Foreign trade: The moral or economic good?

An interesting story bypassed the news agenda last week that could affect British interests in the future. The Chinese vice Premier Li Keqiang visited London and other parts of the EU to sign multi-billion pound trade agreements. He was also trying to rebuild China’s image after the Nobel Peace Prize, where the winner Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese pro-democracy campaigner, was absent through house arrest. China is opening its frontiers to the world and formulating its own foreign policy, proscribed to be undermining the work of many Western Governments insisting on human rights and education, compared to China’s open trade policy with any nation. To what extent can countries like the UK lecture other nations about human rights, yet trade openly with them. Can foreign policy in any way be idealistic or does pragmatism rule the waves. In any instance, self-interest or supranationalism is always going to affect one party.

Anglo-Sino relations have historically been fractured. The Chinese have always felt that British global hegemony had subjugated their proud traditions and the effects of two 19th century opium wars humiliated the Chinese Emperor and its people. These measures saw the frosty handover in 1997 of Hong Kong, in what the British saw as the end of Empire and the Chinese saw as a return to status quo. Almost 15 years after the handover, to what extent can Britain lecture China about human rights, not because of its own colonial past but more the obvious economic and cultural gulf between the two nations. There have been run ins over the past few years; the former Climate Change Secretary and now Labour leader Ed Miliband, angered the Chinese Government over his comments that they had destroyed potential negotiations at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009. Ties were broken off after the UK saw Chinese policy in Zambia as a form of colonialism and then there is the continuous argument that perpetuates over Tibet.

The ultimate goal of foreign policy between countries, effectively nowadays, is to pursue trade and maintain friendly relations. Realists identify with this and the dictum of 19th century Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston is often quoted, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Newer forms of diplomacy like the one pursued by American President Woodrow Wilson through the advent of the League of Nations ultimately failed, and failed disastrously because of the self-interest of individual states. The EU and other trading blocs have been more successful because the financial incentives are axiomatic. The pursuit of a moral foreign policy has been unsuccessful because no matter how pressing an issue is, if 5000 defence jobs are lost because of a philosophical foreign secretary then the people will call for his head. The idealistic legacy of William Gladstone perhaps is something to learn from history. A grand social reformer at home, but his dogmatic pursuit of Christian interventionalism saw him fail to convince other nations that it was for the moral good. Something his indefatigable rival Benjamin Disraeli saw from the Opposition benches as naive. Perhaps the belief the world can be shaped by universal truths is a failing itself.

It is therefore in Britain’s interests to be trading with countries like Libya. There is the obvious financial benefit but there is a diplomatic discourse that breeds ideas. Opening economic borders opens groups to the realms of democracy and free speech. China learnt in South Africa, a country with a history of human rights abuses, that it cannot expect South African workers to work in the same conditions as its Chinese counterparts. Britain will continue to increase trade in China, Turkey and Russia but it will be well aware that in the aftermath of recession the pound speaks louder than a human rights lobby.

England's Cricketing Industrial Revolution

It appears that English cricket has not even reached its zenith. After years of being shackled by our own colonial ancestors we have liberated ourselves from historical dogmas, in what can only be called a thrashing. Perhaps the most famous series of them all, Bodyline, was not remembered for England’s resounding 3-1 series victory, but for the perceived ‘ungentlemanly’ behaviour of the English fast-bowlers. The 2010 series will be remembered for the simple reason that England were a fantastic all round cricket team, but are there any particular reasons why and if anything could be learnt?

Let us not forget this series win was not purely founded on one win in Australia. It is the culmination of reform from the top down of English cricket over the past ten years, in a period that was not easy. The series defeat to New Zealand in 1999 was the summer when the whole system imploded as England officially became the world’s worst Test side. Through the 1990s, England were a decent team, they had good players e.g. Stewart, Thorpe, Gough and certainly, but as a force in test and one day internationals they were moving nowhere. The initiation of central-contracts was part of the first steps to re-professionalise cricket and change the relationship between the county and national system. The contracts were given to the country’s best players, whilst future talent joined the England Academy in winter camps. It made the players full-time England internationals rather than county players that represent England.

