Back to British Rail?

Just over 17 years after the Railways Act (1993) came into force on April 1st, 1994, a movement is gathering steam demanding that the chaotic privatisation of the UK’s rail network be reversed.

Lords of the Nile

Map of the Nile river system – Wikimedia Commons

A recent documentary on Al Jazeera English covered an interesting issue, that of usage rights to the waters of the Nile river system.
Nile water usage rights are complex, due to the river system encompassing many different countries, and also many different climatic zones, from equatorial rainforests through to hyper-arid hot desert. Rights to water usage are currently based on two agreements, the 1929 agreement (“Nile Water Agreement”) led by the British and Egyptian governments, and the 1959 agreement (“Agreement for the Full Utilization of the Nile”) between Egypt and Sudan. Both of these agreements are contentious amongst the “Upper Nile” states (i.e. those to the south of Sudan, plus Ethiopia) as neither agreement makes any provision for any nation except Egypt and Sudan in access to water. The 1929 agreement goes even further, in that it grants Egypt ultimate authority over Nile water usage, allowing Egypt to monitor any water extraction activities by other Nilotic states, and to veto any upstream dam projects (with the exception of a specific allocation to Sudan, drawn outside of the minimum flow period)

In recent years the upstream states, led by Ethiopia (by far the biggest and most powerful of the upstream states, and with aspirations to be the wider regional powerbroker) has challenged the legal foundation of the agreements, claiming that they are a colonial relic, and thus invalid. It is argued that the time of both agreements, many of the upstream states were either subject to direct colonial occupation, or had puppet states or suzerains forced upon them. These administrations, the upstream states argue, failed to defend their interests, against those of the colonial regimes (primarily British) whose own interests dictated that most water go to Egypt to drive her massive cotton and sugar industries, which kept  sure and steady supply of raw materials to European industrial interests. To press their claims, these states formed the Nile Basin Initiative, and invited Sudan and Egypt to take part, to negotiate a new treaty that allocates water to the upstream states, and also aims to establish a framework to harness more of the basins water supplies. Egypt has responded by refusing to sign any new agreements, and defending the existing acts, insisting that negotiation may only proceed on the basis of dealing with “green water” (rainfall entering the Nile system) completely separately to Egypt’s existing allocation, which would not be touched.

Lies, Damned Lies, and the Daily Mail

The British newspaper the Daily Mail has a long and, well… notable… history of adopting hard-right positions, from support for the British fascist movement in the 1930s, right through to the present day, where the paper is famous (or infamous, whichever!) for its sensationalist headlines on immigration, welfare “spongers”, and crimes by ethnic minorities (Romanies being one of the more frequent targets). Normally yours truly tends to overlook the most hysterical headlines, but whilst browsing the major papers today I could not but notice this article, which was the front page in today’s (27/05/2011) print edition, though not the headline.

UK doles out more aid than any other country:

Despite the savage cutbacks at home,

we top world league in foreign aid

A typical sensationalist Daily Mail headline. How outrageous, that whilst the “squeezed middle” of the United Kingdom have to put off replacing the Range Rover they have been stuck with for over two years now (there is not a “squeezed bottom” in the British media, something which many socialists, feminists and readers of The Sun whose interest holds long enough to get to page 3 would disagree with) we should be funding such frivolous projects as disaster relief, health, education and sanitation in the developing world, and that we are (apparently!) the single biggest donor to such trivialities, despite the problems we have.

Well, no. The headline, as so often with the Mail, is misleading. As the article mentions further down, the reality is rather different. In absolute terms, the UK is the third largest donor, after the USA and the EU’s central aid agency. This the article itself tacitly admits this, insisting that the UK is the world’s largest contributor as a percentage of GDP.

Now,  that is, simply put, utterly wrong.  Sweden is the largest humanitarian aid donor as percentage of GDP, with a 2010 figure of 0.98%, followed by Norway at 0.88%, and Denmark  and the Netherlands both contributing 0.79%. Ireland comes in slightly above Britain, with 0.59% (source: http://www.cgdev.org/). These figures are visualised below. For those interested, the United States, although the largest contributor in absolute terms, is one of the minor players in terms of percentage of GDP, ranking 19th, with a contribution of 0.18%, the same as Italy, and one  rank below Greece (0.21%).

