Although it does represent a challenge to the fatalistic philosophy of Karma embodied in the caste system, social mobility is still based on a system of winners and losers and the idea of social mobility – so loved by liberal progressives in the West – is another way of reinforcing power structures. It is a tacit acceptance of inequality and hierarchy as people can only migrate up the class system if others remain exploited and downtrodden. Furthermore, as Wilkinson and Pickett demonstrate in The Spirit Level, social mobility is stunted in countries – like India – with profound wealth inequality. Hence, the idea of social mobility – by co-opting members of the lower classes into the ruling class to create a semblance of access – further entrenches exploitation and inequality. 

In his 1956 article Prospects of Democracy in India, Dalit activist B. R. Ambedkar stated that “the existence of the Caste System is a standing denial of the existence ... of democracy”. He argued that, “Stratification is stunting the growth of the individual and deliberate stunting is a deliberate denial of democracy”.  Over 60 years since British colonialists left India, and the country is still riddled with deep, ingrained inequality and struggles under the yoke of elite rule. The growth of the middle-class since India became a free nation in 1947 has been spectacular – but this acts to obfuscate the real issues because, under democracy, traditional structures of exploitation have been combined or replaced with more subtle methods.

Social mobility and affirmative action create the illusion that democracy is working towards equality and the abolition of the caste system. In reality, it means the structures of oppression – because they are not overtly based on birth, marriage or occupation – are more sophisticated and therefore more powerful. The esteem in which we hold democracy creates an impression of authority and legitimacy which justifies ongoing injustice. As poverty continues to devour rural India whilst wealth and influence is concentrated in the hands of a select few, it is clear that this ‘democracy’ is still marred by brutal social imperialism.

Christmas is the time for giving

I’ve been commuting to London from Brighton since just before last Christmas. At this time of year – as coldness descends and darkness swallows every waking hour – delays, cancellations and unforeseen train mishaps become ever more frequent. Trains break down, frost freezes tracks and – as the festive season looms on the horizon – suicides increase. The whole unfortunate rigmarole becomes tedious, repetitive and tiring.

As Christmas approaches, strange creatures dressed in bright floppy hats garnished with shiny bells encroach from the dark and begin to occupy stations up and down the country. From first thing in the morning to last thing at night, flocks of carol singers ensconce themselves by ticket barriers or by platform edge. Their tuneful wails cut through the crisp air as they huddle together for warmth. Outriders patrol the perimeter of the pack shaking giant buckets adorned with images of their charitable master: Help For Heroes, the Salvation Army, or some local church.

Carol singers can smell a fiver – hidden deep in a leathery wallet – at fifty paces. Commuters are their prey and coinage is their bounty. You pull your scarf tight round your neck as a scout lurches over wearing a fake white beard and grasping his bucket tightly – like a festive harbinger from Middle Earth. “Spare any change sir? Christmas is the time for giving”.

Ignoring the increasing commercialisation of Christmas which suggests that if Christmas is “the time for giving” it’s actually for giving money to corporations and businesses, it’s wrong to suggest there is just one time for being generous. People should be generous all year, not just when they’re made to feel guilty.

But it also ignores a more serious point, that the need for charity is a symptom of a broken system. If people are sleeping rough, it’s because the government has failed to provide for its citizens. If people are dying of starvation in the developing world, it’s because international organisations and supranational bodies have not done enough to create a fair and redistributive system of trade. It is our global system of capitalism which creates inequality and poverty, and as long as this system survives, the problems will continue – no matter how much charity there is or how Big David Cameron’s Society becomes.

Whether guilt, empathy or sympathy drives people to donate, charity can only bring temporary solutions to problems which are universal and inherent. In addition, charity – because it works within a broken system – acts to reinforce systems of control and exploitation because it creates the illusion of dealing with a problem.

This animated video of a lecture by renowned philosopher Slavoj Zizek helps illustrate the argument:

The question of charity is a sensitive issue because it represents a potent mix of emotive power relations. We will only negate the need for charity when there are fundamental changes to our system, but there can’t be fundamental change whilst systems of control – including (arguably) charity – reinforce the system of oppression. As long as this continues there will be pain and suffering.

Understandably, most people would rather give to charity and help alleviate a small amount of suffering than let the horrors continue unabated. As Zizek says, “I’m not against charity in an abstract sense because it’s better than nothing – but let’s be aware that there is an element of hypocrisy”.  It’s a deeply depressing paradox – and a horrible moral dilemma – which testifies to capitalism’s incredible ability to survive. Capitalism – the cockroach of political systems.

Or maybe I need to lighten-up, stop being so curmudgeonly and get into the Christmas spirit. I eagerly await the nocturnal visitation of three spirits to show me the light...

No Way Through: If London Was Occupied by Israel

A fascinating short film about the terrifying difficulties facing Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank. A simple story, but brilliantly produced.

Photos from the march and rally in Brighton

Occupy Brighton camp, Victoria Gardens

Umbrellas used to stop police photographing protestors

 

Click here for more photos.

10 Reasons to Legalise and Regulate Drugs

According to the United Nation’s World Drug Report, more than 180 million people worldwide take illegal drugs. This means over 3% of the global population are criminalised and stigmatised by the “War on Drugs”. A prohibitionist stance alone cannot tackle drug addiction and the associated economic and social consequences. Here a ten compelling reasons why we should legalise and regulate drugs.

Prohibition has failed 

The Wars on Drugs has failed. There has been an increase in violent crime, drug-related trade, street-level dealing and international insecurity. The policy has failed to reduce the availability of drugs, significantly deter people from taking drugs or impact on the profits and activities of underground organisations involved in the illicit drug trade. Governments – whilst squandering billions on counter-productive law-enforcement strategies – have generally failed to offer meaningful treatment and assistance to users and their communities. Prohibition has served to criminalise and marginalise millions of users and this inhibits their efforts to become productive members of society or gain access to employment and housing. As the Economist has argued, “legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem”.  Legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction appropriately because users are not automatically criminalised.  

Regulation reduces crime
Prohibition has led to an increase in violent crime by allowing the illicit drug trade to remain lucrative for dealers, traffickers and producers. The UK government estimates that over 50% of property crime is committed by drug-users – but prohibition artificially inflates prices so legalisation would reduce costs and consumers would no longer have to steal to fund their habits. 

