ANTICIPATIONS
SECURITY
Summer 2008 Volume 12 Issue 2
THE YOUNG FABIAN BOAT PARTY What is Britain’s place in2008 the world? See more photos at our website: www.youngfabians.org.uk
WITH THANKS TO OUR EVENT SPONSOR:
www.bppa.co.uk
anticipations
SUMMER 2008
CONTENTS 4 5 26
WORD FROM THE EDITOR Alex Baker
WORD FROM THE CHAIR Mark Rusling
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Forthcoming Young Fabians events
SECURITY
8 12 17 10 13 14 16 18 20
- Interview -
LIAM BYRNE MP - Guest Contributors -
NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Charlie Edwards
THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY Peter Luff
- Young Fabian Contributors -
REFORMING POLICE IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD Liam O’Shea
RAISING THE INTEREST RATE Allan Millington
TACKLING TERRORISM David Parker
TRIDENT TESTED Adam Leeder
PANIC ON THE STREETS OF YAOUNDE Graham Bamborough
HUMAN LEAGUE Rachel Bell
OTHER ARTICLES
21 23 25
TOWARDS A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT Jan Mortier
CHANGE EU CAN BELIEVE IN Mark Anderson
STATE OF THE UNION Alex Baker
Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society, and the Young Fabians, represents not the collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals whose articles it comprises. The reposnsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement.
Printed by: Caric Press Ltd Lionheart Close, Bearwood, Bournemouth, Dorset BH11 9UB
Published by The Fabian Society: 11 Dartmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BN Telephone: 0207 227 4900 | Facsimile: 0207 976 7153
The editor would like to thank: Liam Byrne MP, Peter Luff and Charlie Edwards.
www.fabian-society.org.uk and www.youngfabians.org.uk
Cover image by trohaa from www.sxc.hu
anticipations
FROM THE EDITOR Alex Baker abaker@youngfabians.org.uk
W
“
Our interview with Liam is also the first of (hopefully) a very long series of podcasts. You can download the interview in its entirety by following the instructions at our website.
”
elcome to this, the Summer 2008 edition of Anticipations - the journal of the Young Fabians. This edition we are looking at the issue of security - an issue which has gained recent prominence due to the House of Commons vote on pre-charge detention, and the spate of recent stabbings on the streets of London. Security is as tangible as nation-state military defence, or as abstract as the confidence to walk down your street at night. And our contributions this edition mirror the many ways in which one could interpret the theme. Our guest contributors in this edition are Peter Luff, Chair of the European Movement, and Charlie Edwards, Head of the Security programme at Demos. They write about the impact of the Irish ‘no’ vote in their recent referendum on European security, and the need for a new model of national security in the twenty-first century, respectively. As is customary, I’d like to thank the guest contributors for their articles, especially given one of the others who was lined up to contribute - Liberty director Shami Chakrabati - was too busy rowing with Andy Burnham in order to share her thoughts on 42-days pre-charge detention. (Somehow, I imagine most of our more clued-up readers were probably already familiar with Shami’s line of argument). We also managed to squeeze in an interview with the everbusy Liam Byrne MP, Minister of State for Borders and Immigration at the Home Officer and HM Treasury, as well as Minister for the West Midlands and consituency
MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill. He spoke to us about his work on the immigration brief, as well as his memories of being a founder-Editor of this very journal (proof, if proof be needed, that editing Anticipations is not a careerending task). Our interview with Liam is also the first of (hopefully) a very long series of podcasts. You can download the interview in its entirety by following the instructions at our website. In fact, the website will be expanding its available content over the months to come, but already boasts features such as: an events map and calendar, a photo gallery, and a great deal more detail on Young Fabians events (as well as mug shots of your executive committee). Our next edition will be the last from the current executive committee before you elect a new team in the autumn. The issue will be launched in advance of the 2008 Labour party conference. Because it will be a conference-special edition, our theme is about looking to the future of the Labour party and asking: “From values to victory - what sort of party does Labour need to be in order to win the next election?” The issue, along with featuring contributions from Young Fabian members, will highlight the outcome of the work our policy commissions have been doing over the last year, in addition to the sessions we held with Ed Miliband MP, who will be instrumental in writing the manifesto for the next election. If you would like to contribute to the next issue, then please email anticipations@ youngfabians.org.uk with your idea.
