Bush in the Middle East

After seven years in the White House, Bush is finally turning his attention to the problems of Israel and Palestine. At least that is the headlines in the media. In reality, Bush is visiting not only Israel / Palestine but also Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In other words, this trip is less about peace and more about oil.

Saudi Arabia, described by the US as moderate (ie. sympathetic to US policy) is in a difficult situation. There is nothing moderate about Saudi domestic policies, which has led to a great deal of internal unrest. Much of the population is relatively poor which, in the largest oil producing country in the world and the price of crude at over $100.00 a barrel, is a complete outrage. The money is going somewhere and my guess is that the royal family of Saud have a symbiotic relationship with both the USA and Britain. The West needs oil but the House of Saud needs the West in order to maintain power. Hence the wealth of the country is funnelled back to the West in the form of arms deals and various forms of military and security support. This visit to Saudi Arabia is the most important aspect of the whole tour but will receive the least publicity in the media.

The media focus will be on that one part of the tour which is probably the least important, at least to the participants. One can be sure that there will be no benefit for the Palestinian people. The Bush administration has no record in trying to help the Palestinians. I think the reason for his visit here is a lot closer to home.

Last night the New Hampshire primaries saw Hilary Clinton narrowly edge victory over Barack Obama, with the Republicans seeing John McCain as their clear winner on the night. 2008 is the year of the presidential elections. There is a large Jewish vote and the Republicans have got to be seen to earn what support it can.

Don’t expect the Bush trip to make any real difference to the Middle East, least of all to Palestine. I suspect the television coverage it generates is designed primarily for US domestic consumption.

The rest is business as usual.

Voting Russian Style

Over Christmas I dined with several Russian friends. After one such dinner the talk turned to politics (for a change it wasn’t me who raised the subject). Our hosts are Putin supporters and the reason is that Putin delivers a better standard of living. Fair enough I suppose but what I didn’t expect was to have to defend the liberal democracy. The question was asked “surely you still don’t believe in voting?” As if I had just confessed to lingering doubts about the non-existence of Father Christmas.

In light of recent events in Pakistan and Kenya, who can blame them? Democracy as understood by the vast majority of the world is for the few. The recent thirty eight page dossier produced by the Pakistan People’s Party (formerly led by the recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto) apparently gives details the ruling party’s subversion of the democratic process. (I have tried to find a copy of this document, it would make interesting reading). It seems that Mwai Kibaki in Kenya has been less sophisticated, relying on simply delaying the count while using the time to stuff the ballot boxes. Putin on the other hand has been the most successful. He has been allowed to do this because he has genuinely sought to be popular. And in the main that popularity has been achieved by returning order to Russian society.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the rule of law broke down in every level of society: the democracy that was brought in with Yeltsin was in fact the rule of robber barons. As long as the President’s family was in on the deal, gangster-capitalism ruled. I could go to the endless media examples to illustrate this point but instead I turn closer to home.

A friend of mine in St.Petersberg is an excellent chemist and food technologist. He was the head food technologist in a small business. In the evenings he worked on new technology processing sunflower oil. After two years the new method was perfected and the patent was drawn up. Celebrations all around! Or it would have been if my friend hadn’t received an unexpected visit from two men he did not know.
“We like your patent. Sign it over to us or we will kill you.”

Putin hasn’t put a total stop to this kind of theft but for many, life is a lot more stable since 2000. After the criminal excesses of the Yeltsin years, that is good enough. Also Putin has restored pride to the country; going from 80’s superpower to 90’s beggar was a bitter pill for most but in recent years the trend is being turned around. High oil prices and flexing of military muscle means that the feel good factor is back for the average Russian.