The results spoke for themselves with away wins in West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa, culminating in the 2005 Ashes victory. Much of England’s success came through the television contracts with Sky Television. The most recent deal in 2008 saw Sky pay £300 million for a four-year contract, with full coverage of England plus the domestic season too. The other success is the adoption of foreign coaches and importantly their ideas. The appointment of the head coaches Duncan Fletcher and then Andy Flower, both Zimbabweans, have improved the management and training practises.

In some ways this mini-cricketing revolution could be compared to the Industrial Revolution throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The money from Sky is a sore point for traditionalists because matches can only be watched through a monthly subscription, but this money has allowed England to progress. It pays for the coaches, the contracts and the money hitting grassroots cricket. In the industrial revolution it was the money of entrepreneurs that built the canals and the factories, not the government of the day. Watching a programme on Sky the other day called ‘How England won the Ashes’ showed how the money has helped design bowling technologies that reproduce the deliveries of potential opponents. It reminded me of the investment in the British Army during this period that helped produce new weapons like shrapnel shells. There is no irony that in an environment where there is entrepreneurialism it produces more ideas and subsequently inventions, think of America in the twentieth century.

Historically, it is argued that the Britain began to decline in the late nineteenth century. As rivals began to catch up e.g. Germany and America, they were educating their youngsters in science, engineering and maths, whilst Britain failed to adapt its education policy to the likes of its rivals. Many of these countries adopted policies of economic protectionism. Britain and its Empire boosting other growing world economies, whilst they prevented overseas investment. The English cricket team have learnt from this lesson to become the World's best Test team. However, they must continue to revolutionise their methods and ensure to employ the best coaches and innovate their training, like the British cycling team. They must understand the consequences of history and build on this success.

After war: Post Combat Trauma Stress

I have just started watching Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg’s World War Two miniseries ‘The Pacific’. As a narrative perspective it is easy to conclude that ‘Band of Brothers’, the 2001 series set in the grey clouds of Europe, is better and for many reasons. The war in Europe had its obvious heroes and villains and moral structures of good versus evil. These were typified by acts such as the liberation of Paris to the discovery of the death camps in Hitler’s blood lands. The Pacific war did not breathe the romance of liberating Europe; it was a war of attrition. US Marines launching seaborne assaults on isolated islands in the hope of flushing out a determined and virulent enemy. It was savage and neglected and often distorted by the realms of Hollywood and the denouement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We have a Hollywood interpretation of the brutality of war but have time for those who gave their lives for such causes. Yet there appears to be great neglect to those mentally scarred by war. In recent years the National Arboretum was erected in Staffordshire to commemorate the war dead and much publicity and charity has been made of sites like Headley Court, dedicated to help injured soldiers recover after life-threatening injuries. The toils and scars from the death and blasts in World War One are etched in our memories through the poems of Sassoon, Owen and Graves; yet the legacy was vivid in the minds of those who survived the front only to face a hell from within. The British Army identified around 80,000 men suffered from the exposure to such atrocities, many of their wounds would never heal and they ended up in asylums.

Figures show that more American soldiers have committed suicide in the past decade than have been killed in combat in Afghanistan. Post-traumatic combat stress (PTCS), as it has now been identified, has caused countless dedicated men to turn their lives to drugs, alcohol and crime.

It is estimated that around 20,000 veterans are within the criminal justice system and that 10% of the prison population is filled with former soldiers. There is an argument that many members of the armed forces came from the fringes of society and that enlisting, cruelly, was the best way to steer clear from crime, but that would be an indictment on the reputations of many these honourable men.

In the last twenty years, the British Army was involved in Iraq twice, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone; all for varying durations with incalculable risks. Young and inexperienced men are entering situations that are abnormal to society, and expect the things they saw, did and became as normal. Perhaps it is understandable that drugs and crime have become their tonic.

