leyton.org

The sound-bites and superlatives have been flowing in the build-up to the swearing in of Barack Obama, but for once they’re entirely appropriate. Today is a historic day, as we wave goodbye to the most unpopular US president in history (See shardcore’s rather appropriate artistic response), and bring in a president-elect who represents so much to so many people, from many backgrounds, cultures, communities and countries.

I didn’t write much on the US election. I feel somewhat uncomfortable voicing opinions with regards other countries democratic processes (at least, where they’re open and fair), but that didn’t mean I didn’t have an opinion, and I was very keen to see Obama win for many reasons.

A lot has been said about the challenges that he faces. From a huge economic crises, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and to all the domestic problems and infrastructure work. Substantial problems even before the economy went over the edge. His slogan of “Change” raises hopes too that he will strike out in radical directions. But after Blair in 1997, where we had similar hopes in the UK, I’m wary that hopes may be dashed in the face of the reality of changing the inertia that comes with any large governance system.

I’m certainly going to be watching the event, and I wish him well. Particularly in his speech. He will be addressing millions of people in front of him in Washington, and quite literally billions of people around the world, and many historic inauguration speeches before him have set expectations high. But hopefully that’s where he will set out his agenda, and the mood. He’s a gifted orator, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

The first African-American US president is truly a moment to savour. History in the making.

Chlorophyll is wonderful stuff. Here in Glasgow, the first flush of spring flowers has gone, but the blossom is in full swing, and the trees are that particularly fresh green, flush with chlorophyll.

It’s a delight to see and experience, and really makes being outside special, especially with the lovely weather we’re having. I’m really hoping I’m up to running the Troon Tortoises 10k this evening. I’ve got a bit of congestion and a cough that comes and goes. Didn’t stop me having a great training session on Monday, mind, but I think thoughts of a sub-45 PB may be best put on hold just now.

On a vaguely related note Charlie Brooker is in fine form.

The US elections are proving absolutely fascinating after Hillary Clinton won the latest primary, and there are some top-class BBC journalists doing an excellent job reporting this interesting process to us Brits.

Jon Snow, former ITN Washington correspondent (My review of his autobiography here), has charged over there the last week or so, and has presented some fascinating conversations with ‘ordinary voters’. I doubt Sarah Smith isn’t too put out by his arrival on her patch, they seem to be complimenting each other well.

James Naughtie, from Radio 4’s Today programme is presenting some absolutely fascinating, and dare I say for a foreigner extremely insightful, analysis pieces during his excellent coverage for Today.

I don’t think I’m as puzzled by what the Americans are doing as some people in the media seem to profess outsiders to be. It seems largely a simple process. What I don’t understand (and maybe somebody can help me out here), is how Americans can be comfortable being registered as a Republican or Democrat? The ’state’ knowing your general political preference seems marginally ominous to me. I still get rather unnerved by the fact that (if I recall correctly) ballot papers in this country have serial numbers, and your ballot paper number is noted next to your name when it’s given to you when you vote. Of course, it’s largely to prevent fraud, and never used in reverse, but it could be with enough time, and that worries me a bit, at least in my more paranoid moments.

But the idea that, say, “Liberal Democrat” (as the party I associate myself with, but, I should state, I am not a member of) would be associated with me in some public record enabling me to vote in Liberal Democrat leadership elections (stop sniggering the back there)…. Now that’d worry me, and that’s comparably how I think it works in the US.

The other thing that’s struck me is, once more based on the reporting I’ve been watching over here, how different the views of the electorate, and media, appear to be regarding John McCain (age 71) and Menzies Campbell (age 66). Campbell experience some utterly shocking and deplorable press coverage regarding his age, and that ultimately led to falling opinion polls and then his resignation. McCain is older still and not (from the coverage I’ve seen) suffering any ill affect. It reflects extremely poorly on Britain’s public attitudes to age, and extremely well of America’s.

The reporting hasn’t led me to many conclusions about who I’d like to see win. Certainly a Democrat, but whether Obama or Clinton I don’t know. I think they’d both do well for America, and for the relationship Britain (and the rest of the world) has with it. Both talk of ‘change’, but I’m simply not familiar with the subtleties of that, perhaps other than the international element. Both would of course be historic, either as the first Black President, or the first female President. Or even vice-president, perhaps? Clinton strikes me as the more accomplished, but Obama the fresh-face that may be what America needs. A difficult decision, certainly, but America is so much the better for having such an excellent choice available to it.