There is always a price though and in Russia’s case it is freedom of speech. Journalists (except in the tiny English language press) have returned to Soviet-style self-censorship, encouraged to do so by state persecution and even murder of colleagues. Oligarchs who have refused to bend the knee to Putin have either been imprisoned or fled into exile. They are not mourned by most Russians, the fortunes of the oligarchs were created during the corruption of the Yeltsin years. These times also saw Russia making many deals with western companies which with hindsight were seen as bad deals. Hence Russian moves to repossess assets such as Shell’s fields off Sakhalin Island and similar moves against BP in Siberia. It is this pressure against foreign corporations (especially British) that has led to degradation of Anglo-Russian relations, perhaps even more that the Litvinenko poisoning. I digress but all this conflict with foreign companies plays well at home for Putin.

Now we must look forward to the Presidential elections in March. I'm sure we'll see more of the vote-rigging ploys: ensuring managers recommend the correct candidate to their workforce, mind-games with internation polling verification organisations and patrols of students to prevent "Orange-style" popular uprisings as happened in neighbouring Ukraine. All these measures happened during the latest parliamentary elections.

But in my opinion these 'safeguards' are no longer necessary. As the father of another of one of my Russian-born friends said when asked by his daughter who he intends to vote for, he replied:

"I don’t know. Putin hasn’t told us yet.”

Reforming the House of Lords

I was listening to Radio 4 the other day when I was annoyed to hear an idea being praised by some academic. It was on the selection for the House of Lords and the idea was that citizens should sit on juries to select peers. The reason this annoyed me is that I floated this very idea some time back. This is how it came about.

Remember New Labour’s “Peoples’ Peers”, the label applied to the Independent Appointment’s Commission chaired by Lord Stevenson? Members of the public were nominated, with the Commission receiving over 3000 applications to join the House of Lords. There was widespread outrage when Lord Stevenson announced the names of the successful applicants. Among those newly ennobled, six knighthoods and five other honours had already being awarded. What is more, Lord Stevenson suggested that normal people, such as hairdressers, would be uncomfortable being in the Lords.

This was November, 2001. At the time I happened to be listening to the Jimmy Young Show on BBC Radio 2 and decided to contribute to the debate. I was fortunate enough to get through to a producer (possibly with the name of Chris?) who was courteous enough to listen to my idea which was this:

The Independent Appointment’s Commission was effectively a selection jury made up from the Great and the Good. Is it any wonder therefore that they had selected new peers from their own social background? Therefore if the IAC was truly to represent “Peoples’ Peers”, the selection committee would have to be made up from normal people. How could this be achieved? By selecting the members of the IAC on the same basis as juries are selected for court cases. The individuals selected would be part of the panel for the duration of that selection round.

Now, I was on the telephone for about four minutes putting forward this suggestion. The gentleman on the other end seemed genuinely impressed and questioned me on aspects of the plan. After the conversation ends I listened to the rest of the programme in the hope that my idea would be mentioned. It was not. And there matters rested until I heard the same suggestion being praised the other day.

I am not accusing anybody of stealing my idea. It is almost certain that whoever came up with it recently had arrived at it independently. No matter what the provenance of the idea is, I reckon it is still a good one.

The problem with selection of the House of Lords is that it is tied too much to the justly criticised patronage system. IAC was a flawed attempt to balance the system. I am against the direct election of the Lords for the simple reason that it will undermine the independence of the House. Peers will be in the power of the political parties rather than independent as they are now. An elected Lords will also undermine the constitutional supremacy of the House of Commons. In recent years the Lords have been a centre of effective resistance to government attempts to pass through illiberal, not to say draconian measures such as the extension of the term of detention that the police can hold a suspect without charge. The Lords also acts as a centre of expertise and specialised knowledge that is simply not available to the Commons. This is all the more important with the increasing professionalisation of the political classes. In my opinion, a House of Lords made up of entirely elected members will fatally wound the institution and inevitably it will become a rubber stamp for the executive in power.

The power of the Lords is that its members, once they join the House, are life members. The government no longer has direct control over them. Certainly many still take the whip and sit loyally with their political party. But still the Lords is a rigorous obstacle that contentious bills have to pass through.