According to The Transform Drugs Policy Foundation (Transform), the legalisation and regulationof the drugs market would lead to “a dramatic reduction in crime at all levels from international organised crime to shoplifting”.  Gang violence and gun crime would reduce because “the largest single profit opportunity for organised crime would be greatly diminished”.  Legalisation would immediately remove a significant source of funding to gangs, criminals and corrupt regimes.

Legalisation does not increase the number of users
Evidence suggests that there is no correlation between the stringency of drugs laws and the frequency of drug-taking. According to 2001 figures, in the United States – which has harsh drug laws – over 36% of the adult population had used marijuana, whilst in the Netherlands – where cannabis is legal in licensed premises – the figure was only 17%. 

Increased taxation and investment in treatment, education and social spending
In 1989, Forbes magazine listed Colombian cocaine dealer Pablo Escobar as the seventh richest man on earth. According to the United Nations, international drug trade is worth $400 - $500 billion per year. A study by the University of York estimates the total cost of Class A drugs in England and Wales – including the cost of crime and direct government spending, unemployment benefit, legal costs, health expenditure and social services – as £15.4 billion per annum.  The money raised through the tax and regulation of drug trade – plus the billions saved on law-enforcement – could be used to educate people about the dangers of drug-taking, fund treatment and invest in social programmes, job creation and housing. 

Dangers of inconsistent potency and adulterants
Drugs are often cut with additives such as glass, brick dust and talcum powder to increase the amount of product and maximise profit. The result is that purity and strength varies greatly making it difficult to determine a dosage. According to the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths, 4/5 of the 2,182 drug-related deaths in 2009 were a result of accidental overdose.  Government cannot monitor the cultivation, harvesting and distribution of products which are manufactured illegally, but legalisation would allow robust regulation and quality control mechanisms to ensure the safety of the product consumed.

Lack of education and support increases risk to public health 

Outside Sub-Saharan Africa, the injection of illicit drugs accounts for approximately one in three new cases of HIV. In Russia, where there are more than 1.8 million intravenous users, 37% are HIV-positive.  Robust information, advice and guidance on the risk of different drugs, safe injecting technique and the proper disposal of needles – along with an increased provision of sterile equipment – could greatly reduce the cost to public safety and allows governments to steer consumers to less harmful drugs.

Low level of risk in comparison to alcohol and tobacco 

Most illegal drugs are safer than alcohol and tobacco. According to the Office for National Statistics, 713 people in England and Wales died of heroin misuse in 2006. The figures for alcohol and tobacco – although a higher number of people consume these substances – were 6,627 and 86,500 respectively.   Last year, Wim van den Brink, Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction at the University of Amsterdam, told the British medical journal, Lancet, “drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit”.  Regulation – as well as controlling advertising and promotion – would increase the availability of sterile equipment and further reduce hazards.

Prohibition cannot keep pace with technological advances 

New synthetic psychoactive substances – or “legal highs” – are being created at the rate of more than one a week and this – facilitated by the internet – is leading to the growth and proliferation of an unregulated recreational drugs market. A case-in-point is mephedrone which enjoyed a surge in popularity before being banned in 2010. According to a report last year by Psychonaut, an EU-funded NGO that monitors drug-use, “in 2009 there were barely a few thousand references for online shops selling mephedrone and after just a few months there are now more than 144,000”. 

Transform believe that the changing dynamics of the drug market means that the government’s strategy of trying to ban each one is unsustainable. Steve Rolles of TDPF told the Guardian that “each time they ban one, another emerges. It seems to show a blindness to the basic market dynamic, effectively creating a void for backstreet chemists to create another product”. 

Drug production increases instability and threatens security  

In drug producer and transit countries – including Afghanistan, Jamaica, Pakistan and various Latin American countries – drug money has fuelled instability, violence and corruption. More than 34,000 people were killed in drug-related violence in Mexico in the four years preceding 2011.  General Barry McCaffrey – former drug tsar under President Clinton – described the situation as a fundamental threat to US national security. Regulation is a prerequisite for a return to stability in producer countries and internationally where the illicit drug trade helps finance and foster international terrorism.

Drugs incite fear and make world’s poor suffer
Every year millions of people in the developing world suffering from cancer or AIDS are denied access to opiates for pain control due to global drug control aimed at non-medical use. According to the New York Times, in Sierra Leone, morphine can only be administered by a pharmacist or doctor – but there are only 100 doctors for every 54,000 people.  As a result, six of the richest countries – the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Britain and Australia – consume nearly 80% of the world’s morphine whilst poorer countries – where 80% of the world’s people live – consume only 6%. International prohibition means doctors fear addicting patients and governments fear drug crime – but a lack of understanding encouraged by sensationalism means the world’s poor suffer in pain. 

Conclusion
Legalisation should not be seen as endorsement that all drugs are safe. Instead, it is an opportunity to provide objective and profession information and guidance on drugs. Due to its association with crime, the idea of legalising drugs has become taboo – but now is the time to take a global perspective and consider policy renewal and the adoption of legalisation and regulation.

A version of this article was published in Tribune magazine

UN rejects US blockade of Cuba

For the 20th consecutive year the United Nations has resoundingly rejected the United States' illegal and unjust economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba.
 

This afternoon the UN General Assembly supported resolution A/66/L4 which calls for the end of the blockade. 186 countries voted for the resolution with only two countries – America and Israel – supporting a continuation of the policy. 
 

Countries from across the world – from China to Mexico and from Algeria to South Africa – queued up to lend their political and diplomatic support to Cuba in the debate over the non-binding resolution. The representative from Uruguay noted that “we have witnessed an increase in the restrictions on Cuba’s transactions with third countries” and the blockade is “counter to the principles of justice and human rights, hampers and delays development and seriously harms the Cuban economy”.

As the Indian representative declared, the extraterritorial application of the embargo combined with the denial of access to the US market, acts to greatly and unfairly increase the cost of Cuba’s imports.

The delegate from Bolivia – referencing President John F Kennedy’s “ich bin ein Berliner” quote – said the slogan of our time should be “I am a Cuban” as the Cuban people remain an “inspiration and example” to the rest of the world. He continued, “if we truly believe in democracy then we must listen to the countries in this room”

Venezuela sent a message of support and solidarity to the Miami 5 and appealed to the United States for their release and the return of Rene Gonzalez to his homeland.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said that the sanctions have caused direct economic damages of close to $1 trillion to the Cuban people and that President Obama had done little to change this.

