leyton.org

Certain events over the last few years have left me feeling decidedly uneasy about the likely shape of geopolitics in the next few decades. Much of it centres around the increasingly brazen actions by Russia, which largely seem to be influenced by the availability of natural mineral resource.

I suppose it all started with the Ukrainian presidential elections of 2004, with the so-called Orange Revolution that followed. It was representative of the largely divided leanings between those that wanted to see Ukraine look to the West, or to Russia in the East. A couple of years later and suddenly Russia is threatening Ukraine over gas supplies, which raises awareness in this country about our increasing dependency on gas resource, and an increasing awareness that we’re heavily dependent on Gas, especially as north sea resources start to decline. It’s even happening now, most recently with Gazprom threatening Belarus.

We also have the increasing business pressure on western companies, such as BP selling it’s stake in Siberian gas fields to Gazprom.

It paints a picture of an increasingly powerful country starting to re-assert itself after the fall of communism, to ensure it’s voice is properly heard on the world stage. Perhaps it’s best demonstrated with the bizarre radioactive poisoning of a critic of the regime in a central London restaurant (which is close to one of my clients, and I’ve eaten there a couple of times since the events). Refusing to extradite the chief suspect has led to a diplomatic spat between the UK and Russia. On the one hand Russia is aware that the UK is a key source of business finance, but on the other it seems, from my limited perspective at least, that it’s brazenly doing as it fancies without repercussion. The UK will continue to do profitable business with Russia.

But gas and poisoned spies are just one part of it. The latest battle that seems to be brewing is over the ownership of the North Pole. Over the last few weeks there have been some news items that seem to hit a more comical note than anything else, until you dig into the story: Russia plants flags on the sea-bed under the pole, in some throw-back to colonial flag planting.

It’s all because of the huge mineral resource wealth underneath this part of the world. As oil and gas prices rise, it becomes increasingly economical to extract the otherwise difficult/expensive to extract resources. That’s precisely why Russia, Canada and Denmark are eyeing up the region and defining borders. The problem centres on how borders are drawn on an (ellipsoid) sphere to an arbitrary point, from varying borders. Entirely unsurprisingly each nation seems to favour the mechanism that increases the area under it’s regions. The BBC has a good summary map.

Today comes news that Canada is building military bases in the far north. No prizes for working out the reason why. And there was my thinking the Canadians were the quiet chaps at the front of the class who just got on with it without making a fuss.

Vladimir Putin, as the president of Russia, is currently set to leave office in 2008. There have been rumours he may seek to modify the constitution to allow a third term, although – like any good politician – he denies such considerations.

So it all strikes me that there are some ominous noises coming from Russia, centred around the power it appears to be keen to extract from its immense mineral wealth, and the dependency we in the developed world have on these materials. Throw in rumours and stories of corruption, jailed or expatriate billionaires, and it’s hard to work out the real picture of the real Russians.

I’m not sure how many Russians I have actually met, much less any idea of what they think about these issues. I suspect I could probably count the number on one hand. I’ve certainly only read one Russian classic (Crime and Punishment). I certainly consider myself a naturally curious and interested person, keen to learn about, understand and embrace different countries and cultures. I want to visit Moscow and St Petersburg, two of Europes most historic and important cities, if only I can manage to persuade Frances.

Perhaps I’m being overly paranoid. Perhaps it’s another case of the politicians being unrepresentative of the majority of people (See Bush and the Americans he purports to represent), or perhaps there really is a desire by the Russian people to see their place in the political world re-asserted after the fall of communism. We should certainly all strive to build bridges and understanding between our nations at the personal level, no matter what happens at the political level.

As with many things, Winston Churchill was frequently a man able to speak wisely of events, both of his time and over the subsequent years. His famous quote from 1939 comes to mind:

I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.

Where is Russian national interest now? Should we be worried? I’m certainly starting wonder we may be seeing far more overt, perhaps even hostile, geopolitical manoeuvrings in the years ahead – from Russia and other countries seeking to control resources. All as the true picture of our natural mineral resource emerges.

See also…

• BBC ‘Have your say’ forum: Are you worried about the future of the Arctic?

Mark Mardell’s most recent weblog entry superbly explains the recent tensions between Poland and Germany that so marked the last EU treaty gathering: Poland had won concessions in the voting system, but made overt reference to the suffering they experienced during the second world war.

The post itself is a fascinating read, and does an excellent job of explaining both the strengths and tensions within the countries of the EU, historically – when the EU was much smaller – and currently with it’s 27 members.

In this country, the press is frustratingly negative about the EU and all that it has achieved, and the subject has become loaded and charged in such a way that even friendly discussion about it with friends is almost taboo. So it’s a huge relief to see a journalist of Mark Mardell’s calibre reporting in such a well-balanced, informative and interesting way (The weblog output of the BBC as a whole is maturing in many ways, it’s really a key part of their coverage).

I just hope with his reportage, more people switch on to and work to understand this important subject, rather than switch off and write the EU off as some affront to the nation (or is it just England?).

Radio 4’s Today programme featured a fascinating snippet from the national archives of 1956, when the then French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed Britain and France form a Union. When that was rebuffed, there was further talk about France joining the commonwealth (taking the Queen as its head of state along the way).