We are seeking a broad range of contributions, from those discussing the sort of narrative the party should adopt, to articles on electoral strategy or the issues on which it should campaign. The deadline for submissions will be August 20th in order to ensure we can deliver the journal to you before conference. You can find more guidance on contributing to Anticipations on the Anticipations pages at our website. Of course, there is a danger in requesting articles over the summer - it is highly likely that, like most normal people, you will all be off on your summer holidays. Still, writing an article for Anticipations is the perfect antidote those long stretches in Terminal 5 waiting for your flight to be cancelled. Or your luggage to turn up. Or both, assuming you’re really unlucky. And if that wasn’t enough to convince you to write for us, then you may be interested to know that Anticipations will be distributed to a wider audience at conference than is usual; so even more people can read your insights into the future of the Labour party. Finally, we are looking to appoint a few official Young Fabian event photographers who can help us catalogue our speaker events, as well as take portrait shots of our interviewees for Anticipations. So I would be interested to hear from you if you are a budding amateur photographer who fancies being an official Young Fabian event photographer. If this sounds like you then drop me a line at abaker@ youngfabians.org.uk. Have a great - and secure summer.
FROM THE CHAIR
Mark Rusling mrusling@youngfabians.org.uk
H
ello and welcome to the Summer issue of Anticipations, looking at security issues. I hope you have been able to attend one of our recent events – it has been a busy few months for the Young Fabians. We have held seminars on the US election, on careers in politics and on the situation in Darfur. We have visited the Cabinet War Rooms and held a discussion with representatives of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences at the Chinese Embassy. Also, just to prove that it’s not all work and no play, we held our new members’ reception, organised a joint social event with the Labour Staff Network and took to the river for our annual boat party. Thanks go to Bell Pottinger Public Affiars and FD-LLM for sponsoring those events. In April we unveiled our new website – do take a moment to have a look at www.youngfabians.org.uk. Our Website Officer, Sam Strudwick, has done a great job in revamping our online presence, which we hope to use to engage more usefully with members, particularly those living outside London. Our Schools Project is also progressing very well – James Green has written to every school in London to invite them to take part in Dawn Butler’s national youth consultation. Around 20 MPs have signed up to help the project, which aims to make politics more accessible and relevant to students. July will see the Young Fabians in Birmingham for our summer school, hosted by Birmingham Hodge Hill MP and former Anticipations editor, Liam Byrne, and organised by Rebecca Rennison. We will be looking into Labour values and how these are relevant for the future. Also, now that the US
Democratic primary is finally settled, don’t forget to sign up for the trip to visit Team Obama and to learn some useful lessons for our own battles over the next couple of years – email Adrian Prandle at aprandle@ youngfabians.org.uk. Perhaps our most important work this year has surrounded the Labour manifesto process. Coordinated by David Chaplin, we have held meetings with MPs on international security, Europe, constitutional reform, children, alcohol and drugs and local government. Our two meetings with Ed Miliband MP have covered all aspects of the manifesto and have allowed members to highlight the areas of policy which they feel need to be covered in order to regain public support. We will be summarising the proposals from these meetings and presenting a paper to Ed in July. Ed thanked the Young Fabians for giving him the opportunity to hear these ideas and has asked to continue the dialogue in the future. The tone of the manifesto will be extremely important – it must be marked by optimism and plans for the future, but remain grounded by a sense of the possible. Labour cannot allow itself to be painted as the ‘nasty’ party on issues such as immigration, detention of terrorist subjects and criminal justice. Voters rarely reward parties which try to scare them into the ballot box – just ask Michael Howard. Were you thinking what he was thinking? Thankfully not. We must show that we understand voters’ legitimate concerns but that we are not a defeatist or negative party, and that we have solutions to these problems. We must also be more proactive in pointing
out the inconsistencies in Conservative policy, where it exists at all. Why did David Cameron not pledge to repeal the government’s 42-day legislation until after David Davis’s resignation? Would a Cameron administration be a tax-lowering government? If so, why will they be sticking to Labour spending plans for two years? And, of relevance to this issue of Anticipations, how would British security be served by a Tory Party which advocates a small state, is ambivalent about international institutions and cooperation and is downright hostile to European engagement? A positive and forwardlooking Labour strategy must be complemented by greater scrutiny of the Conservatives, starting with the new mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Labour must be ruthless in pointing out the shortcomings of his policies and reminding the public that this is a dry run for a Conservative government. The Young Fabians have played a role in developing a manifesto which will hopefully achieve this balance. If you would like to see a copy of our submission to Ed Miliband, please email me after July. Finally, I would like to advertise the Gareth Butler History Trust, set up in memory of Gareth, who tragically died in February. Gareth was the husband of former Young Fabian Chair, Jessica Asato, and his Trust will fund lower income students to go on school history trips. For more information, or to donate, visit the Trust’s website at www.garethshistorytrust.blogspot.com, or join the related facebook group. Have a great summer and, in the words of Bon Jovi, keep the faith!