The key to reforming the Lords lies in reformation of the selection system. Whether made up members of the public or more specialised members (such as politicians, academics or religious leaders) or even a mixture of members, juries may offer a simple and elegant solution as to who becomes a Lord.

Vladimir Putin: Almost There

In August I wrote a blog about Vladimir Putin (Putin – Frost in August http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-PB8HL2c4KvWeAHaufGxndyYD?p=314 ) Events have continued apace since then, pretty much as expected. Iran is still enjoying Russian support for its nuclear aspirations. The rumours of assassination attempts on Putin during his trip to Tehran naturally came to nothing. Since the majority of Muslims from Chechnya are Sufi and Iran is Shia, Iran has little interest in aiding the continuing insurrection against Russia in its southern provinces. (In fact I would not be at all surprised if the whole story of the murder plot originated from some Western spook house, aided and abetted by tame journalists, in an attempt to sour the cosy relationship between Moscow and Tehran.) But I digress… It is at home that Putin’s conquest of Russia is nearing completion.

As outlined in Frost in August, Vladimir Putin’s wooing of the Russian people continued apace before the elections. An excellent example of this during the pre-election phase was Putin’s appearance as guest-of-honour on broadcaster KVN’s television comedy show celebrating its 45th anniversary. Naturally Vladimir got to have a speech at the end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaDfEwtGb8), an opportunity which I hope he felt was worth the wait as during most of the show he wore the fixed smile of a guest watching his hosts’ children at play and being expected to enjoy the experience. But now Putin can rest from such trifles and return to the real business of power: the elections for the lower house of parliament, the Duma, which started this week.

Being as cautious and methodical as always, the Kremlin has restricted the number of observers from the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) from 450 in 2003 to “up to seventy people” for the December elections. Putin has also endorsed his party, United Russia, and put into place this year Viktor Zubkov as current Prime Minister. Zubkov is expected to run for the presidency following Putin’s mandatory retirement from the role in March next year. Should Zubkov win (and I don’t think anybody would bet against that), Putin is expected to take the role of Prime Minister.

From there, I reckon it could go in two directions. The current plan in the media is that Putin would be able to stand in the presidential elections for 2012. There is another option though. Under many states, the role of President is one of figurehead, wielding no actual power (the ex-Soviet Union was one such state for example). It may be that the constitution will be changed, in the name of democracy naturally, devolving much of the current presidential role down to the Duma and its prime minister, which would happen to be one V. Putin.

Now the name of this article is “Vladimir Putin: Almost There.” All these parliamentary manoeuvres are as naught compared to what is happening in the country-at-large. First of all, a law has been passed for the compulsory teaching of religion at all schools. The religion of choice and of nation is Russian Orthodoxy. This form of Christianity is rather illiberal (especially on women: long skirts, headscarves etc) and the usual Sunday service (although they are rather beautiful) is in the order of three hours long; standing only. This isn’t the problem though. In the past Russian Orthodoxy has been totally loyal to the regime of the Tsars, with the same level of loyalty being expected from United Russia. Other forms of worship are being actively discouraged if not suppressed. The second factor is coming from the Russian people themselves. They have stopped talking politics on the telephone. Discussions are starting to be limited to small groups in individuals’ homes.

The transition to totalitarian state is almost complete. Almost there, Vladimir, almost there….

An Open Letter to Ming Campbell

Dear Sir Menzies,

You have done the right thing. Thank you so much for standing down as leader at this time. But it is my sincere hope that you do not stand down too far.

We in the Liberal Democratic party need your wisdom, knowledge and statesmanship in the House of Commons. Please offer your services to the new leader, whomever that may be. Your place is on the front benches of our party.

Thank you for your hard work and efforts as leader.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Veart.
Member of the Liberal Democratic Party.

How Green is my Oil Industry? A personal look at the last ten years.