The news currently coming out from Burma is concerning. The military government appears to be resorting to violence against the peaceful protests of the monks.

It’s clearly a developing situation, but I do hope that the Burmese people can find a way to the peaceful democracy they so clearly want.

International pressure will be vital here, and hopefully India and China can be encouraged to use their influence to get the military to hand power back to it’s democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

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?

I followed the build up to the Trident vote with interest. It’s a big issue up here in Scotland, with the main base from which the submarines sail here, and the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election here makes it a key election issue.

Also because, curiously, it’s a subject I’ve not really given enough thought to before.

So I thought I’d air my thoughts here and, perhaps, start to try and work out where I stand, because I think I’m in an awkward ‘fence sitting’ position which just annoys everybody.

The asides…

But first a number of unrelated asides, brought about because I know this is a divisive subject which I’m sure will come up over a beer at some point in the future.

Before delving in to intractable politics, it’s worth saying to folk who might be considering sending me an e-mail, that one of the odder aspects of maintaining a weblog is the strange cathartic process ’serialising’ a particular viewpoint has. By which I mean to try and lay out the logical steps between facts A, B and C, and your conclusion, Z. It’s surprising when – perhaps even here – you don’t quite come to the conclusion you perhaps felt at first, when you’ve exampled the facts and then committed them to, er, the screen. It’s that last step of committing your arguments, for others to look at and examine. Your innermost thoughts exposed for all to critique, often without feedback.

Which leads me on to the very strange effect, when airing your views (warts and all) to people, often that means family and friends whom I’m going to meet up with in the not too distant future. It can result in strange, sometimes awkward, encounters where your opinions are well known to them, but not reciprocally. Almost like they’ve been listening to every word you’ve said and then tapped you on the shoulder, catching you completely by surprised, and not a little embarrassed.

And one last thing, before I finally ‘get to it’. This one’s relevant too! I should add that I’ve sat on this post – much as I probably still sit on the fence – for a couple of weeks now (BBC link above is from the 15th March). I wanted to see if I had come to a conclusion by ’sleeping on it’, but I’m still not sure I have. I’ve added a bit at the end which I think hints at a conclusion, and I’ve surprised myself there a little, but more than ever I’d be interested in any readers views, links, suggestions on this most important of topics. I very much doubt I’m alone in my angst.

But anyway, I digress… On to the main event… Read the rest of this entry »

The threat of a gas shortage has loomed large in the headlines this week. Whilst the threat seems limited to heavy industrial users, the cold-snap, talk of a cold winter (and heavy snow in the next few days) has set everybody thinking about our increasing energy usage.

The Guardian’s leader argues for long-term thinking on our energy policy, and it’s a call I agree with. We’re all too happy to turn up the heating rather than put a thicker jumper on, and run fuel inefficient cars, but not to actually discuss where we should be generating our energy. Our nuclear energy installations are nearing the end of their active life adds, if you’ll excuse the following analogy, further fuel to the fire.

I’m a bit on the fence these days. A few years ago, the idea of a new generation of nuclear reactors was abhorrent. However, the last few years has led me to reconsider this. Whilst it’s clear there are inherent risks and problems associated with highly-radioactive fuel and reactors, the almost complete lack of carbon emissions makes it a compelling solution to our energy needs, without further clogging up the planet’s atmosphere. We’ve improved post-processing significantly, and if further consideration, research and debate on how we deal with spent fuel is undertaken, we can improve this most concerning aspect of it. Security also remains a serious concern, especially given the events of the last few years.

Earlier this year, I watched Marcel Theroux’s ‘The end of the world as we know it’ and was struck (and a little take aback) by his well considered argument that, in the short-term at least, Nuclear power provides the least-worst option for our energy needs, especially if we accept the premise that global warming is active and causing problems now.

The debate is therefore much needed, and I hope that, as Channel 4 news’ Jon Snow suggested the other day, we might see some of the ‘green’ organisations actually coming down in favour of Nuclear power for the debate that would surely provoke. As for my opinion, I’m reluctantly thinking that nuclear may be the way we have to go, at least until Nuclear fusion becomes a reality, but that’s 30+ years away.

When we visited New England one autumn, to attend a friends wedding, and also to see the fall colours, we also encountered the occasional leaf blower. Noisy things they were too. So no surprise to read that they’re something of a neighbourhood nuisance.