"Despite the false image of flexibility that the current U.S. administration intends to portray, the blockade and the sanctions remain intact," Rodriguez told the assembly.

"Why doesn't President Obama's administration take care of the U.S. problems and leave us Cubans alone to solve ours in peace?"

The blockade of Cuba was imposed on 7 February 1962 and next year marks its 50th anniversary. It remains an anachronistic echo of Cold War politics which has no legal justification. It runs contrary to America's ostensible belief in the supremacy of the free market and is a purely political decision motivated by the threat of the Cuban example which prioritises people over profit and champions free healthcare, education and internationalism.
 

The blockade will only be defeated by solidarity and concerted political will. Anyone interested in fighting against this ongoing injustice should join the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and get involved with their End It Now campaign.

Shake Your Moneymaker, Mr Osborne

"I've got the brains, you've got the looks. Let's make lots of money"

Prior to the World Cup in 1998, the England football squad famously amused themselves by dropping song titles into media interviews. Talismanic centre-half Tony Adams declared “I’m so excited” about the upcoming championship whilst Alan Shearer insisted the team were keeping their feet on the ground and not “dancing on the ceiling”. It was a bunch of rich kids playing a harmless game. And even Alan Shearer was funny.

Fast-forward 13 years and a different bunch of rich kids – the coalition government – are playing a much more dangerous game with our economy. Where Shearer and co. referenced well-known 80s tunes, we now have Osborne et al regurgitating stale references to the "economic mess" the previous Labour government left us in. And whilst England's japes earned them a few quid in bets with teammates, the coalition's financial tomfoolery is going to cost us all dearly. The only 80s throw-back being cited now is Maggie Thatcher. 

Re-worded, re-packaged and repeated ad infinitum, the phrase has prefixed Conservative and Lib Dem responses to every question since the formation of the coalition:

"How many slices of toast for breakfast, George?" asks Mrs Osborne.

"Two please – although if it wasn't for the economic mess Labour left us with, I could probably afford to have three ... and make sure you serve them on our Ming Dynasty plates," replies our humble Chancellor.

We have been pummelled into merciless submission and bitter acceptance through its endless repetition. It has allowed the government to force through ruthless cuts by sidelining Labour and marginalising economic alternatives.  

However – although it is a powerful political weapon to relentlessly demonise Labour's economic record – it is also a double-edged sword. It does indeed damage Labour's credibility, but it also creates a culture of gloom and cynicism that undermines consumer and business confidence. The irony is that – whilst the economy under the Con-Dems flat lines – Labour’s more interventionist policy saved us from depression and sowed the seeds of growth through positive action and investment.

According to Ernst & Young Item Club, our recovery has slowed and our economy has "stalled at a dangerous junction". The simple reason for this stagnation is that – because government economic chauvinism has engendered low confidence – banks are not lending and people are not spending. Furthermore, draconian austerity and rising unemployment further erodes confidence.

As David Blanchflower, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, states in an open letter to George Osborne: 

It hasn't helped that you have described the economy as "bankrupt" when clearly it was not, and also compared the British economy with that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are locked in monetary union, do not have their own central bank and cannot depreciate their currency or engage in credit easing. With such unpatriotic talk, you and other coalition leaders have caused business and consumer confidence... to collapse. They are at frighteningly low levels and I suspect they will fall a lot further unless you act quickly. 

Negative rhetoric is essential to force through ideological cuts to public services and welfare provision, but by constantly talking-down the economy, the government has undermined our chances of recovery. The economy requires positive language and action to flourish. From cutting VAT, payroll tax-breaks, bringing back the Future Jobs Fund, linking corporation tax to unemployment or introducing a Robin Hood Tax and Tobin Tax, there are numerous policies which would increase employment and stimulate growth.

If economics – like football – is a game of two halves, then now is the time for some inspirational half-time words and positive substitutions from the gaffer. The coalition might be committing economic suicide, but with unprecedented and irreversible public sector cuts, they’ll go down in history as hard-nosed neo-liberal martyrs.

Time for a tax on unemployment

According to Karl Marx, capitalism requires a reserve army of surplus labour to squeeze working conditions and maximise profit: 

Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation is the greatest.

This inevitably means a rise in unemployment and, with unemployment rising by 80,000 in the second quarter of this year, we can see how the conditions of working people are being attacked whilst financial institutions remain protected. As public sector pay is frozen, jobs are cut and trade union rights are eroded, the government’s package of quantitive easing will go straight to the banks. It’s effectively a second bail-out which banks will use to service debt rather than inject money into the economy to stimulate growth.

What we really need is full employment and a population with disposable income to spend and kick-start the economy – but the dialectic interests of the capitalist class and working people makes this impossible.

I was surprised, therefore, to read a letter today in the Morning Star by Bill Banning which offered a relatively simple solution to this diametrically opposed impasse:

Let's have a tax on unemployment, a tax to create jobs ... The unemployment or austerity tax would be linked directly to the rise and fall of the labour market and would be applied to company profits, including banks, financial institutions, multinationals, millionaires and oligarchs.

It would be based upon the cost of unemployment to the economy so that it would increase as unemployment goes up and reduce as it comes down.

This would mean that those doing well despite the recession would share the pain and at the same time provide a positive incentive for job creation.

Surely if, as we are constantly being told, we are all in this together, there could not be a fairer, more equitable system than one in which those that are suffering most from the austerity measures demanded by the need to reduce our national debt can clearly see that their sacrifice is acknowledged, and that those able to reduce their hardship by virtue of their good fortune are doing so.

Bravo Bill! A simple but effective idea to link corporation tax to unemployment. If Ed Miliband is serious about favouring ‘producers’ over ‘predators’ then this would be a good first step to re-engineer capitalism in favour of the people currently paying for the costly mistakes of financial institutions. 

Suharto and the IMF – A Marriage of Convenience

The New Statesman’s Sholto Byrnes is wrong to suggest that all of General Suharto’s crimes “cannot take away from Suharto that he reduced Indonesia’s inflation rate from 650 per cent in 1966 to under 20 per cent within three years”. Suharto’s crimes were indeed horrific – from anti-communist purges to the death of at least 100,000 following the Indonesian invasion of East Timor – and he did succeed in reducing hyper-inflation, but it is historically inaccurate to divorce these two issues and see them as mutually exclusive. Indeed, it was only brutal authoritarianism which allowed Suharto to force through unpopular economic reforms.