Today I joined the Green Liberal Democrat group on facebook and I’m feeling rather a hypocrite. The reason being is that I work in the oil industry which, to put it mildly, is not the greenest of places to be.

Standards in the North Sea have gone up in the past decade; that is certain. When I first went offshore in 1997, waste was not segregated, recycling was non-existent and the attitude towards spills was to follow the Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Get Caught. I still smart under the dogs’ abuse I suffered from the crew of a British rig for reporting a half-mile slick to the OIM (Offshore Instillation Manager: the captain of a rig or platform). Although the rig management was supportive of my action, the guilty crew were less than amused and accused me of making a fuss over nothing more than five litres of light lubricant. I told them that when it came to pollution, I have no sense of humour.

Things are better now. Led by the Scandinavians, waste is segregated effectively, although standards could still be higher in some rigs in the UK Sector. Oil-based mud (used in drilling) is not used when there is a viable and more environmentally-friendly alternative and when it has to be used, the rock cuttings are tightly controlled and are shipped back to land for cleaning and processing. The Scandinavians are not ahead on everything though: in my particular line of work, seismic surveying, the regulations on the disturbance to marine mammals are far tighter in the UK sector than either Denmark or Norway. The Norwegians used to have a popular tee-shirt that read “If we had dolphins, we’d eat them too!” so I guess there are cultural differences to be bridged in both directions.

That is the North Sea. Although the major oil companies are keen to use green-wash, outside Europe the colour drains quickly away. Friends who have worked in Nigeria tell me that if Shell wants to drill a well in the Niger Delta, a straight channel is simply dredged through the marshland in order to position the swamp-barge in the desired position. Anybody who has flown over Baku can tell one of the pools of oil left over from years of activity, both under the Soviets and Western companies.

Another relic of Soviet activity is the ghost platforms in the Caspian Sea off the coast of Turkmenistan. Sailing through them is a thought-provoking experience. The Russians used to have a platform-factory in Cheleken. As Turkmenistan became independent, the Russians left but not before trashing the facility and sinking an unfinished platform in the deep-water access to the port. Sailing out into the Caspian gave a example into both the great industry and the limitations of the Soviet system. I counted about fifty platforms before reaching my destination and I’m sure that they continued over the horizon beyond. But all of them were in various states of disrepair: from being reasonably intact to being completely wrecked, some just a few bits of metal sticking proud from the sea. The reason was the Soviet Union did not have the technology to produce effective drilling mud. (Mud is important to keep the over-pressured fluids, be they oil, gas or water, from reaching the rig in an uncontrolled manner. The physical forces of such blowouts are tremendous and if hydrocarbons are present, stand well back and hope nothing lights the blue-touch paper). Anyway, the Soviets didn’t have effective mud and over one fifth of their rigs in that field suffered catastrophic blowouts. I was told 1500 men died in three years of activity during the 1980s. God only knows and at the time nobody cared about what the effect was on the environment.

The worst example of mass pollution I actually witnessed was in Cabinda, Angola during the Millennium celebrations of 2000. I had arrived in Cabinda just before Christmas (lucky me!) and apart from being separated from friends and family, the place wasn’t bad. Turtles were heaving themselves up the crab-infested sandy beach and a family of sea-eagles seemed to be the local royalty. The first I saw something was wrong was the helicopter with the spray-boom going up-and-down about a mile offshore. This went on for a couple of days before I started to smell the oil. On the third day the slick struck the beach. It is hard to describe how sickening a large oil slick is: the sweet-stale-chemical odour that fills one’s nose and after long exposure tears the eyes. The wildlife was wiped out. What was the oil company’s reaction to all this? Nothing. The staff at the oil camp were told nothing. Outgoing calls were monitored and if the slick was mentioned the line would be cut.

