Ya Bass

Christopher Hitchens was involved in a couple of debates at the 2005 Hay Festival.

First up was the debate on religion, blasphemy and related topics with Stephen Fry and which can be listened to by clicking here. Hat tip to Normblog.

The following night was a debate involving John Micklethwait, Christopher Hitchens, Roy Hattersley, Mark Leonard and chaired by Jon Snow on History will be kinder to Bush and Blair than to Chirac and Schroeder. This can be listened to by clicking here. Highlight for me is Hitchens on Galloway

he’s a pimp for facist dictatorships overseas, and an exploiter of religious sectarianism at home, and a guttersnipe and a liar. And I can add I hope you go to labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk. They’ve issued a challenge to me and him to meet in a public debate. He can pick the venue, he can pick the chairman, it better be neutral, and then we’ll see won’t we?

I want ringside seats for that!

Black Triangle has a good commentary on the debate.

Just over a decade ago during the run up to the Scottish Cup Final of 1994 the then MP for Glasgow Hillhead, George Galloway was all over the newspapers, the TV and radio in Scotland expressing his love for Dundee United football club and describing how he was a die-hard-life-long fan and numerous other platitudes. But it appears he has forsaken his team now and switched alliegance to Celtic.

A minor irrelevance perhaps but it reminded of the words of Uruguayan poet, Eduardo Galeano, "En su vida, un hombre puede cambiar de mujer, sus opiniones politicas o su religion pero no su equipo de futbol." In his life, a man can change wife, his political opinions or his religion but not his football team.

Football fans will understand that statement is no exaggeration. Being a lickspittle black shirted apologist for fascism is one thing - changing your football team is on a whole other level!

Either that or he lied about being a die hard fan of Dundee United. Which begs the question - what else has he lied about?

Unmitigated Galloway.

Definitely worth a read, even if it is in the Weekly Standard. Hitchens not only nails Galloway but he also makes an excellent political case for his position (and that of the pro-liberation left) on the Iraq war.

While briefly on the subject of the Weekly Standard one of the amusing parts of Galloways act in the Senate was at his press conference afterwards when he refused to answer questions from a reporter with that newspaper. On this occasion I laughed along with Galloway rather than at him, but it is a bit strange that he refuses to answer questions from that publication yet quite happily gave an in depth interview to Germany's main Neo-Nazi publication National Zeitung a couple of years ago.

Christopher Hitchens on George Galloway in yesterdays Independent. The link requires a fee to read the article so i've copy and pasted it in full.

THE GEORGE GALLOWAY CASE: JUST WHAT WE NEED - A BAATHIST FUSED WITH A SECTARIAN MUSLIM

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

It's always impressive to see someone perform who is unembarrassable. George
Galloway's testimony was disgraceful, but " in a way that some disgraceful and shameless performers are " it was impressive. Like Oliver North, who put on his uniform and his medals and came to the Hill, he faced down the inquiry through sheer bluff and presence.

Galloway has the nerve to say that he's never publicly defended the Saddam Hussein regime " and the senators were either too sluggish or too polite to challenge him on it. But we've got the quotes, and he's been there on numerous occasions, shaking the hands of Tariq Aziz and Saddam.

His claims about the Charity Commission are false; it has issued a statement which only a millionth of the people who saw him will read. The question he was asked was: your name keeps appearing on this man, Fawaz Zureikat's, documents; do you know where he made his money? His answer was to deny buying or selling oil " but that wasn't what he was asked.

He has the advantage the media give to a lot of bare-faced charlatans with personality. They get away with it. That's how televangelists and mutual funds operators work.

I enjoyed our exchanges more than he did. I asked him if he had a copy of the letter or e-mail he claims to have sent to the committee, asking to appear before them. He hosed me with vulgar abuse, saying I was a terminal alcoholic, a 'Trotskyist popinjay'.

His claim to have sent a letter was obviously false but it bought him a little time. He can't show us the letter " so he must have been lying.