“
Labour cannot allow itself to be painted as the ‘nasty’ party on issues such as immigration, detention of terrorist subjects and criminal justice.
”
anticipations
“
There is only a narrow path to tread between actions that would betray our values and those which would put us at risk. The challenge for democratic government, the criminal justice system and civil society is to stay on that right path, today and in the future.
”
- Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith MP June 2008
SECURITY
It is often said that a government’s first priority is to protect its citizens. The issue of security is increasingly important to people in the UK, and arises in many guises: be it protection from terrorist attack, to being able to walk safely through one’s community at night. The challenges facing the government and the nation are constantly changing, and each demands innovative thinking to ensure the Government remains able to protect its citizens. This collection of articles covers a range of topics, from the UK’s contribution to police reform in foreign lands, to the recent precharge detention legislation, and the impact of the Irish ‘no’ vote on the Lisbon treaty for European security. Our feature interview is with Liam Byrne MP, Minister for Borders and Immigration at the Home Office and HM Treasury.
anticipations
INTERVIEW: LIAM BYRNE
Liam Byrne MP, Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, took time out of his hectic schedule in order to speak to Alex Baker
I Liam Byrne has been MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill since 2004. He is Minister of State for Borders and Immigration in addition to his duties as Minister for the West Midlands. Liam was one of the founderEditors of Anticipations.
Avaiable as a podcast at www.youngfabians.org.uk
“
There was a huge fight over who would go and interview Dennis Healy. And I lost. So one of the great reasons for founding Anticipations came to nothing
”
n hindsight, the night of the vote on the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill might not have been the most opportune time to meet one of the busiest junior ministers in Westminster. Nonetheless, Liam Byrne, one of Labour’s rising stars, managed to squeeze in an interview with Anticipations between dashing to and from the House of Commons chamber in order to vote. Whilst the lobby was, as one would expect, bustling with activity, it was in the eerily silent bowels of Parliament that the interview took place, with Liam bursting through the door to his office some thirty minutes after we were scheduled to start (Commons votes are not the most predictable of events), apologising profusely. Liam is a most impressive sort - fuelled by a potent mix of energy and enthusiasm. It was whilst in his twenties, and part of the rising progressive movement of the nineties, that Liam along with three others used that mix to start a magazine for Young Fabian members (this one, in fact). He remembers his time on Anticipations fondly: “I just hope its got a lot easier”, he laughs before diving headfirst into an anecdote about the first interview the then editorial team managed to secure. “There was a huge fight over who would go and interview Dennis Healy. And I lost. So one of the great reasons for founding Anticipations came to nothing.” Since those heady days, Liam has managed to carve out a successful career in the political realm. He was first elected to Parliament to represent the seat of Birmingham Hodge Hill in 2004, folllowing the resigna-
tion of Terry Davies to become Secretary General of the Council of Europe. He had previously advised then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. It was only a year after first becoming an MP that Liam began his quick rise up the ministerial ladder - first as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, then Minister for policing at the Home Office. He was only Minister for policing for a few weeks before being switched with Tony McNulty as Minister for Borders and Immigration, also at the Home Office. And, rather unusually for a minister at the Home Office, this is a brief which he has retained for two years now. His day-to-day task at the Home Office touches on the isues we are discussing elsewhere in the edition of Anticipations. So it is no suprise that Liam asserts that “no party can govern today in Britain without being strong on security.” He suggests there are three levels on which he views the issue of security. Firstly, at the global level he believes that the threats to the UK aren’t going away, but increasing. “There is an alliance between failed states and dangerous people, which puts assets in the hands of people who want to threaten our way of life.” Labour, he says, needs to be able to get that right as the party of government. As a constituency MP in a seat with problems of high unemployment and anti-social behaviour, Liam believes this gives him a second perspective on the issue. “We had to work very hard in Hodgehill to build a new relationship and trust with local residents. We had to convince people that Labour had the policies and people to take on the issue of anti-social behaviour locally,