Top five humanitarian aid donors as % of GDP

In conclusion, whilst the ranking of Ireland (and Greece) may need to be revised in the coming year, in light of the “austerity” measures imposed by the joint EU / IMF bailout, it does nothing to change the fundamental point that the Daily Mail has misreported and distorted the facts to support a strongly politicised editorial line.

Does this surprise me? It itself, no. As already mentioned, that the paper has a decidedly right-wing stance is not – if you’ll forgive the pun – news. What does surprise me is that abuse and distortion of hard factual data to fit that line would be so blatant and transparent.  Once again, it brings into question as to whether or not the British mainstream media is actually fit for the purpose that it purports to fill – that of providing the general public with factual and reliable information on local and global events, from which they may make informed electoral and personal choices. Until such time as events like this cease to be such everyday occurrences that we no longer  notice – let alone care -  then I would suggest that it is not.

Lion City: The Next Generation

A new era for the Merlion?

Exams here have forced my attention away from events in the wider world. The 2011 General Election marks many firsts for Singapore. The political landscape of the city has changed, but what it has changed to has yet to be revealed.

Opposition Contests

The first surprise came even before the election itself, when the opposition parties announced they would be standing in all but five seats (82 out of 87 elected seats). Even before the first ballot was cast, Singaporean history had been made. That on its own would have raised eyebrows, where it not for the fact that this was accompanied by an unprecedented break in opposition policy of heavyweight opposition figures  moving out of safe havens to contest for bigger electoral prizes. In this case, the spiritual heir of none other than JBJ, Low Thia Khiang (now head of the Workers Party), leaving the safety of Hougang SMC to contest Aljunied GRC, entrusting defence of the Hougang homeland to Yaw Shin Leong.

So, did this surge of opposition activity set the ballot boxes alight and jolt the system like a bolt of… dare I say, lightning?

Well, sort of…

Counting the Candidates

PAP won 60.14% overall, its lowest showing in the history of post-independence Singapore, and down 6.46%. However this needs to be balanced against the much higher number of seats contested, which denied the PAP the large number of walkovers it has previous enjoyed. Set in context, it would indicate that support for the PAP appears tougher when exposed to competition. Overall the PAP more or less held it’s ground, loosing just 1 seat, from 82 to 81

The WP share of the overall vote actually slipped by 3.51% to 12.83%, yet the strategic push into Aljunied GRC paid off, gaining 5 elected seats. This brings the WP from 1 elected and 1 NCMP seat to 6 elected and a further 2 NCMPs.

The NSP vote stood at 12.04% overall, but won no seats, whilst the SDP vote increased marginally by 0.76% to 4.83%, despite Chee Soon Juan being barred from running for being a very naughty boy.

The SPP also had a rough ride, loosing their sole SMP seat of Potong Pasir to the PAP, though Lina Loh Woon Lee’s narrow defeat there means she gets the somewhat lame consolation prize of an NCMP.

The fallout

In all honesty, the PAP should be patting themselves on the back. In the face of an unprecedented opposition push, PAP support was actually very solid. There aren’t many countries in the world where you can have pretty much every seat contested and still take ~90% of the elected seats, without literally putting guns to heads and your own hands in the ballot box. FPTP, MediaCorp, the judiciary, electoral stockings full of goodies, and gerrymandering all came through, so pats on the back all round, chaps!

Usual tricks aside, the results genuinely do show that many voters  put their tick beside the PAP,  and clearly did not feel the opposition understood their concerns and expectations (whether they do or not is irrelevant, the electorate were clearly not convinced). Nonetheless, the WPs tactical decisions certainly paid off for them, and no doubt the NSP will be looking very closely at WP tactics with interest, plus more than a hint of bitterness.

So, with this in mind, what the PAP did next is all the stranger…

PAP does something strange

Shortly after the dust has settled from the results, it was announced that both MM Lee Kuan Yew and SM Goh Chok Tong (former Prime Ministers from 1959-1990 and 1990-2004 respectively) will resign from the cabinet.

WE HAVE studied the new political situation and thought how it can affect the future. We have made our contributions to the development of Singapore. The time has come for a younger generation to carry Singapore forward in a more difficult and complex situation. The Prime Minister and his team of younger leaders should have a fresh clean slate. A younger generation, besides having a non-corrupt and meritocratic government and a high standard of living, wants to be more engaged in the decisions which affect them. After a watershed general election, we have decided to leave the cabinet and have a completely younger team of ministers to connect to and engage with this young generation in shaping the future of our Singapore. But the younger team must always have in mind the interests of the older generation. This generation who has contributed to Singapore must be well-looked after.