His appearance demonstrated the superiority of parliamentary training and the soapbox speaking style " rather than that of the overly polite, dull and deferential senate hearings. Americans enjoyed it because it broke the tedium.

But he looks so much like what he is: a thug and a demagogue, the type of working-class-wideboy-and-proud-of-it who is too used to the expenses account, the cars and the hotels " all cigars and back-slapping. He is a very cheap character and a short-arse like a lot of them are, puffed up like a turkey. He has managed to fuse being a Baathist with being a Muslim sectarian and a carpet bagger in the East End " as well as a front for a creepy sub-Leninist sect, the Socialist Workers' Party. He's got the venomous riff-raff at one end and your one-God fanatics on the other. Wonderful. Just what we need.

This is pretty sordid. The media are there to ask the difficult questions, not to act as an echo chamber for frauds like Galloway.

Laughland re-appears in the Guardian with an article on the situation in Uzbeckistan. For a bit of background: John Laughland is a trustee of British Helsinki Human Rights Group - who have a rather different interpretation to the words "human rights" than most other groups. Despite the Helsinki in their name, it's not an official Helsinki Committee - which is a deliberate fudge on their part so they can be taken "seriously" - but this has has prompted the International Helsinki Federation to publicly disclaim any connection with the BHHRG. They supported Milosevic, argue that the government and electoral process in Belarus meets all democratic standards, campaign against immigration to the UK and Laughland has written articles over the last few years which are very supportive of the likes of Mugabe, Milosevic and Le Pen. More recently he's been writing in the Guardian comment page whenever democratic change has been an issue in Georgia, Ukraine and now Uzbeckistan. To sum up his views: Repressive regime good and getting a bad press from a biased media - the popular opposition is not popular opposition at all just fronts for American stooges seeking to help the US imperial project.

With the current situation in Uzbeckistan (which i've written on briefly here) he's had to amend the argument slightly as Karimov has had the support of the US over the last couple of years. But that's not a problem for Laughland, that support is only superficial and a construct so those with anti-war and anti-US sentiments can get behind the opposition to Karimovs authoritarian rule and support "regime change".

The twist this time is that President Karimov of Uzbekistan is presented as a pro-US tyrant rather than a Soviet-era throwback - so anti-war left and liberal commentators have been co-opted into baying for his blood.

This coming only a week after the tin foil hat nonsense by Al Kennedy and most importantly the departure of their best columnist David Aaronovitch there seems to be a worrying slip of standards at the Guardian.

One of the best descriptions of Galloway i've ever read, courtesy of Eric in the comments box on Harry's Place.

He's like a minature version of a Middle East state. Does bog all for Muslims, but keeps spouting the bollocks about America to keep the wheels on the hate wagon.

I thought George Galloway came out of the Senate Hearing on the oil for food corruption relatively unharmed. He made his points and had time for plenty of soundbites too - mostly unrelated to what he was being asked - but that is often all that matters in today's tabloidised media age.

However he claimed under oath that the Charity Commission report on the Mariam appeal looked at "every penny in and every penny out" thus clearing him and the appeal.

Really? The Charity Commission report on the other hand stated:

"The Commission has been unable to obtain all the books and records of the Appeal. Mr Galloway, the first Chairman of the Appeal, has stated that this documentation was sent to Amman and Baghdad in 2001 when Fawaz Zuriekat became Chairman of the Appeal. Mr Galloway has informed the Commission that this documentation is no longer under the control of the original trustees of the Appeal and cannot be located by them. Mr Galloway confirmed that the Appeal did not produce annual profit and loss accounts or balance sheets."

Charity Commission Report.

The situation in Uzbekistan seems to be going from bad to worse at the moment. President Karimov is in a stronger position than the leaders in Georgia, Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan when they faced similiar popular uprisings over the last couple of years. In such a closely controlled totalitarian regime with a huge repressive security apparatus ready and willing to do his dirty work then it's going to very difficult for peaceful protests or an unarmed popular uprising to succeed.