and to secure increased funding for local police services.” “Respect,” he says, “is the groundfloor of renewal.” In order to regenerate consistuencies such as Hodgehill, Liam believes that first we need to ensure public safety and security. Finally, Liam refers to issues surroudning perceptions of security. This is a particularly thorny issue at present, given the increasing electoral support for parties such as the BNP. To what extent to people feel less personally secure given the rise in multicultural Britain? And how can false perceptions be tackled? “The great risk when we face a new extermism both in the form of Al-Qaida based terrorism as well as the farright threat, is that our communiites begin to look inward and ask: ‘Why are my values under threat?’ And they forget what they have in common with others. “Labour has to take on this agenda about how we reinforce shared standards and shared rules of the road in British national life.” The implications for not doing so are starkly put: “If Labour finds itself on the wrong side of this agenda, then it will lose seats and lose the next election.” However, Liam is quick to underline that he doesn’t feel perceptions on immigration are misinformed by the mainstream media. “The pace of change in Britain has never been this fast. We haven’t seen such levels of net migration for many generations. And when the pace of change is fast, pressure is placed on particular communities and there can be pressure placed on public services in those communities.” Liam highlights the benefits of the new points-based im-
SECURITY
migration system that will be introduced this year in dealing with these “transitional” issues, as her refers to them. Under the system, a variety of factors will inform a rating for each potential immigrant. These factors will not just be informed by what business wants, but also on the likely pressure further migration will place on publis services. This rating will then decide whether or they gain passage to the UK. “What Labour has to do is to strike a balance that is in Britain’s national interest. When people see a migration system that is both functional and fair, then we will win support for it.” I challenged Liam on Labour’s reliance on economic rhetoric in support of its immigration stance. Increasingly it seems as if the electorate struggle to see the positive effects of migration over the very real tangible squeeze migration is putting on public service provision. “We’re not a nation of Alf Garnetts. The debate on immigration can be won, but people want to know that if newcomers break the rules and break the law, then we will take quick steps to make sure they are sent home. “Further than that, people want to know that the newcomers who go on to stay are bought into the shared standards of Britain.” Liam outlines four such standards which came from discussions he has had across the country with the electorate: that they are working hard and paying tax; that they obey parliament’s law; that they have some command of English; and that they make some effort to integrate. “Beyond that, people I spoke to believe in the principle of ‘live and let live’.”
It is difficult, however, to divorce issues of migration from broader economic issues. This is evidenced by the fact that Liam is a Minister for Borders and Immigration not just in the Home Office but also in HM Treasury. Just recently the National Audit Office released figures which suggests that the costof implementing our immigration strategy - and in particular repatriating illegal immigrants - are substantial. But Liam is sure that these financial pressures, particularl in the current economic climate, are not thwarting our immigration policy. He points to the way in which border control now increasingly starts at the point of departure - so-called “offshore border control” - with techniques such as finger-print visas, screening of passenger names against no-fly lists, and border security advisors stationed at foreign airports. In addition, Liam highlights the new UK Border Agency, which was launched earlier this year. “Thats about protection. The second element of the strategy is prevention. And thats about dealing with illegal working people aren’t coming to the UK because of the weather, but because of the strong economy. “If we take those people who give these people jobs out of business, we switch off part of the magnet that draws illegal workers to our country.” Liam also highlights the fact that exit-checks at our border control points are suggesting that people are increasingly returning home themselves because it is much harder to be an illegal immigrant in the UK. “We will always bend over backwards to help people go home voluntarily because it’s just a more humane thing to
“
Labour has to take on this agenda about how we reinforce shared standards and shared rules of the road in British national life.” The implications for not doing so are starkly put: “If Labour finds itself on the wrong side of this agenda, then it will lose seats and lose the next election.”