Suharto’s predecessor – President Sukarno – attracted the scorn of the US because he focused on wealth redistribution and threw the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank out of Indonesia. From the off, Suharto was the CIA’s man in Indonesia. The CIA furnished him with lists of prominent leftists and Suharto used the army to cleanse the country of communists. As Kathy Kadane, former reporter at the Washington Post, noted, this was done with the explicit support of the CIA and the US Embassy received regular reports on their progress. The army’s cruelty was echoed by state-sponsored religious groups which swept the country massacring hundreds of thousands of left-wing sympathisers.

In exchange for supporting Suharto in the liquidation of leftist opposition, the United States expected certain economic favours. Suharto surrounded himself with graduates of the University of Berkeley who supported the liberalisation of the economy. According to the Shock Doctrine:

They passed laws allowing foreign companies to own 100 percent of resources, handed out “tax holidays,” and within two years, Indonesia’s natural wealth – copper, nickel, hardwood, rubber and oil – was being divided up among the largest mining and energy companies in the world.

Suharto’s subservience to the American economic agenda ensured more favourable treatment from international bodies such as the IMF and this allowed for the reduction in inflation – but it was only achieved through the violent suppression of opposition. This model of foreign intervention – combining support for fierce repression, populating sympathetic governments with economic acolytes and using supranational bodies to promote favourable domestic policy – continues to be replicated by America across the globe. Hence, Suharto’s “crimes” were an intrinsic part of reducing hyper-inflation.

Byrnes concedes that it was not Suharto’s human rights abuses which eventually brought his regime down but “his government’s catastrophic response to the Asian financial crisis of 1997”. However this conclusion is again misleading. A more satisfying explanation is that the alliance between Suharto and the IMF fragmented. From being the first country in the region to open its doors to unregulated foreign capital, Suharto became increasingly obstinate and unwilling to comply with IMF controls. One crucial trigger was the IMF’s insistence that Suharto raise the price of gasoline – he did and the Indonesians rose up and pushed him from power. The IMF’s marriage of convenience with Suharto had been terminated in a messy divorce.

Byrnes’ article urges us to use Asia as a model for what might happen in the Arab world following the fall of Gaddafi and Mubarak. He is right to seek historical parallels with the fall of autocratic regimes in Asia, but it is wrong to equate these with principles of freedom and liberation whilst ignoring the role of supranational bodies – such as the IMF and World Bank in Asia and NATO in Libya – in enforcing their agenda. What we can learn from the Indonesian experience is that these international bodies will support governments – either democratic or autocratic – when they acquiesce to selling natural resources – such as oil reserves or mineral wealth – to foreign corporations.

Let’s not kid ourselves that the West is concerned with liberation and national sovereignty. Our history is riddled with support for despots, dictators and murderers. Gaddafi and Mubarak are two prime examples of this. The British left-wing press shouldn’t be espousing what is, at best, historically inaccurate, or, at worst, cynical historical revisionism.

When is a revolution not a revolution?

Our national media has been falling over itself to congratulate the West for its role in the Libyan “revolution” and the “liberation” of the Libyan people. The Sun has spoken of “ecstatic crowds” of “freed Libyans” and the Metro has described how David Cameron was given a “heroes’ welcome” on his visit to Benghazi. It is, as the Times declared, “a revolution ... as revolutions used to be”.

Today’s newspapers were dominated with pictures of Cameron alongside fellow freedom fighter Nicolas Sarkhozy and Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Chair of the National Transitional Council, and part of the “new” Libyan leadership. Jalil – like a number of the National Transitional Council – previously served in Gaddafi’s government. Mahmoud Jibril was a keen advocate of liberalisation and privatisation during his time as head of the National Economic Development Board under Gaddafi whilst Jalil himself was Minister of Justice from 2007-2011. Numerous others were educated in Western countries such as France and America. The only difference is - where Gaddafi sought to deny external access to Libya’s natural resources and oil reserves - the Transitional Council will be far more sympathetic to Western economic interest.

And so, as racist violence sweeps Libya and corporate vultures circle Libya’s abundant natural wealth, it makes you wonder how deep and meaningful a revolution can be when key figures served as part of the overthrown administration and others were educated abroad? NATO prevented Gaddafi’s predicted genocide with a barrage of brutal airstrikes and terrors comparable to those of the Gaddafi regime. Perhaps this is a revolution that’s going full circle.

Eyes on Power's left-wing coup

So it turns out EoP has been voted 17th in the left-wing category of the Total Politics Blog Awards 2011. We are obviously delighted and would like to thank everyone who voted for us - and anyone who didn't vote for us but still reads this nonsense.

Big congratulations also to our very own Dan Smith who has been voted number 9 in the top left-wing bloggers category.

Well done to all the other blogs and bloggers too!

The Miami Five – 13 Years of Unjust Imprisonment

On this day 13 years ago, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González and René González were arrested by the FBI in Miami while trying to stop right-wing groups carrying out terrorist attacks against the Cuban people. The five counter-terrorists – commonly known as the Miami Five – remain unfairly incarcerated within the US; their wives and family members are denied family visitation rights and they are often held in solitary confinement.

For over 50 years, right-wing exile groups within Miami have targeted Cuba killing nearly 3,500 people in terrorist attacks against the island. This has been done with the complicit support of the US government and the CIA.

To saves lives, Cuba sent five men to infiltrate and monitor these violent dissident groups. At the request of the American government, this information was passed to the FBI in 1998 but – instead of arresting the terrorists – the Bureau used the information to identify and arrest the Miami Five on 12 September 1998.

The Miami Five were sentenced to a total of 75 years imprisonment and remain interned within the US. Compare this to the terrorist and former CIA-operative Luis Posada Carriles who – although responsible for the blowing up of a Cuban airliner in 1973 which killed 73 people – remains at liberty in America.

The arrest, trial and sentencing of the Miami Five has enraged legal opinion, NGOs and human rights campaigners from the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to Amnesty International.

In October 2010, Amnesty International released a report condemning the trial of the Miami Five and calling for a review of the case. Central to their criticism was the “underlying concern related to the fairness of holding the trial in Miami, given the pervasive hostility to the Cuban government in that area and media and other events before and during the trial . . . there was evidence to suggest that these factors made it impossible to ensure a wholly impartial jury”.