It is now normal procedure for decommissioned battalions, who have just seen combat, to spend a fortnight or so unwinding in places like Cyprus, away from the enemy’s bullet and the banalities of family life. After the Falklands War it was noticed that members of the Parachute Regiment, who flew back home, were more likely to suffer PTCS or commit suicide, than members of the Royal Navy who had a two-week journey back to the UK. It is deemed that this decompression is a vital starting step to let soldiers unwind from months of combat.

War is never glamorous and even the bright lights of Hollywood are reflecting on the trials of soldiers in modern-day warfare. We know the sacrifices made in such theatres are heavy on families and communities, but perhaps it is changing our relationship with mental illness as well. We live in a country where the public no longer accepts or understands the need for long drawn-out wars. Most soldiers would acknowledge and fear the ideas of sacrifice but I daresay many would disregard the scars that come with it.

Andre Agassi: Sport in print.

Over the past few years the internet and increasingly tablets/kindles are revolutionising the way we read books and the choice on the market. The sports book genre has expanded hugely. Twenty years ago, one could only find annuals like Match or the Wisden Almanack, but now it can dominate a whole section. There are books on sporting philosophy, history, theory and of course the autobiography.

Sporting books have launched the literary careers of authors like Nick Hornby, whilstothers have sprawled massive charitable campaigns. Anyone who has read Lance Armstrong’s ‘It’s not about the bike’ would find it hard not to commend the inexorable determination of the man and his route to success.

The genre's evolution over the past twenty years even saw a dedicated prize established. So why else would be people want to read their stories and prose? There is a stereotype to suggest that sportsmen and women aren’t intellectual and therefore, why would we want to read their musings? The drivel delivered during press conferences or post-match interviews would highlight such drollness. Some athletes have signed multi-book deals worth millions of pound, even though they are still in their early twenties! Yet people still buy them.

Perhaps it is the fact that sport is about real life, the highs and lows. The lives of actors is purely fictional and doesn’t have the human drama that we can associate in sporting events. Athletes are mortals. They can tell their stories about overcoming failures.How triumph and defeat become blurred.

Reading the autobiography of Andre Agassi, it is surreal to see the life of a high profile name in such perspective. The pressure from parents and school, the fear of losing and the inability to succeed. The honesty and realities is often lost on the spectator and we only learn of the inner most thoughts after such battles have been fought. Life could be compared to a tennis match or an athletics race. It is often only through these athletes, who have dedicated their lives to one dream or target, that their outlook can teach us what events mean and we can take from them. The best books tell us about life itself.

Sudan: Snow or blood in Africa?

Time is a healer, but in history and diplomacy it is more subjective. In 2011 it is likely that Africa will have another country: South Sudan. Up until 2005, the country had suffered almost six continuous decades of civil war and now with the prospect of secession in the South, the future is blurred. Could it lead to more bloodshed within Africa’s biggest country.

Historically, the conflict existed between the mainly black African Christians in the south, who felt subjugated by the Arab Muslim in the north. Since the beginning of the civil wars, over two million people have died and over four million people have become displaced.

The peace process began in 1993, culminating in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. This officially ended the conflict and gave the South a future referendum on independence. In January 2011, the people of South Sudan will determine their future.

Over the past ten years, the west of the country has made all the international headlines. Violent ambushes in the Darfur region has created another humanitarian crisis, spilling across the region. The US has labelled these crimes as genocide .

Many of today’s problems could have been resolved by Britain in two earlier historical incidents. In 1898, the Fashoda incident nearly led to a war between Britain and France. It could have separated Muslim North from Christian African immediately, rather than retain the lines on the colonial map drawing.

When independence came in the early 1950s, the British who handed over the administration to the northerners in Khartoum. The British Empire favoured indirect rule from London and left power with local chiefs. The experience of British India saw power fall into the hands local Muslim Emirs.The self-interest of the northerners and neglect of the south became the tinder for war that destroyed the lives of millions for decades to come.

Hope is a wonderful thing, but it can also be short-sighted. When the Baltic and Balkan states broke up in the 1990s, there was a degree of stability and an infrastructure of support to ensure their institutions flourished.