- Press statement issued by Goh Chok Tong on behalf of himself and Lee Kuan Yew. (source)

This will be the first time since Singapore gained independence that Lee will not be in the cabinet. Ultimately, this is an event of far greater significance than the oppositions largely blunted attempt to flex its muscles, and is a question that raises many questions as to where the PAP, and Singapore, go from here.

What will become of Lee’s legacies – “Asian Values” (Neo-Confucianism), multiculturalism, the enduring nature of the Internal Security Act, and of government investment vehicles like Temasek? Are we seeing the end of Lee and Goh’s time in MM/SM roles, or are we seeing the end of these positions as a whole? Will Lee Hsien Loong have a SM portfolio to retire to?

It should be noted that whilst both MM and SM are resigning from the government, they are retaining their role as MPs for Tanjong Pagar and Marine Parade respectively. Thus, it would be foolish to expect any immediate or short-term changes. Nonetheless, it is clear that some attempt to break with the past is underway, either amicable or otherwise, and sooner or later the PAP is going to feel confident enough to pursue whatever it is that provoked this move.

It is tempting to see the gradual move of the PAP away from social democratic ideas toward a more neo-liberal ideology (“Hong Kong lite”) as the underlying force, concluding that matters have finally come to a head, perhaps pushed by the economic crises. However, the prime energy behind this shift was none other than Lee himself.

The problematic comments made by both figures during the run up to elections about Muslims, opposition figures and the “repentance” Aljunied voters would need to make if voting for the WP are unlikely to be the cause, as Chan Soo Sen noted. Lee has said unfortunate things before and not been touched by PAP.

It is possible that this is genuinely a case of a feeling amongst both Lee and Goh (assumably in consultation with the wider party elite) that the party needs new direction, though I strongly suspect otherwise.

Either way, Singapore is facing the most profound political changes since independence, and quite possibly the most profound socio-economic changes to accompany them.

Notes

For readers outside of Singapore, a few notes on the Singaporean political system are relevent here. The essential structure of government is that of a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president, with executive power vested in the Prime Minister (though the President has to authorise use of strategic reserve funds by the government) utilising a FPTP electoral system.

Since the PAP dominates electoral politics, at one point it was faced with the prospect of there being just a single opposition MP. Since any MPs motion requires a seconding, the system risked loosing all credibility on its claim to be democratic and accountable. Thus rather than risk proportional representation (what the “risk” was, and who it was too, I shall leave to you, dear reader, to decide) the government came up with the the Non-Constituency MP, a handful (originally a maximum of 6, now 9, though the number is usually significantly less, being 3 in the 2011 elections) of opposition partycandidates who narrowly lost the electoral race in one or more seats. The opposition party in question nominates a candidate to take the seat, usually the one who ran in the most closely contested seat of that party.

Another oddity is that former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong remained in cabinet after retiring from the position of PM. Lee originally became “Senior Minister” (SM) in 1990. With Goh’s retirement in 2004, Lee was then elevated to “Mentor Minister” (MM), whilst Goh became the new SM. There is no analogue for these cabinet positions in other Westminster based systems.

All change please. This government terminates here.

Well, it has been a long time since I paid attention to this blog, but what changes we have seen! Maybe Obama did have the magic touch after all, or perhaps he was as suprised as we all were, when, within the space of a few months, the entire MENA has had its political landscape given the full Groundforce make-over.

 Another interesting change that emerged from this has also been the dramatically heightened profile – and positive perception of – Al Jazeera in the United States, paticularly Al Jazeera English. AJ was one of the few networks able to maintain 24/7 coverage of Tahrir Square, often with journalists embedded amongst the crowd as well as in buildings with a vantage point of the square, even during supposed government bans on foreign media. In addition, AJ’s mastery of the “New Media” such as blogs, social networks, video sharing and real-time microblogs like Twitter allowed them to both continue getting footage and information out whilst mainstream broadcasting equipment was confiscated or could not be used, as well as collate and disseminate information and footage sent in by the protestors themselves.