Amnesty raised serious concerns about the circumstances of the pre-trial detention of the five men which involved sporadic solitary confinement and limited access to attorneys and evidence. As the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared in May 2005, this “undermined the equal balance between the prosecution and the defence”.

Amnesty’s report followed a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals which, in August 2005, unanimously overturned the convictions of the Miami Five on the ground that “pervasive community prejudice in Miami against the Castro government merged with other factors to prejudice their right to a fair trial”. The decision was promptly quashed by the US government.

Furthermore, recent evidence obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act demonstrates that the American government directly funded Miami-based journalists to write and broadcast prejudicial articles and commentary before and during the trial. Despite overwhelming evidence, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to consider appeals on these grounds – even though similar cases have been granted a retrial.

Legal avenues in defence of the Miami Five have virtually been exhausted and only humanitarian intervention from President Barack Obama or the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can give justice to the five and their families. Public pressure to break the silence around this case is vital.

UK-based NGO the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and the British trade union movement have been crucial in building the broadest possible alliance in support of family visitation rights and, ultimately, the release of the Miami Five.

Any potential solution lies with the American government and the British movement in support of the Miami Five has been working closely with US unions – including the United Service Workers, the United Steel Workers and the Teamsters – to lobby key stakeholders in the Obama administration.

In a recent meeting in support of the Miami Five in Los Angeles, former Unite the Union General Secretary Tony Woodley declared, “the Miami Five enjoy a great deal of support on the international level, but that is not the case inside the United States. Solidarity is absolutely crucial in this case and the political struggle will be decisive for the return of the Miami Five to Cuba”.

America’s duplicity with regard the Miami Five is laid bare by Cuba’s ongoing inclusion on the US State Department terror blacklist alongside Iran, Sudan and Syria. As the Cuban Foreign Ministry said recently, the US government “has absolutely no moral right to judge Cuba, which has an unblemished history in the fight against terrorism and has been consistently the victim of this scourge”. This allegation is vindicated by the grotesque treatment of the Miami Five and the inexplicable harbouring of Posada Carriles.

The Cuban Foreign Ministry accused the US of the “political manipulation” of the sensitive issue of terrorism and, similarly, the handling of the Miami Five must be seen as distinctly political.

The unjust treatment of the Miami Five typifies US foreign policy towards Cuba and – when contrasted to the United States’ promotion and funding of dissident groups in Cuba – highlights American hypocrisy. The freedom of the Miami Five will only be secured through collective political action across the broadest possible campaign. Until their release, the campaign will continue.

The Forgotten 9/11

“That 11 September, that lethal Tuesday morning, I awoke with dread to the sound of planes flying above my house,” wrote Ariel Dorfman in the New Statesman recently. “When, an hour later, I saw smoke billowing from the centre of the city, I knew that life had changed for me, for my country, forever”.

Dorfman – contrary to popular assumption – was not writing about New York in 2001. He was describing events 28 years earlier in Chile. Chile 1973 is the forgotten 9/11.

In April 1973, the CIA circulated a memo encouraging a military coup in Chile against Salvador Allende’s democratically elected socialist government. The memorandum called for the promotion of economic chaos, political tension and affirmed that “ideally it would succeed in inducing the military to take over the government completely”.

Five months later, the Chilean armed forces – strongly encouraged by the US – bombed the Presidential Palace and Allende shot himself. In the following days, over 13,500 people were arrested. The Pinochet dictatorship – aided and abated by the US – rolled out radical neo-liberal economic policy which required violent enforcement. In total, more than 3,200 people were disappeared or executed, 80,000 were imprisoned and 200,000 fled the country for political reasons. It was an alarming foreshadow of things to come.

The Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein – in her monumental book The Shock Doctrine – frames modern history as the evolution of disaster capitalism. Klein debunks the myth that the rise of neo-liberal hegemony was achieved democratically and contends that free-market capitalism requires – and encourages – crises to force through a corporate agenda. In Klein’s view, this whole process started with the rise of Chicago School economics following Pinochet’s coup d’état in 1973.

The grandfather of the Chicago School, Milton Friedman, was the economic guru for both General Pinochet and President Bush. In 1982 he stated:

Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

Friedmanite economics have been applied throughout the world in response to crises since the 1970s – instigated by Pinochet’s Chile and intensified after 11 September 2001. Free-market reform – always serving American corporate interest – has required the shock therapy of torture, war and repression to subdue popular unrest and smash opposition. America’s support and advocacy of this terror has been unrelenting.

Parallels between the two 9/11s

Pinochet’s Chile was a laboratory for Chicago School economics: privatisation, deregulation and social spending cuts. In his first two years – with government companies auctioned off at a fraction of their value – unemployment increased from 3% to 20%. Inflation rose to a staggering 375% and 74% of the average household income was spent on bread. By the end of the 1980s, 45% of Chileans lived below the poverty line whilst, in contrast, the richest 10% had seen their income increase by 83%.

Whereas Pinochet’s Chile was an experiment in neo-liberalism, the War on Terror – free from the shackles of the Cold War – was private from the start. Everything – from homeland security to combat abroad – was for sale. By 2005, the homeland security industry – economically irrelevant before 9/11 – was worth $200 billion.

The function of government itself has become one of procurement. The number of security contracts handed out by the US increased from 3,512 in 2004 to 115,000 in 2006. Fighting wars abroad has become lucrative business for a variety of franchises and contractors. Iraq is not occupied by the American military, it is occupied by McDonalds in greenzones or by private security firms. This raises serious questions of accountability and transparency – not to mention government responsibility.

The US used the mass disorientation resulting from 9/11 to subdue opposition and facilitate the spread of the free market. Just as the Falklands War reignited Thatcher’s ailing Premiership, 9/11 was a panacea for Bush’s anaemic Presidency. Rapid economic growth echoed the Dotcom bubble but, to stop it bursting, the Whitehouse needed to create perpetual fear to fuel demand.

In pursuit of ubiquitous fear, the US amplified Pinochet’s brutality by employing extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques (ETIs), water-boarding, hooding and indefinite detention. Donald Rumsfeld ensured that prisoners captured in Afghanistan were not covered by the Geneva Convention because they were classed as “enemy combatants” rather than POWs. Furthermore, according to declassified documentation, Rumsfeld authorised a number of ETIs including “deprivation of light and auditory stimuli,” “the removal of clothing” and “using detainees’ individual phobias... to induce stress”.