do.” The rather civil tone of Liam’s comments on voluntary repatriation contrasts with accusations put to the government that they have taken a cavalier attitude to civil liberties, particularly with the proposed introduction of ID cards and the pre-charge detention issue. “The point about civil liberties is a crucial point. Labour must be upfront and recognise that there questions about civil liberties that it is right to answer. “Parliament is absolutely key to answering these questions, and that’s why I’ve asked questions before about boosting Parliament’s role in oversight in the way we operate some of these new systems. “It’s a debate that’s only jsut getting started and something
”
that I would like to see much more of.” Having condensed an interview in a brief interlude between votes, I was concious of the the limited time I had with Liam. However, I did manage to ask one final question about Labour’s electoral chances at the next national poll, especially given recent difficulties. It is little suprise that, as with Liam’s infectious enthusiasm and energy, he is upbeat about Labour’s chances. “Labour can win by just pointing to the long term questions this country faces up to and the electorate will judge both parties on who has the best answers to those questions. “And it remains crystal clear that it is Labour and not the Tories who have the long term vision for the future of the country.”
anticipations
REFORMING POLICE IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD The UK needs to rethink its approach to supporting international police reform missions, argues Liam O’Shea
T Liam O’Shea is a member of the Young Fabians.
“
Short-termism dogs many aspects of security reform. Missions are rarely given the time and resources necessary for success.
”
hroughout much of the developing world, it is quite common to see policeman publicly taking bribes. Traffic police are particularly notorious for doing so. Wide scale corruption in everyday life undermines any sense of the rule of law and plays havoc on economic life and development. Whilst the terrorism threat, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic crime and order issues may predominate security debates, corrupt and inefficient security systems in the developing world, particularly in the countries bordering the EU, are a perhaps less obvious threat to the UK and its interests. The UK has a vital role to play in helping to reform such systems, indeed it is necessary to do so if UK forces are to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, but in order to do so it needs to appreciate the complexity of reform and the commitment required for success. Police are everyday security actors, are relatively visible representatives of the state and, whilst at least equally important to military reform, police reform is less effectively implemented. It is exceedingly difficult to reform a police force according to the norms of democratic policing. Western police took several centuries to develop into democratic forces and they did so in markedly different ways. Reform missions attempt to replicate this transition but, whilst international standards may provide a template of what a reformed force should look like, there is no clear blueprint detailing how to carry out the process. The greatest difficulty lies not in developing new structures or teaching new techniques but in implementing attitudinal change and ensuring that officers conform to the principles of democratic policing.
Yet ideas and norms of justice differ greatly from culture to culture, as do manners of social etiquette. As a result, the success of reform missions is often limited. For example, even in Bosnia, despite the huge international presence and its small size, progress on police reform has been limited, with an International Crisis Group report of 2005 describing the police as, “highly politicised, acting at the behest of politicians… and heavily involved in organised crime.”1 Short-termism dogs many aspects of security reform. Missions are rarely given the time and resources necessary for success. In Iraq, there has been a politically inspired aspiration to rush the job. Iraqi recruits, trained in Jordan, underwent an 8-week course hastily modelled on a cut-down version of the training programme designed for the academy in Kosovo. Considerable pressure was placed on trainers to produce numbers so few background checks were carried out, applicants were allowed to retake failed literacy entrance-exams and Kurdish trainees managed to pass without the existence of any Kurdish translators.2 Part of the problem with reform stems from the complex role the police play in society. Unlike the military, which is relatively isolated from society, police are more closely involved in the daily lives of citizens; police units are more likely to live in and be involved in the affairs of the communities they police. They are more likely to be exposed to corruption and, in situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, to violence. Where communities are populated by criminals or insurgents the extent to which they can uphold professional standards has to be balanced against threats to their personal safety. British police are widely regarded as being amongst the