So, to quote a famous South African American:

“Let freedom reign!” ;-)

Obama acts diplomatically, Conservatives upset

At the recent G20 meeting of heads of state right here in London, not a great deal was achieved beyond a vague consensus that trying to lessen the pain of the Credit Crunch(tm) was “A Good Thing”. This is no surprise, of course. The G20 brings together diverse nations with wildly differing agendas. Indeed, the only unifying factor seemed to be a desire by 19 of the 20 to blame the other one (guess who) for starting the whole thing.

However, despite the importance of having 20 of the worlds great and good together, regardless of how little was achieved, as far as the American conservative media, the whole event was summed up by 13 seconds of  video footage from a Spanish TV network of President Obama bowing before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

“The president shows fealty to a Muslim King!” shouted the right wing Washington Times (not to be confused with the mainstream Washington Post). From there it was only a matter of time until Fox picked up the story, though with somewhat less negative judgement.

“American protocol favors the extension of warm gracious hospitality and I put what he did in that context” they quote Lloyds Hand, protocol handler for LBJ as saying.

The reality is that Obama looks a little unsure of the best thing to do, and more than slightly rushed, as if he were very self conscious. However since perception is as important as action, it is being seen in this light, and so it’s wise to treat it from this perspective.

As such, I think the “Alleged Bow”  should be seen in the light of Obamas commendable efforts to rebuild goodwill, trust and diplomatic bridges between the US and the Middle East. During the Bush Jnr. years, the hawks in the US government managed to alienate even the strongest diplomatic ties. The House of Saud and the US had some of the strongest personal diplomatic ties in the world, dating back to Ibn Saud and FDR. Although Bush made an attempt to patch over the damage his policies caused, the wilful disregard of the US for Saudi diplomatic advice, and ignoring their concerns, led to a rift that has cost the US dearly in terms of goodwill and diplomatic influence with an ally who is a key voice of moderation and reason in collective Arab foreign policy.

Obamas attempts to engage productively with the Middle East will likely come to little in the long term, but in a region where sincerity and goodwill can go a long way, Obama is doing the right thing in showing common courtesy and respect, even if King Abdullah himself may like things a little more westernised. His gesture will likely go down well with the Arab public, and show to diplomats and citizens alike that Obama wants to soothe over the wounds of the past, and try to build relationships of mutual respect in the region, another “A Good Thing”.

President Obama’s optimism for the region may be a tad unrealistic, but he is on the right track.

The Art of the Possible

I know I have neglected this blog for a while. Now that uni is over for the summer I’m hoping to able to provide some political coverage again… A Eurasian view of the Levant… The one region that’s always in the news, as Al Jazeera once so wonderfully put it.

Obama’s actions not words are what will matter to Egypt

From Daily News Egypt – Original article

By Abdel-Rahman Hussein

First Published: January 21, 2009

CAIRO: The inauguration of Barack Obama as the first black American president was a historic moment for the United States, but disparate political forces in Egypt are more interested in what he will do rather than what he says or symbolizes.

In his inauguration speech the new President did sound words of warning to dictatorships and those who rule their subjects with an iron fist.

He said, “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” he added.

And while it appeared that he had left an opening for dictators to renounce their ways, some believe that it is American support for dictatorships that help prop them up.

Gamila Ismail, wife of incarcerated former presidential candidate Ayman Nour, told Daily News Egypt, “I hope these are not just words and are transformed into genuine actions and policies. We don’t ask from American administrations or their representatives anything except to stop supporting dictatorships in the region and to be more interested in their principles rather than their interests.”

“This has to be reflected in their public and private support for them,” she added. “He [Obama] really has to stop backing dictatorships in the region and in Egypt must show he cares more about the people than the rulers.”

An indication of this, continued Ismail, will be whether the annual March visit of President Hosni Mubarak to the US is resumed after a hiatus under the Bush administration.

“That visit will be an indication. Receiving dictators in the White House after years of not receiving them will be interpreted as an indication that all this is just talk,” she said.

Obama’s inauguration speech did address the international community, making a specific reference to the Muslim world. In his speech the new President seemed to stress the point that under his tenure things would be done differently from the administration of his predecessor George W. Bush.

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake,” he said.

“Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please,” he added.

And while that was repudiation of the Bush doctrine, what it will mean in practical terms is still a matter of conjecture.