It seems to be quite a complex situation with different regions having different agendas and grievances with the government. Tashkent does pretty well apparently but the people in Samarkand and Bukhara are largely ethnic Tajik and face discrimination while the Ferghana Valley has a long history of being outwith government control. I think that's also the area where the Islamists are strongest, but what is happening just now seems more a matter of people protesting at the lack of freedom as well as the corruption and persecution in government. There is of c a danger that once things start gathering momentum beyond this initial focus that it will result in Jihadist forces being unleashed with a downward spiral of violence occuring with the end result being the replacement of a repressive dictatorship by a repressive theocracy..

So now is the time for the West to act. The European Union played an important role in forcing Yanukovych to let go of power in the Ukraine in the face of popular pressure, and the Kyrgyz president quit once he saw he couldn't get away with what he was doing anymore. The European Union however has no influence in Uzbekistan, and as the Russians are very supportive of Karimov he has intention of quitting, so i guess then it's down to the United States and that means Uzbekistan is a real test of Bush's commitment to the spread of democracy. As he outlined in his inaugural address in January 2004:

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Bush needs follow through on these words and the United States ought to do all it can to strengthen the forces of democratic opposition in Uzbekistan while pressuring Karimov to step down or at least open up much more to civil society. The old "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" shouldn't protect him any more - not only is the promotion of freedom the right thing to do it also make sense in a strategic sense because such short sighted policies nearly always end up creating more problems in the long term. Karimov may well be able to hold onto power this time but he will eventually fall in the medium to long term and it's in US interests in the region as well as those of the Uzbek people that the United States' does not disqualify itself from participating in the process of democratisation which Uzbekistan desperately needs.

So Labour wins a historic third term with a working majority. A Majority of 66 is decent - it's not as great as the previous two elections but given how hostile the press has been to Blair in particular and Labour in general over the last few years, the divisiveness of the Iraq war and the timing of the leaking of the legal documents in the run up to the election (the question of who leaked remains unanswered for now) it's surprising in some ways that the vote held up so well.

Oliver Kamm makes a good point on the subject of the Iraq factor and the election.

Overall, I am afraid there is no escaping the conclusion that Tony Blair irrevocably damaged his political standing by committing troops to the Iraq war; had the war not taken place, we can reasonably assume that he would have enjoyed a substantial - and given its unprecedented character in Labour politics - triumphant third election victory. Many, probably almost all, Labour supporters would regard this as an indictment of the PM. I regard it as a measure of the man's political stature. Knowing that the character of the threats we face has changed since 9/11 - indeed since long before that - Blair chose to ally with a nominally conservative US administration in a war that needed to be fought, when the policy of containment of Saddam Hussein had manifestly failed, and the toleration of autocratic states in the region was an affront to our values and a gathering storm over our security.

The low point of the election night was undoubtedly seeing the Dundee Baathist, George Galloway, elected to represent Bethnal Green and Bow. In the 1930s that constituency showed a great deal of support for the British Union of Fascists under Oswald Mosley, but they never went so far as to actually elect a fascist to parliament. Sadly, that is no longer the case. David Aaronovitch in yesterday's Observer summed it up rather well.

I look on with despair at a public culture that vilifies him for his actions following 11 September, but that simultaneously rewards Saddam's principal apologist in Britain. It won't be easy to explain that in Basra or Kurdistan.

But I guess that's democracy - having to put up with people you don't like being elected, even those who seek to deprive others of the rights we take for granted.

By Eric le Boucher in Le Monde, May 2 2005.

Few French people are following the election campaign in Britain - probably because the outcome seems to have been decided already... But if the French aren't watching events on the other side of the channel, it's also because Mr Blair upsets them. On the right, his success puts into focus the failures of the government of Jacques Chirac. On the left, [Britain's] economic growth, falling unemployment and rise in the minimum wage are deliberately hidden to obscure the fact that his 'third way' actually works.

One has to admit that, when it comes to globalisation, the Blairite strategy of 'adaptation' - fiercely fought in France in favour of the strategy of 'resistance' - is the better one.