President Bush declared that “freedom itself” had been attacked following al-Qaeda’s assault on the Twin Towers. He vowed to ensure that “freedom will be defended”. The tragic irony is that the defence of freedom – or the War on Terror – has more often been used to curb people’s freedom in the name of counter-terrorism. This – like the support of Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship – highlights the depraved hypocrisy of a morally corrupt superpower. This is the 9/11 that shouldn’t be forgotten.

This is an extended version of an article written for Liberal Conspiracy

From Crackpot to Despot: Top 10 Nadine Dorries Quotes

Politics is a melting pot of colourful characters, oddballs and eccentrics. From the Posadists’ combination of Trotskyism and ufology to Lembit Opik’s obsession with apocalyptic Armageddon, it is the weird and the wonderful which make politics fascinating.

Problems arise, however, when the carnival of crackpots take over the asylum. The United States already has its fair share of mainstream nutters – from President George W. Bush to the horrifying Tea Party – but Britain is in hot pursuit. The current peculiar pin-up is Nadine Dorries – Sarah Palin’s bosom buddy and reactionary protégé – who has grabbed the headlines this week in her quest to restrict women’s access to abortion.

Dorries’ growing influence and exposure makes her a fearsome and frightening political beast. But don’t take my word for it; here are some of her most dubious, unfounded and reprehensible soundbites.

Dorries on God
“My faith tells me who I am. It tells me why I am here. It tells me who is with me while I am pursuing my goals. I sometimes think if I didn’t have my faith, who would I be? How would I live my life? My faith constantly gives me my reference point. I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did... I am just a conduit for God.” (War Cry, 2 June 2007)

Dorries on Pro-Life
“The public takes little notice of those who want to abolish abortion. They are dismissed as extremists. If I were to argue that all abortions should be banned, the ethical discussions would go round in circles.... My view is that the only way forward is to argue for a reduction in the time limit... saving some lives is better than saving no lives at all. I hope pro-lifers will come to share my view that some progress is better than no progress.” (War Cry, 2 June 2007)

Dorries on Abortion
“When the operation was over, baby Samuel, at 21 weeks gestation, put his hand through the incision in the uterus and grabbed hold of the surgeon’s finger, a gesture which was apparently met with a huge amount of emotion in the operating theatre... In the UK we are aborting babies just like this and older every single day.... Little Samuel made his case from within the womb in a way which none of the shrill late abortionists will ever manage.” (The Hand of Hope, Nadine Dorries’s blog, 19 March 2008)

Dorries on All-Women Shortlists
“Sometimes I feel sorry for some of the Labour women who were selected via all-women shortlists. Everyone knows who they are. They are constantly derided.” (Conservative Home, 21 October 2009)

Dorries on Cannabis
"They startled me when they told me that the cannabis that teenagers are smoking now... is actually 50 times more potent than it was even a year ago... It only takes the teenager one 'spliff' or one 'joint' or whatever they refer to it now to smoke and they will never reach their full academic potential, because it is so dangerous..." (Any Questions, BBC Radio 4, 3 June 2011)

Dorries on Twitter
“Do you know of anyone who has Tweeted more than 35,000 times in less than six months? If so, email my office and let me know. Or, better still, if it's someone you know is on benefits, contact the Department for Work and Pensions.” (Twitter Obsession, Nadine Dorries’ blog, 30 September 2010)

Dorries (via Twitter) on Burglars’ Human Rights
“When you break into someone’s house to do harm, you leave every right you have at the door.” (Nadine Dorries’ Twitter, 31 January 2010)

Dorries on Sex Education and Child Abuse
“If a stronger ‘just say no’ message was given to children in school, there might be an impact on sex abuse. A lot of girls, when abuse takes place, don’t realise until later that that was wrong because sex is so common in society... I don’t think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in school, we would probably have less sex abuse” (The Vanessa Show, 16 May 2011)

Dorries on Sarah Palin
"I think Sarah Palin is amazing. I totally admire her." (New Statesman, 30 September 2010)

Dorries on Truth
"My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another." (The Guardian 21 October 2010)

So, by her own admission, Nadine Dorries is inclined to replace one fact with another. Or ‘lying’ as most people call it. 70% of what she says is fiction and 30% is fact. Judging by the quotes above, it’s also 100% bullshit. With the growing media attention she's receiving, it's also dangerous bullshit.

Book Review: Hate by Matthew Collins

Hate is the captivating and witty autobiography of reformed fascist turned Searchlight mole Matthew Collins. Collins was a full-time activist and administrator for the National Front for several years at the turn of the 1990s and his experience spans the disintegration of the NF and the rise of the British National Party. It is an engrossing chronicle of confrontation between the left and right and examines Collins’ relationship with prominent fascists including Ian Anderson, Richard Edmonds, Eddie Whicker, Tony Lecomber and Combat 18 leader Charlie Sargent.

The book – crude, brutal and savagely funny – charts Collins’ involvement with the National Front in his late teens through to his work as an informant with the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight. Collins was the principle source of Andy Bell’s World In Action documentary and was forced into hiding for 10 years in Australia before returning to the UK to work full-time as an anti-fascist campaigner.

Although Collins was never a fascist leader and his flirtation with the far right was relatively brief, he does provide a fascinating insight into the tactics and psychology of British Nazism. The right’s ability to mobilise coalitions of thugs – including violent fascists, barbaric football hooligans and brutish Loyalists – is truly chilling, but Collins also demonstrates the inherent contradictions and weakness of the movement.

The awkward alliance of various groups and factions is saturated with egotism and paranoia whilst deluded ideological warhorses – such as Anderson and Edmonds – rely on the muscle and numbers provided by football hooligans to further their political ends. Hooligan firms might echo the racist bile of the NF and the BNP, but they’re not interested in building a ‘movement’ or selling papers, they just want a ruck with some Reds. Collins’ terrifying description of a number of violent encounters with the left helps illustrate this implicit conflict.

Another highlight is the fascinating story of Mr X – a former Trotskyite turned Sun journalist who becomes increasingly cosy with leading British Nazis and violent Ulster Loyalists – which illustrates the incestuous relationships between the far right of the Conservative Party and the fascist movement. Until the emergence of some embarrassing photographs, Mr X plays an increasingly pivotal role in the National Front as he offers them access to the political establishment and writes for a number of NF publications.