“Optimism and pessimism about Obama which we speak of here is controversial,” editor-in-chief of the Coptic Christian Watani newspaper Youssef Sidhom told Daily News Egypt, “because it is wrong to judge his actions in the emotional way we often do here. It is wrong to assume that a president’s personality is the basis for the country’s policy.”

“For those who think that American policy will now change comprehensively, they are wrong, because American interests haven’t changed,” he added. “The research institutions that formulate American policy are still the same.”

Shoura Council member and Secretary of Youth at the ruling National Democratic Party Mohammed Heeba said that American policy would not change and that Arabs should focus on themselves more than waiting for hope from any American administration.

“US policy is based on projections that extend for decades, the people may change but the ideas are constant. Administrations might differ in their methods but the goals are one,” he told Daily News Egypt. “Arab countries should think about uniting in their stands so that it should not matter who is in the American administration.”

“However, if we keep dealing with the US separately then we will remain as we are,” he added.

In his speech Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”

He also said, “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

Head of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc Hussein Ibrahim told Daily News Egypt, “I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic about him, but I hope he undertakes serious efforts in regards to reaching out to the Muslim world, at least more than the Bush administration did. He did say he wants to reach out to the Muslim world and I hope he is true to his word.”

Sidhom said that just because Obama had Muslim roots, this did not mean a diametric shift in American policy in the region.

“Let us not talk of the naiveté that because he has ‘Hussein’ in his name then he must be a Muslim. If we have a deluded street that measures everything and everyone by how Islamic they are, we in the media should not propagate that,” he said.

“Obama has a lot of goodwill at the moment so maybe he can make use of it. We must not expect miracles but I don’t think there will be talks with Iran or a solution to the Palestinian issue during his reign. And we are not the priority as his statements made clear; he has an economic crisis that will take up most of his time,” Sidhom added.

It’s been two days, and thankfully the “Obamagasm” is already over in the Middle East – North Africa, or at least in Egypt.  Having read and watched what some people had to say, particularly in Palestine (desperation, perhaps?) I was surprised, and disturbed, by the naivete of much of the commentary surrounding him, reflecting in many ways what some of his more worshipful followers in the States had been saying, though usually with some reference to his being Muslim thrown in. I am glad that at least some in Egypt have put this fairytale aside.

As far as the MENA region is concerned, THERE IS NO “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN” COMING FROM THE UNITED STATES. Obama is not an absolute monarch, his word isn’t law, no matter how nice those words might be.

As Sidhom points out in the article, behind the face of Obama and his appointees are the same institutions and lobby groups upon which any president is almost entirely dependent for his survival. Obama spent over a billion dollars getting into office. That money came mostly from large groups and institutions, most of which also poured money into McCain’s campaign (just to be on the safe side). They want a return on their investment, otherwise, re-election campaign funds may not be so forthcoming.

For Egypt, and the whole region, whoever won it was always going to be “McSame” as far as America was concerned. Egypt is waking up to the new same old reality, which pleases me, for she is less likely to be seduced when sweet talk is seen as just that.

As for Heeba’s comments about Arab unity. It’s a common response to attempt to bring, dare I say it, change (?!) to the region, but it is not something history likes. There are reasons for this. Are Egypt’s interests truly the same as the interests of the UAE, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia? Where they are, then yes, there should be maximum unity, but the differences are also clear, and pretending that these other states will always support Egypt and her interests is to fall into the same trap some have with Obama. Ultimately, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh do not border Gaza, Egypt does. Abu Dhabi and Riyadh do not find their economy disrupted by US cotton subsidies and grain prices. Egypt does.

I Aim For The Stars, But Sometimes I Hit London.

The caption reads: India sends a rocket ship to space; our missiles take the opposite direction.

Habib Haddad for Al Hayat (Pan-Arab newspaper)

Egypt Blogs America

An interesting project from the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research and the American University in Cairo, who have collaborated with US-AID to send eight Egyptian on visits to the US during the election campaign to produce a joint blog covering the event.

According to the Egypt Daily News, the eight were chosen for their dedication to professional blogging, interest in covering the US Elections and availability to travel rather their political views of the grand circus, so it makes for an interesting read.

It’s a good project, and a good example of journalisitc co-operationbetween “east” and “west” we don’t often see, so it’s a welcome change.

http://egyptblogsamerica.blogspot.com/