The article is accompanied by a poll on Le Monde's website asking A votre avis, la France devrait-elle ou non s'inspirer de la politique économique et sociale menée en Grande-Bretagne par Tony Blair? Basically: Should France follow the economic policy and social policy taken in Great Britain by Tony Blair?

(The poll was running at 47.1% yes, 48.5$ no and the rest undecided when I checked 5 minutes prior to posting this entry)

Alan Johnson, from Labour Friends of Iraq has a good guest piece over at Harry's Place on Iraq and the Missing Social Democratic Narrative.

It would have been better if Labour had been bolder and had told a more compelling political narrative about Iraq much earlier (as well as admitting mistakes earlier and explaining them). The failure to do so has been one reason for the current state of the ‘debate’ and has blocked the coming home of many Labour supporters and activists. Blunt fact: home has to feel like home before you come back to it. Supporters will come home when they are convinced that what is happening now in Iraq can be understood in the terms of their own social democratic values and hopes.

Labour could be bold in articulating a social democratic vision in which events in Iraq can be understood: the removal of Saddam, the end of the Ba'ath, the return of the refugees, the joy of the Kurds, the religious freedoms now enjoyed by the Shia, the creation of a UN-backed political process, the 8 million voters in the January elections, a fantastic display of ‘purple power’, a new democratic assembly, one in three members of which are women, the rebirth of trade unionism and the labour movement, the rise of new democratic political parties, a relatively free press, the reflooding of the Marshlands, the return of the Marsh Arabs, the opening up of the mass graves, the beginning of a truth and justice process. The yearning for freedom, democratiya and social justice is spreading through the region and it is the only antidote to fundamentalism. It is the only real road to an end to terrorism.

Worth a read.

This makes me uncomfortable: Book-burning event ignites controversy at literary festival.

Perhaps it is "purely a pragmatic decision" to burn some excess stock rather than stick it in a landfill site. Admittedly I always find it a bit sad to see a skipfull of books outside a library or 2nd hand bookstore waiting for removal, but I understand dispossing of books must be unavoidable. But to burn them? The imagery and symbolism is just so wrong.

"Where they burn books, they will end in burning human beings" - Heinrich Heine

David Aaronovitch in the Observer today:

Elections are blunt affairs. For example, if I want to vote for Blair, I actually have to vote for someone - Glenda Jackson in my case - who has called for him to resign. To vote for freedom for Iraq, I have to vote for someone who seems to me to be indifferent to it. And that's what I'll do. Because if you try sending messages at elections, it's quite likely that a message will come back to you. And it's this: don't mess about at elections.

And from the election leader, also in the Observer:

A problem for New Labour is that some of its most creditable achievements do not directly affect the middle classes whom Tony Blair wooed so assiduously to get elected in 1997. Since then, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the bottom 10 per cent of society are 10.8 per cent better off while the top tenth is 4.4 per cent worse off. New Labour, despite left-wing insistence to the contrary, has been quietly redistributing income as might be expected of a progressive government. Eight years of Labour rule have reversed the effects of the Tory decade that came before.

In other words middle class liberals can quite happily have their protest vote and when they wake up to the Tories on May 6th it doesn't matter a jot. They can have the self satisfaction of remaining "pure" and happily pocket the tax cuts while not being adversly impacted by less spending on the NHS, education and programmes for greater social equality. Maybe Labour should start targetting these voters in a language they understand and warn them that Tory immigration controls will make it harder to get a nanny or a house cleaner that can be paid under the minimum wage. Oh but dahling, the minimum wage could be gone too.
Back to the Observer leader:

A general election is about more than protest. It presents a choice between competing propositions for government. It is not a referendum on a single issue, nor a choice between the incumbent administration and an ideal one.

A vote should not be cast in protest but to endorse a party, and the only party that offers progressive government committed explicitly to ending poverty and building social justice is Labour. The way to get a Labour government in most constituencies is to turn out and vote for one.

So Vote Labour on May 5th and Don't Wake Up To the Tories