I’m a bit puzzled by the American fascination with such things: I rarely see them in the UK. But as far as private leaf blowers go, haven’t they ever heard of a standard garden rake? That said, I think my childhood would have been very different if we’d had a leaf blower. I think I might actually have enjoyed some of the chores…

The massive hurricane was one thing – there’s little we can do about natural occurrences of this scale – but the response or lack of it that we’re witnessing on our television screens is shocking. The deep dividing line between the wealthy and the poor of America that we rarely see when we watch American television or films has been brought starkly to light. The inability to provide basic necessitates to survivors, and the break-down of law and order, remind us all how precarious our existence really is, even in the richest country in the world.

Roger Darlington puts it more succinctly than I can, but the news coverage on Channel 4 last night is pointing to drastic cut-backs in maintenance of the Levies that kept the sea back from New Orleans over the last few years, and the administrations focus on the so-called “war on terror” rather than closer to hope provisions, makes me think we are only seeing the beginning of a huge humanitarian and political crisis. I really won’t be surprised if, in the analysis of the preparation for, and response to this storm, many Americans will look to hold a number of senior politicians to account.

My thoughts are with those people caught up in all of this, and I hope that the relief and evacuation effort gets properly underway very soon.

Last night I was fortunate to be able to meet Jung Chang at Waterstones, on Sauchiehall Street here in Glasgow (I’ve previously mentioned it here). It was a fascinating evening, and all the better for the presence of a lecturer from Glasgow University who ensured a fascinating series of questions started proceedings.

I’m already a few hundred pages through the book, so it was delightful to hear her talk about some of the aspects I’d already read about. The opportunity to ask questions was taken by the audience, and a few interesting discussions ensued. The inevitable “Were there any redeeming features of Mao”, which has featured in almost every media discussion with her, was met with the short answer that “he loved books, and liked to read a lot”, but followed by the detail that he, regrettably, kept that very privilege from most Chinese unless the book served his purposes.

An interesting situation occurred when a chap stood up and asked a question. I say asked, he proceeded to make various points regarding Mao from what was clearly a prepared list. When Jung Chang started to answer, he rather abruptly asked to finish, before proceeding with his question. It was clear that this chap hadn’t actually read much of the book, but had already made up his mind that he didn’t agree with its central premise. The questions were regarding the Korean War, and various issues regarding nuclear arms, followed by references to military people she had excluded (based on a scan of the index he seemed to imply). At a guess, I’d suspect the chap was a Maoist, because despite Jung Changs excellent response which dealt with every one of his points, illustrating various facts that she had unearthed, he left as soon as another question was taken. Curious incident indeed.

I was unable to ask a question which has been fascinating me. Much of Jung Chang’s work has relied on “unprecedented” access to documents, sources and places. Access that would simply not have been possible until recently. However, with “Wild Swans”, her first book widely banned in China, it’s almost inevitable that Mao: The Unknown Story won’t meet with the same treatment (A chinese language version, which is likely to be the recipient of the ban, is currently being translated by herself). My question would have been, why has she been given this access? Sources she spoke to had been visited by authorities, and they chose to speak out. Regrettably I didn’t get the opportunity to ask.

A fluid and interesting speaker, our allotted hour of time soon passed, and it was over to book signings. I was luck to get towards the front of the queue, and when I reached her I took my chance to ask the question. She responded with an intriguing “It’s a mystery to me”, but I think I’d hit a soft spot and she looked ready to answer in more detail, but I was conscious of the 90 odd people in the queue behind me, all eager to have their short moment with this remarkable woman. I feel like it was an opportunity missed. I’d be interested to know if anybody else has come across an answer to my question, as I think that would say a lot about the current situation in China.

Of course, it’s unfair to attribute the entire book to Jung Chang. Much of the research she has had access to comes from Soviet archives that her husband, Jon Halliday, was able to read through as he speaks the language fluently. A book they thought would take two years took twelve years in total to write, and it’s a remarkable piece of research. Jung Chang mentioned she hoped it would help the Chinese, who continue to receive the official line which perpetuates the myth of Mao, to at last be aware of the monstrous route to power this man took.

It’s a remarkable book, that is delightfully well written. 800+ pages might seem intimidating, but I’d challenge anybody who’s remotely interested in political figures to pick this book up and read just a few pages and not be drawn in, astonished and horrified by the story. It’s easily one of the most remarkable books I’ve read in a long time, and I’m not even half way through!

Update More interesting comments at Roger Darlington’s website, following a talk Jung Chang gave in London earlier this week.