Unlike similar accounts – such as Ray Hill’s The Other Face of Terror – there is no epiphany or eureka moment which converts Collins to fighting fascism. Rather it is a gradual disillusionment with the increasingly well-organised and escalating violence. This gradualism mirrors Collins’ first interaction with the National Front and his hesitant and wary engagement of Searchlight.

Although the primary focus is on the National Front, as a historical document charting the rise of the BNP – detailing its violent, Nazi and anti-parliamentary origins – the book is truly significant. Much of what Collins says is hardly revelatory, but it is an important resource to demonstrate the true colours of the BNP when many of its supporters – and even members – are ignorant of the reality.

Hate does not provide a blueprint for fighting fascism, but it does show how the far right attracts working-class people damaged by the system and encourages them to express their anger at other members of society. It shows how fascists exploit some of the most vulnerable people in society – young working-class men with limited prospects – and gives them a sense of belonging, worth and comradeship. The most important lesson of Collins’ book is that as long as the mainstream political establishment continues to restrict employment opportunities and housing prospects for the inner-city youth, the far right will continue to be a frightening menace. As a first-hand account of this menace – and for anyone concerned about the rise of the far right and the emergence of the EDL – this is a must read.

Click here to buy Hate from Hope Not Hate with all proceeds going to Searchlight.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime

Tony Blair famously promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but the current wave of riots and social unrest can be seen as a direct consequence of Labour’s failure to reverse Thatcherite neo-liberalism. Cameron’s draconian cuts may have triggered these events – with Mark Duggan’s shooting the catalyst – but the cuts alone are insufficient explanation for the remarkably swift spread of violence. A more robust rationalisation is Blair’s continuation of Thatcher’s legacy which crystallised social fragmentation through growing wealth inequality.

As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett argue in the empirical masterpiece The Spirit Level – Why Equality is Better for Everyone all social problems – such as crime, obesity, mental illness, ill health, teenage pregnancy – are more prevalent in unequal societies.

Wilkinson and Pickett cite the American psychiatrist James Gilligan who argues that acts of violence “are attempts to ward off or eliminate the feeling of shame and humiliation – and replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride”. Although Gilligan is discussing individual criminals, we can extrapolate this to whole communities. It is no surprise that violent riots have occurred in areas of poverty, mass unemployment and decimated youth services. In Tottenham, for instance, 75% of the youth services budget has been cut.

People feel alienated, shamed and humiliated because they cannot find work to provide for themselves or their families. The mob mentality – and the adrenaline-fuelled rush of consumerist ecstasy experienced through the looting of a plasma television – provides the panacea of temporary pride and purpose. The solution, therefore, is not to compound their humiliation through tabloid caterwauling and the removal of benefits.

Although the government refuse to admit it, there is strong correlation between violence and wealth inequality and, as Wilkinson and Pickett assert:

… violent behaviour comes from young men at the bottom of society, deprived of all the markers of status, who must struggle to maintain face and what little status they have, often reacting explosively when it is threatened

Seumas Milne – in a compelling Guardian article – contends that David Cameron must maintain that unrest has no cause except criminality otherwise the political establishment might be held responsible. Milne contrasts the behaviour of the rioters with bankers that:

publicly looted the country’s wealth and got away with it… it’s not hard to see why those who are locked out of the gravy train might think they were entitled to help themselves to a mobile phone.

Our society is predicated on unjust and unfair treatment which has reckless and dangerous consequences. If you dehumanise and alienate people – by cutting their services, demonising them in popular culture and undermining their quality of life – then it is no surprise that people react against it. If you treat someone like an animal then they will start behaving like one – and there’s nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.

But the same is true of the other end of the spectrum. If you treat people – like bankers and media moguls – as though they are above the law then they start to believe they are above the law. If governments pander to their whim, then they believe they are above government and they become reckless, arrogant and aloof – as demonstrated by hackgate and the financial crisis.

This unfair treatment creates a more unequal and hierarchical society. Those at the bottom lack the social capital to achieve self-respect and status and this creates volatile and violent results. Those at the top lack restraint and ride roughshod over others. The true crime, for any Labour supporter, is that the gap between the richest and poorest increased under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This is the key long-term factor for the recent explosion of destruction.

Of course violence is deplorable – and it is clear much of the unrest lacks political consciousness and represents nothing more than criminal opportunism – but it would be wrong to ignore the economic and socio-political context which has created this civil disobedience. As economic recovery stagnates and unemployment rises, so too will social alienation and the chance of further violence. Just like the financial crash, it is the selective blindness of the political establishment to the ills of neo-liberalism which endangers us all. The irony is that while Thatcher sought to create a stake-holder capitalism to appease working people, the vast majority of the population now has no interest in a dysfunctional and misfiring economic model.

If we don’t fully engage with the reasons behind the riots – and the government continues its naïve economic program – then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past. It’s time we got tough on the causes of crime and tackled growing wealth inequality.

A manufactured dissident

Part 1 of The Empire's Pawns, an episode from Cuba's Reasons (Part Two below)

It is 10 December 2010 and the damas en blanco (Ladies in White) are holding a small protest outside the Combinado del Este jail in Cuba. Laura Pollán – de facto leader of the damas en blanco – is relaying a live commentary of events to Miami-based Radio República via mobile phone:

We have arrived without any problem at El Combinado. We are right at the entrance. Many guards are running at us.

Pollán is being filmed by Carlos Serpa Maceira (right), spokesperson for various counter-revolutionary groups, reporter for Radio Marti and lynchpin of the dissident movement in Cuba. As Radio República’s listeners fear for her safety, Serpa pans to the prison’s entrance revealing the truth behind Pollán’s frightening report – there are no charging guards.

Despite this, Pollán’s words – without confirmation or verification – are reproduced ad infinitum by anti-Cuban media in Miami and the news spreads like wildfire throughout reputable Western media agencies – such as Reporters Without Borders. Within the click of a button, Pollán’s falsified account becomes uncorroborated fact. That’s how easy it is to organise a propaganda campaign against Cuba.