most professional in the world and they play an important role in international missions. The UK police system is not perfect and what works in the UK may not necessarily work in a foreign context. UK police are generally unarmed and unfamiliar with working in conflict situations (with the exception of some Northern Irish officers). The values of British policing, a community-ethos and incorruptibility, ensure that UK officers can make an important contribution to more challenging reform missions even if the model they are helping to implement is not familiar to the UK. Unfortunately, at the highest levels of the UK governing apparatus, a lack of political interest in coordinating reform severely impacts on the UK’s contribution to international policing. At present the UK can deploy, at most, 475 officers, around 0.16% of the total number of UK police, and the figure rarely reaches that level (it was 255 in Jan 2005). According to Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) Co-ordinator for International Policing, this is inconsistent with the UK’s economic strength. By contrast, Norway deploys approximately 1% of its officers abroad. Government departments and agencies are often better placed to provide long term planning but limited resources and a lack of coordination between the bodies responsible for reform is considerably problematic. There is no single institutional ‘home’ for it and therefore no one minister with responsibility for it. At present, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) takes the lead on reform priorities regarding police support operations and has responsibility for the recruitment and
10
SECURITY
training of personnel going on secondment. When the FCO decides to support a mission, it seeks Home Office (HO) approval and the HO, in turn, seeks ACPO’s approval. The International Policing Unit within the FCO is well regarded, particularly for its recruitment and support of staff, but it has come under significant resource pressures. Other police and government agencies are also involved in other aspects of reform. The Ministry of Defence, for example, is closely involved in policing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Individual UK police forces and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) are involved with foreign forces on an operational and intelligence basis. The nature of policing, development and operational work is extensive and there is bound to be some overlap between these organisations. Yet the degree to which this occurs suggests, at best, a lack of communication and, at worst, an element of inter-agency conflict. DFID and the FCO have tendered out contracts regarding policing in post conflict zones without contacting UK police and, on a number of occasions; one government agency has duplicated the review of another. The decentralised governing structure, coupled with a ‘performance indicator culture,’ hinders effective deployment. Whilst the community ethos of British policing is a considerable strength, when it comes to macro/country-wide strategic issues, it can also be a weakness. To deploy an officer on secondment, permission is required from the HO, the chief constable of the officer’s force and the local police authority. It is exceedingly difficult to coordinate the secondment of a large number of police, especially at short notice, as there
11
are many potential spoilers. Forces are unwilling to deploy many of their officers, and FCO/HO staff have to seek permission from numerous chief constables and local police authorities. Secondments can also create human resources problems for forces needing to find replacements and reintegrate seconded officers on their return. Smaller forces may find it difficult to absorb the loss of an officer, especially a senior one. It can also be difficult to promote the benefits of reform to chief constables and local police authorities. The performance indicator culture can also discourage officers, particularly senior officers, from applying for positions. Senior police rarely put themselves forward for secondment and, consequently, British officers have only ever headed two missions. Because UK officers do not usually play a senior part in UN or EU missions, this has a detrimental effect on the UK’s ability to influence the course and development of reform as a whole. Overseas assignments are often seen as a bad career move which puts off career-minded officers from applying. As the House of Commons Defence Committee reported in 2005, “Overseas police commitments are considered marginal activities in the context of the Home Office’s agenda.” Co-operation between the military and police at a strategic level, at all stages during missions, is insufficient. At present, police are not intricately involved at a planning/command level. This is despite, in the words of one senior defence official, in some missions, “it is getting to the stage [in post conflict reconstruction] where you need as many police as military.” (Interview with senior defence official) Few police, with the exception of officers from
“
A number of senior UK police officers have argued that the UK needs to recognise the importance of international policing and develop a more unified structure for organising, planning and executing missions.