Naturally the story spread in the camp though. It seems that a local employee on night-shift in the oil-storage depot had heard an alarm go off at about one o’clock in the morning. Instead of doing something about it, he knocked off the alarm and went back to sleep. By eight in the morning between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil had been pumped into the ocean. The local base did what it can with the resources available to disperse the slick but it was too much. Now here’s the cynical bit: corporate headquarters in Houston decided to suppress the incident rather than act upon it and call in help from outside. Under international law, a major spill is more than forty barrels of oil. The oil company calmly announced that thirty nine barrels had been spilt and that it was amazing how a little oil could cause such a mess. Yes, it is amazing. When I left Cabinda and flew along the coastline, the beaches were black all the way down to the mouth of the Congo, about 180 miles to the south.

And the name of this beacon of global partnership? Let’s just say I have an urge to throw something at the television if an advert for Chevron appears.

That was seven years ago. It is natural to dwell on such dramas but the day-to-day running of the business is, in its own way, just as polluting. I have never dared to go to one of these websites that calculates one’s carbon footprint. I recycle at home, my wife takes the bus rather than the car, the house is fitted with low energy lighting where practicable… but all that is nothing when compared to how many business miles I fly in a year. Many companies are keen to recruit young people from developing countries, which is good; then move them to developed countries in order to keep pay low in the industry. Naturally people want to return home at least once a year so those extra flights are part of the deal. The actual running of an oil rig must be extremely energy consuming. I once asked why the external lighting has to be kept on during the daytime. The reason is that the generators run more efficiently under full loading. At my home base in Aberdeen, I have often tried to get people to turn off computers (or at least the monitors) at the end of the day but to little effect. The other week I mentioned the lack of aluminium recycling facilities and was told that situation was known but to put my criticism down in writing.

As Kermit the Frog said: its not easy being green. But one has to keep trying.

Gordon Brown: Mind Games and General Elections

Just when the parties felt safe to stand down the troops and prepare for another winter at Westminster, Gordon Brown has seen fit to float the prospect of an autumn general election. It certainly has stirred up the media and for Sunday it was the main story on the BBC until news of the outbreak of Blue Tongue Disease on a Suffolk farm. Grabbing headlines is of course one of the reasons for the new speculation. The Labour Conference starts this week and Labour is naturally focusing the attention of everybody on that. All this spin about Brown being swayed by advice in his own party is nonsense: the Prime Minister is a control freak to the ‘n’th degree and it will be he that decides the timing of any general election; neither the unions nor other ministers and certainly not the Parliamentary Labour Party will have much in the way of input in Brown’s calculations.

I believe however there is a deeper purpose to Brown’s referral to the possibility of early elections and that is the effect is it hoped to have on the opposition parties. This cat-and-mouse of "will he, won't he" call a general election reminds me of the techniques employed by police negotiators in a siege situation: step up the drama to near crisis peak, relax it and then create another drama. Continue the cycle until the besieged are exhausted, then break down the door. Gordon Brown is attempting to stress his political opponents by using exactly the same mind game. He hopes by the time an election is really called, their activists will be in no shape to fight one. Brown has calculated that most of the British public are apathetic enough to be unaffected by this process.

Last night I listened to The Westminster Hour, read Nick Robinson's blog on the BBC site and heard Brown being interviewed this morning on the Today Programme. The game is still being played. To be frank, it has to be with collusion of the media because nobody raise the obvious point: neither Labour nor the Tories can afford to go to the country at this time. As of July 2007, Labour was in debt to the sum of £27million and the Conservatives owed £18million. The Liberal Democrats were looking pretty good in comparison, owing only £300,000. The recent scandals about payments for peerages and off-book "loans" means that New Labour and the Conservatives cannot employ the usual fund-raising routes to the wealthy elites, at least in the near future.

What would I do in Brown's position? I would go for an early election. The opposition are weak and it would head off the risk of disunity in the Labour movement - especially a factor in the unions at this time. Can New Labour afford to hold an election right now?

Not a chance.

Illustration credit: Gordon Brown after Newton by William Blake. Dave Brown