Counter-terrorism changes- progress at last?

The news today that the government is going to have an enquiry into the torture and rendition of terror suspects is to be welcomed. We have yet to see whether the government will be able to follow through on some of these civil liberties issues that I for one have high hopes about, but this has to be a good start at least (even if I would prefer it to be held in public).

The recent complaints that people leaving prison after serving sentences for terrorism offences (not all of which are related to actually carrying out or planning terrorism) are facing probation conditions that are tantamount to house arrest or control orders is more concerning (reported by the Guardian ). The worry is that situations such as this not only damage the principle of civil liberties, but also prove to be counter-productive.

My view is that it is important to treat terrorism consistently. We either treat it as a political problem- and therefore recognise that there is at least a degree of legitimacy to the political claims of the terrorist organisation, fight the terrorists politically by undermining their claims, and perhaps can therefore argue for different treatment of those accused (political prisoners, in a similar way to prisoners of war). Or, we treat terrorists as ordinary criminals, reject their political claims and any legitimacy of their means, and prosecute their illegal acts in the same way as any other criminal.

Whichever option we choose, I am not convinced that treating people so harshly after release from prison is productive. Civil liberties need to be upheld in any case. But if we’re treating terrorism as a political problem then harsh responses risk increasing the motivation of others, and reinforcing political resolve. The terrorist that has been caught and punished is part of a wider community after all (often political prisoners are treated more leniently, as challengers to the power of the state rather than the community within the state).

If we’re treating terrorists as criminals, then anything that treats them differently to ordinary criminals makes a mockery of that policy, reignites any political motivation, and has the potential to damage the state’s claim to be reinforcing law and order in a fair and equal way.

Ultimately a large part of the problem is that the word terrorism often really means ‘anything we don’t like’. Trying to treat terrorists differently because it is a special sort of crime ends up becoming problematical because terrorism is not objectively defined, increasing tensions between different groups of people with different political ideas.

The budget- it's all bad, right?

OK, so the budget is horrible. Cuts in public spending are never going to be nice. But over the last couple of days I keep feeling the urge to say ‘money doesn’t grow on trees’. The idea that we’re spending more on the interest payments of our debt than we are on education is just wrong. Something had to change.

From my point of view, there are bits of the budget that I like, and other parts I’m not so keen on. I like the fact that the libdem commitment to increase the tax-free allowance (which takes 800,000 people out of paying tax at all) has now become reality. I’m also really pleased the earnings link for pensions has been re-instated. For Hull, the backdated port tax being scrapped is fantastic news. But the impact of some of the benefits changes will need to be monitored really carefully, as will the necessity of the full extent of the proposed cuts.

What concerns me is that Cameron and Osborne are ideologically committed to cuts and a much smaller state. I am not so ideologically committed, and I think the libdem influence in the coalition has to tame the ideological commitment.

What I am clear about, however, is that the challenges posed by the budget are here to stay, and it is up to all of us to make the most of the opportunities it presents. It means that many aspects of government are going to need radical rethinking, not just tinkering at the edges.

For example, the defence review needs to look at options for radically reforming our armed forces to create a force that is tailored to today’s world and its threats, not the threats of 20 years ago. This should include looking at whether we still need the army, navy and RAF as separate services.

There are also opportunities to deliver more localism. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may come at this from different angles, but there are potential savings from delivering services in a more joined up way locally, at the same time as tailoring them to local people’s needs and making them more accountable to the people they serve.

I like the fact that Clegg and Cameron have written to public sector workers asking them to put suggest ideas for saving money- the government may be in control of the big decisions, but often the people doing the job are the ones that know where the opportunities for change are, and we should all help out where we can.

Rwanda, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan

I watched the film Hotel Rwanda last night. A film I’ve been intending to watch ever since it came out, but have only just got around to it.

It got me thinking again about one of the big questions in international politics- whether military intervention in another country is the right thing to do. The portrayal of the genocide in Rwanda makes a powerful case for intervention, especially as the film portrays the personal stories of people hoping for the international community coming to help.

In Rwanda, the international community seemed to have gone with the worst of all options- intervening late, with a force that was limited to the peacekeeping role in a situation where there was no peace to keep. This limited the UN troops to only using violence in self defence but not to defend civilians, and limited the amount they could achieve.

However, I struggle to conclude that more intervention with a wider remit to use violence is the way forward. The escalation of increasing levels of violence seems to be too convenient an answer. But that doesn’t mean I have the answers. Possibly getting involved at an early stage is the important factor. It’s too easy to leave it too late so that violence is the only answer left.

If this is the case, then the international community should now be thinking very carefully about Kyrgyzstan. Perhaps some early action can prevent the need for later intervention with military force. There is already talk of military intervention from Russia, but this surely risks making the situation even more complicated and fragile.

I still think that the international community, and the media, are too quick to call for the military option- it’s the lazy option that says we don’t know what else to do, so we’ll have to send in the army. What we need to do is invest more in finding non-violent solutions that work. If we spent as much money on research into peace as we do into war, perhaps non-violent options would become the easier option instead.

The news today about the 300th UK soldier to die in Afghanistan, in the now almost decade-long intervention is depressing news. UK troops have sacrificed a lot, and perhaps it’s now time for us to reassess whether using violence is really the best course of action, or whether we’re only using it because we don’t know what else to do.

Tuesday's budget- do our reactions matter?

It seems pretty clear that Osborne’s budget on Tuesday is not going to be full of good news. The prospects for what is going to happen are pretty depressing, regardless of whether you think it is the correct course of action. The big debate is about whether public spending cuts are good for the economy or not- will they lead to a double dip recession?

Now I’m no economist, so personally I’m not going to try and predict what will happen. And in truth, no economist can actually predict what will happen, however good they are. But perhaps the key question is not whether cutting public spending is the right course of action now, but rather what our reaction to those cuts will be.

The economy is not an external force that acts on its own. It is an accumulation of many small actions by many different people- a trader who sells her shares, a shopper who stops buying luxury products, a banker who decides to loan money, an entrepreneur who decides to set up a business. How the economy reacts to any budget announcement depends to a large extent on how many people think the policy is right. If lots of people think it’s going to be bad for the economy and react accordingly, then it probably will be bad. If people are hopeful for the future, then their actions are more likely to help the economy grow.

So perhaps we all have some responsibility on Tuesday- our reactions to the budget will be important. Whilst spending cuts and tax increases to tackle the country’s debt will be damaging for many people’s personal circumstances, this is also going to be a time to look for opportunities, not for burying our heads in the sand. And perhaps we can all be a part of the solution.