Northern Ireland, are likely to have much experience working with military colleagues in an operational capacity. As such, a number of senior police have advocated more joint training, such as sending police officers to courses at the Joint Service Staff College. A number of senior UK police officers have argued that the UK needs to recognise the importance of international policing and develop a more unified structure for organising, planning and executing missions. Chief Superintendent Hoblin, of the MoD Police, argues that the UK should create a UK International Policing Agency. Even if there is not the political will or resources available to develop a separate body, there are a number of steps which could be taken to improve the UK’s international contributions. A senior international police advisor, from the service, should be appointed to advise the on government international policing and security sector reform matters. This position should be centrally funded and provided with an ‘institutional home’ within a single government department, and under a single minister, so that there is an advocate for international policing at the highest political level. A number of positive steps have been taken. For example, an International Policing Assessment and Planning Group (APG), sitting in the FCO’s
”
Conflict Group, has been created which aims to improve the way officers are deployed. There is considerable room for improvement in the way the international community and the UK approach international policing and police reform. Politicians and key policy makers first need to recognise that the current approach is failing and that the policing component of post conflict reconstruction is under-resourced. The UK cannot change the international system itself but it needs to get its own house in order. There needs to be a more concerted political effort to reorganise the structures responsible for international policing. A more unified system is neded. Failure to recognise and account for this means that there is a very real danger that the UK and its allies will lose the hard fought gains they have won in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia. The failure to establish the rule of law in these areas is detrimental to the security of their inhabitants but also hinders international crime control, counter-terrorism and the economic development on which progress in other areas is dependent. to be built around. I would have liked to have seen the Prime Minister being brave rather than bold. 1 - (Bosnia’s Stalled Police Reform: No Progress, No EU, Europe Report N°164, 6 September 2005) 2 - Interview with senior seconded UK police officer.
anticipations
NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
The security threat has changed - something the UK Government’s security strategy needs to reflect, argues Charlie Edwards
O Charlie Edwards is Head of the Security programme at Demos. He is the author of “National Security for the Twenty-First Century”, available at www.demos.co.uk
“
Political parties need to set out a new narrative for security in the twenty-first century. Globalisation has created a new ecosystem ruled by complexity and uncertainty.
”
ver the past decade the Labour government has passed some 53 Acts of Parliament dealing with counter-terrorism, crime, and criminal justice. This figure exceeds by ten the total number of such Acts (43) passed in the 100 years leading up to 1997. In the process, the government has created somewhere between 1018 and 3023 new criminal offences. By 2006 the Blair government had spent more per head on law and order than any other country in the OECD. Discussion on important issues such as national security, intelligence and defence continues to be limited to a handful of Ministers and policy makers. The public rarely gets involved in such debate, often relegated to watching proceedings on the touchline. And yet in this period of uncertainty and complexity in global affairs we need desperately need a new narrative for security. Successive British governments have lacked an understanding of the nature and priority of risks to the United Kingdom, preferring instead to respond to events as and when they happen. But the pace of change in today’s world means we no longer can afford to solely respond to events, instead we must actively anticipate them and manage them. The publication of the UK’s first national security strategy was therefore a step in the right direction and highlights where and what risks we should be concerned about. But the UK NSS did not go far enough. The strategy’s narrative of change and globalisation failed to connect with the key drivers of change. These five drivers of change are at the heart of the new security paradigm and are the foundation on which conflicts, catastrophes and global challenges play out. • Population stress arises from
differences in the population growth rates between rich and poor societies, and from spiralling growth of megacities in poor countries; • Increasing scarcity of conventional oil results in energy stress; • Environmental stress is rapidly worsening from damage to our land, water, forests and fisheries, • Climate change from changes in the makeup of our atmosphere. • Economic stress resulting from instabilities in the global economic system increases the income gaps between rich and poor people. In short, the common unifying threat of the Cold War has been replaced by a plethora of risks, from trafficking and organised crime to international terrorism, energy security, and pandemics. They are dangers that are present, but not clear. These new risks demand a different approach by government but the UK’s national security architecture remains flawed in its design. The government remains structured around functions and services with separate budgets for defence, foreign affairs, intelligence and development. Whitehall departments, intelligence agencies and the police forces that make up the security architecture have changed very little in the past two decades, despite the end of the Cold War and the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001. This model of government may have suited the security environment of the Cold War when the UK faced a threat to its national survival but the complex and uncertain security environment demands a fundamental review of how government is organised in two key respects. First the Government increasingly needs to ‘connect the dots’ between risks by bet-
ter understanding cause and effect. Second departments will have to develop a holistic response to so-called ‘wicked problems’, issues that are unbounded in time, scope and resources. For all the frenetic activity of government, policy initiatives, large-scale set piece exercises and ministerial announcements, it is an intriguing paradox of the last two decades that while national security has become more frantic and urgent the real world has afforded the UK a relative lull from the most dangerous threats to the nation. The paradox is further exacerbated by the shrinking authority of government and the lack of trust in political parties, in terms of their ability to respond to the wide-ranging risks and their ability to articulate the complexities of national security in an open and accessible manner. On the one hand this is a result of the limitations of government to effect change, but it is also a reflection of the government’s determination to pursue a legislative approach rather than to review current approaches. The next two years will is a crucial period for all three political parties. The traditional notion of security will remain on the periphery of debate with the concerns of votes focused on health, education and welfare. But political parties need to set out a new narrative for security in the twenty first century. One that moves beyond tired declarations of support for NATO, the Atlantic alliance and European integration (important as these may be). Britain is no longer a global power in the traditional sense; globalisation has created a new ecosystem ruled by complexity and uncertainty. We need to realise this paradigm shift and in doing so set out a coherent agenda for the future.