Of course the reaction in the streets of France today is one of disbelief. No record seems to exist their regarding the proposal. I’m sure the reaction on this side of the channel is similar – It was with me when I woke up to the news. Of course, politics was a key factor – Suez was just around the corner, so politics was by necessity in an unusual place. But I do have great difficulty in believing that simply because one head of state proposed to another that something like this take place, that it would ever have proceeded, much less be taken seriously by two countries with a, shall we say, somewhat turbulent past. Sure, the English and the Scots could be said to have had (and do) have much to dislike, however there was a strong appetite here for union in 1707 (Darien project) considerably helping on the Scottish side), unlike I’d suggest between Britain and France, shared recent war history not withstanding.

It all makes for a fascinating story. I’m almost surprised they didn’t hold on to it until August’s ’silly season’ when all we have to look forward to is the repeated “exam’s are getting easier”, or why we’re all doomed because Prescott’s in charge (or whomever it Deputy PM this time around).

When the article says that Henri Soutou, professor of contemporary history at Paris’s Sorbonne University, splutters and almost falls of his chair, they’re not kidding. Certainly an amusing and interesting diversion, and one that I’m sure will fascinate contemporary historians for a few days.

The Repeal vote has opened with a truly disappointing shortlist that is sure to appeal to middle-England, but is sadly reactionary and horribly predictable in it’s contents.

Listening yesterday to the (disappointing) panel wafting it’s way through the nominations, and brushing aside the opportunity to push the debate in interesting directions, I soon lost hope it’d be a relevant list that did little, at least for anybody who doesn’t read the Daily Mail. Certainly no Identity cards act, which is perhaps the most significant ever change in the government-citizen relationship. It’s exclusion demonstrates the ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the panel and – I fear – the wider public – to the implications of the act.

Anyway, the shortlist…

• The Dangerous dogs act is certainly a poor piece of legislation, but it doesn’t in itself really matter all that much other than to demonstrate knee-jerk legislation is a bad idea, and more scrutiny is needed across all our legislation. Not that I expect any government will pay heed to that.
• The Human rights act brings sensible laws in to our statue book, but has been turned into some bizarre hate-figure by the Daily Mail for entirely superfluous reasons.
• The Hunting ban was inevitable on the list, and is probably going to win. More time wasting. But then the ban is ignored anyway, and until it is enforced I don’t quite see why the hunting lobby just don’t keep a low profile and get on with their vicious past-time.
• Ditto the European union act. The EU has been a huge benefit and brought economic prosperity to this country (just look at who are biggest trading partners are), but again a certain group of newspapers has turned it into a bete noire. People would be voting against a self-created, and self-perpetuating mythical beast, rather than the act itself and what it represents.
• Act of settlement 1701. An act preventing catholics ascending to the throne. Well, let’s get rid of the throne itself and we’re sorted. No more religious discrimination. That we have a head of state that is appointed by accidents of birth is truly ridiculous.

I’ve therefore voted for the last item, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (with reference to the limitations on demonstrating near Parliament), because it’s the only item on the shortlist I feel strongly about that isn’t a sop to middle england. That the government feels it can selectively ban free-speech, no matter how inconvenient, is ridiculous. But it’s a missed opportunity by Today, when there are other pieces of legislation that will affect all of our lives, and could better use the attention this vote will bring.

Vote here

I’ve been following the slagging match debate between Britain and France regarding the British Rebate, the EU budget and reform of the CAP over the last few weeks with increasing despair.

For once, I actually agree with Blair et al. that the EU budget is taking the piss with its 46% spent on farmers, when they represent a tiny part of the overall economy of Europe. The rebate, introduced to ensure Britain paid a fairer overall contribution, should be up for debate, but only in the wider context of EU budgetary reform. It’s good to see that the UK will push for a deal during it’s chairmanship in the next six months.

All that said though, it still strikes me as madness that the issue can’t be dealt with more sensibly. The EU is now larger than its ever been before, and responsible for a massive budget. Surely there’s an argument for “devolving” responsibility for how EU budget is spent down to countries/regions themselves, rather than from the centre.

As it is, bureaucrats are allocating money based on various criteria set according to political expediency. Right now, with France of course in the driving seat, the 46% of money spent on farmers means that less is spent on building businesses, helping truly deprived areas, and helping grow the economies of the newly joined countries from the former Soviet Union.

I do believe that the EU provides many valuable functions, not least in fostering peace and well being amongst its population, but also improving economic growth through the common market and single currency. In a word, I consider myself very “Pro European”, and would probably vote to support British entry to the Single currency and vote to accept the proposed constitution (although not without some concerns on both). Yet the inability to ensure that the way these colossal amounts of money is spent matches the current needs of the wider populations is doing massive amounts to undermine the fragile support it has in many countries, not least the UK.

So if France were able to say “let us subsidise our farmers”, they should be allowed to with their “share” of the EU money allocated to them, whilst the rest of Europe focus on other areas more in need of funding, not least helping areas suffering job losses as a result of shifting markets, globalisation and global economics find new – innovative and forward looking – ways of making a living.

All this doesn’t mean I think we should ditch subsidies to farmers, or give up on managing the countryside in better, more sustainable ways, but as the Independent reports today, millions is going to otherwise very wealthy farmers, demonstrating the system is badly broken as it is, and is in urgent need of really quite substantial reform.

Allocating money from the EU budget with more concern towards localised priorities – political or otherwise – would go a long way to helping the countries in the EU who see that our future prosperity lies not in subsidising farmers out of all proportion to their contribution, but in building strong businesses across a range of industries. It would also go a long way to helping relieve much of the unfairness such subsidies cause third world farmers struggling to see their produce reaching other markets.