Perhaps the problem for a newly formed South Sudan is that it creates more questions that are unanticipated. What about the oil wealth? What role will the diaspora play? Many countries including the US and Britain back statehood, but is this a ploy to punish the current Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir. Al-Bashir is accused of arming the genocide in Darfur and wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. He is also alleged to have supported the Lord’s Resistance Army, a mercenary organisation in Central Africa that has displaced and murdered thousands in the last twenty years.

South Sudan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the land. Yet oil could be the biggest problem if independence goes ahead. The oil fields are in the south, but the pipelines run through the north. As one of the Chinese biggest clients, how is this to be resolved.

Questions must also be asked of the leadership. It seems certain that the whole administration will be full of former rebels from the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA). Sudan has an Arab majority in the north and black Christians in the south, but it also has the hundreds of tribes embroiled in the fighting. Many questions are being asked of what will happen to those on the border and the migrant population in the north. After so many years of hardship, it is not a question of whether they are ready to govern – because clearly they are – it is more whether they have the experience to do so. For so long these people have been fighting, but are there plans to ensure everything is taken into perspective.

The countries surrounding Sudan endured their own struggles: Eritrea’s independence, Ethiopia and Uganda’s bloody dictatorships and the Rwandan genocide. These states are not flagships of good governance, but perhaps the lessons of Africa’s recent past has shown that to develop the economies and increase trade, then it is essential to have stability. Maybe Africa is waking up to the fact that continuous war doesn’t gain anything. 

Tuition Fees: This is Government

So the vote for tuition fees went the way of the Coalition Government. From 2013, students in England could potentially be paying up to £9,000 per year. Ignoring the anger on the streets and the mindless acts of violence by the protesters, the political games were extremely engaging and provoking. The Liberal Democrats, the junior partner within the coalition, abandoned their election pledge not to increase tuition fees.

Many will argue that free higher education should be a right and that society gains as a whole from having highly-skilled graduates. Yet, it is unaffordable and by having more and more students entering further education, it is causing a greater strain for the state to burden.

Perhaps this is what the Liberal Democrats have come to realise. From a party that within the past twenty years has been well-liked and input many policy pledges, it is learning that Government is far from comfortable and idealistic. Yes, it is difficult not to sympathise with the MPs who abstained or voted against the legislation, but we must commend the members that voted with the Government. Nick Clegg, who is sure to face criticism from party members. He has shouldered a massive amount of pressure for the coalition and David Cameron should be acknowledging.

It is obvious the policy will not always please everyone, particularly if Welsh and Scottish students are unaffected. But perhaps the leadership shown by Mr Clegg will be a realisation to Liberal Democrat members what politics is about and that the next few years will be tough.

Wikileaks: The medium is the message.

This week, most people are talking about FIFA and England's unsuccessful World Cup bid. Yet, the other story dominating the news are the leaked US Diplomatic cables published by the website Wikileaks and various news organisations throughout the world.

The story surrounds a member of the US security services who sent a file with over 250,000 documents containing confidential information relating to the State Department's view on foreign policy. The scope is enormous and potentially damaging; but it is interesting to read the thoughts of diplomats and US policy.

As well as the information, the nature of the journalism is interesting, and becoming more prevalent. Instead of Wikileaks just releasing the information straight on to the internet, it gave various news gathering organisations a chance to report on the leaks. The Guardian has apparently spent weeks using journalists and various experts to decipher the best news stories and the implications of various comments. It is similar to the Daily Telegraph's reportage on MPs’ Expenses scandal in 2009.

Many say that such leaks could have political and personal consequences to those involved. Though the newspapers will argue that much of it is in the public interest.

Some have also added that if the Americans are so hurt by the stories, then why was it accessible to thousands of security personnel. Many of the stories are not particularly sensationalist but purely uncloak the perspectives of mandarins and politicians. Perhaps we should be entitled hear them.

It could as a consequence lead to further so called 'post-it-note government', where civil servants prefer righting things down on disposable paper rather than send it by email.

It does ultimately show how powerful modern day communications are and how we no longer have to rely on journalists.