In Cuba’s Reasons, a fascinating five part series recently broadcast on Cuban television, however, Serpa – along with a number of other high-profile dissidents – is revealed as an undercover state operative collecting information on America’s insidious fabrication and manipulation of counter-revolutionary groups. Serpa’s secret filming at El Combinado is just one exposition of the lengths groups will go to manufacture lies to undermine the Cuban revolution. The series, Cuba’s Reasons, explores the dissident movement – sparsely populated by obsequious mercenaries – and illustrates that the United States’ strategy of subversion has evolved as the agitation for a post-Castro Cuba has been intensified.

Tory Riots

After watching footage of the Tottenham riot I wondered about the inevitability of rioting under a Tory government. Since riots are a result of mass action it seems an obvious task to compare this with the macro level politics of government. It's easier to do this type of comparison in the UK as both parties have had long spans in power meaning that dissatisfaction with one government is less likely to spill over into the term of another. I used this list of riots which is problematic as it fails to mention what it defines as a riot. Due to this, I omitted one result (which occurred in a festival causing no public damage) and all riots occurring in Northern Ireland due to differences in politics. Therefore, please use these results as a rough guide only.

From 1970 there have been around 30 riots in mainland Britain. Labour have been in power for 10 of these during their 18 years of power. The Tories, in their 23 years (including coalitions), have been responsible for 20. If you divide the years by the number of riots you get a rough percentage of how likely a riot is going to occur per year under each party, under Labour you are 55% likely to see a riot a year whereas under the Tories it is 89%.

If you own a shop or small business in a city then it would be a bad idea to vote Tory. If your hobby is fighting the police and fire-bombing city centres however, then the Tories are 34% more likely to make that happen.

Declaration of Co-operation with Cuba requires concrete action

Last month Cuba and the United Kingdom signed a formal declaration to strengthen bilateral co-operation. The agreement champions “closer dialogue and economic, scientific, technical, educational, cultural and sporting links between the two countries” and highlights key areas for collaboration including environmental issues, biotechnology, trade and investment, regional security, child protection and disaster preparedness.

The move should be welcomed as a positive step – not just by those supporting the Cuban people – but also by those looking to expand British trade relations in Latin America. In order to make tangible change, however, the agreement must be substantiated by positive action – something which has been lacking in previous UK policy towards Cuba.

The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world and the 3rd largest economy in the European Union. It is the 7th largest importer and the 11th largest exporter in the world. In spite of this, the level of trade between Britain and Cuba is derisory. Exports to Cuba totalled an abysmal $14.4m (£8.9m) in 2009 whilst imports came to a pathetic $15.8m (£9.8m). Compare this to September 1958 when the UK government exported 25 fighter jets to General Batista’s dictatorship. The equivalent value today – at around £40m a plane – would equate to an annual UK export to Cuba of around one billion pounds.

It is tempting to explain the lack of commercial activity between our two countries as a legacy of the Cold War, however back in 1986, Cuba constituted the UK’s fifth largest market in Latin America. Furthermore, UK trade with Cuba is dwarfed by other EU countries including Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands. Indeed, in 2008, the UK was only the 11th largest exporter of goods to Cuba from the EU.

It is therefore more appropriate to view the level of trade as a direct consequence of policy adopted by consecutive UK governments. In particular, the Blair government – as a result of closer ties with the Clinton and Bush administrations – took an increasingly aggressive and hard-line stance against the island. Blair was a keen advocate of the EU Common Position – which suppresses trade and exchange with Cuba – whilst, in 2003, the UK was instrumental in blocking Cuba’s entry into the Cotonou Agreement which gives trade preferences to former European colonies.

According to UK Trade & Investment (UKIT), “the greatest hurdle to doing business in Cuba is painfully slow decision-making which result from all investment decisions being referred to the highest levels of government”. However, as indicated in the graphs below, there are a number of other countries which manage to cut through the perceived ‘layers of bureaucracy’. It is ridiculous that UKIT blames restrictions within Cuba for the lack of trade when the main obstacle remains the UK’s unwillingness to challenge the ongoing US blockade.

In theory, the UK Protection of Trade Interests Act makes it illegal for UK companies to comply with extraterritorial US Helms Burton legislation but, in practice, the UK government replicates the pernicious and illegal blockade. Transactions cannot take place in US Dollars and payment cannot be channelled via American Banks. The risk of US sanctions creates uncertainty and banks, businesses and companies can get caught between conflicting legal requirements. For instance, in August 2010, Barclays Bank was fined $298m (£190m) by US authorities for handling transactions with banks in Cuba. The result is that the little trade that does occur often takes place through ‘third parties’ and unfairly increases Cuba’s import costs.

The blockade also restricts access to long-term credit which means Cuba is often limited to dealing in cash transactions or expensive short-term credit. This makes bilateral trade more costly for the island and significantly stifles their economic freedom. The uncertainty caused by the blockade creates a volatile market and increases the risk of liquidity problems. As the UKIT report says:

Even when there is potential demand for many products, the reality is that not all companies are in a position to ensure payment or to finance long-term payments … This is mainly due to Cuba’s lack of access to the long and middle term financial market, so relying mostly on short-term credit, and credit offered by the providers.

It is peculiar that David Cameron has spent much of his tenure attempting to expand British markets abroad – in places such as China, India and the Middle East – but Cuba’s potential remains untapped. Cuba’s geographical location – as both a Caribbean and Central American nation – represents a strategic advantage whilst the Cuban market offers various long-term benefits. Cuba has a highly educated and literate population and there is an abundance of experienced and qualified employees. Brazil has already recognised the business potential in Cuba and has invested heavily to make Mariel Port the leading freight port in the Caribbean.

The UK should be applauded for repeatedly voting against the US blockade at the United Nations, but further action is required to normalise relations with Cuba and develop real, discernible trade and co-operation between our countries.

The Cuba Solidarity Campaign and the British trade union movement have worked tirelessly to promote the normalisation of relations and it is clear that real political will does exist. Early Day Motion 1171 supporting the strengthening of ties between the UK and Cuba was signed by 248 MPs whilst over 92% of candidates in the 2010 General Election supported better relations. The examples of various EU countries – including Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands – demonstrate that the debilitating effects of the EU Common Position can be circumvented if perceptible political will exists. It is now crucial that we harness political will within the UK to turn this ‘paper’ agreement into something more concrete.

This article originally appeared on Left Foot Forward and the Guardian's Comment is Free.