12
SECURITY
RAISING THE INTEREST RATE
The passing of the recent terror detention vote should make us all take a greater interest in politics, believes Allan Millington
“T
ake an interest in politics before politics takes an interest
in you” These were the words spoken by Tony Benn at a recent lecture on equality in June this year. Significantly, this was three days after a controversial vote in the House of Commons on a bill proposing an extension of the current pre-charge detention period from 28 to 42 days. Gordon Brown won by nine votes. During the voting process, Diane Abbot spoke passionately on this issue. She explained that she came into politics because of her concern of the relationship which the state has with communities that are marginalised. Amongst Ms. Abbot’s fears was that the extension of the existing detention period would disproportionately impact the Muslim and ethnic minority community. She is not alone with this fear. The attacks on September 11th and July 7th were executed by Muslims. However, like most religions and cultures, one can differentiate this fundamental extremist form of Islam to the peaceful Islam practiced by the majority. Yet due to the small pocket of fundamental extremists, Muslim communities have been unfairly targeted. Muslims currently face discrimination on a daily basis in schools, on public transport and especially in the media. At a time when we need to actively engage with Muslim communities, to work with them to eradicate fundamental Islam and create a strong peaceful society together, the bill has the potential to pull all this work apart. The United Kingdom, by aligning itself with the United States and fighting wars
13
in Iraq and Afghanistan has caused itself to be a target of terrorism. This is unmistakably evident by looking at the failed July 21st attacks and the trials of the alleged perpetrators. What differentiates the current terrorist culture to that of the previous century is this time, the IRA and other similar groups are not playing. Their behaviour, generally characterised by political affiliations and/or nationalist separatist agendas, were conditioned by objective restraints which prevented themselves from alienating the group they sought to represent. Radical Islamic fundamentalism has no similar restraints. September 11th showed the potential of what this new breed of terrorism can cause. Terrorism is still the weapon of the weak, but what society is witnessing is a fundamental shift of terrorist activity by a global yet fragmented group whose aim is to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. Asking people to recall the events and emotions surrounding each terrorist attack would have convinced many that no amount of time was too little to detain those suspected of terrorism. The greater good of keeping terrorism at bay had to be our utmost priority. However, the current legislation, put forward by the Labour Government, plays to our basest fears with the same stale arguments of protecting the people from similar terrorist actions. Ironically, the very freedoms these terrorists seek to destroy are now being destroyed by our own Government in response to this threat. As Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty says, “we don’t defeat terrorism by bowing to it”. Liberty argues that the existing laws and practices undermine the argument for
extending pre-charge detention periods. One example used is the emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which could be triggered when police are overwhelmed by multiple terrorist attack, allowing the Government to temporarily extend precharge detention subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight. Gordon Brown commented that this Act would be potentially more dangerous to communities than the measures proposed in the bill. In a speech to the IPPR think tank he explained that “it is our duty to write a new chapter in our country’s story - one in which we both protect and promote our security and our liberty, two equally proud traditions.” Paradoxically, the Government has successfully extended the right of pre-charge detention to 28 days. This begs this question: are we not protecting our liberty by refusing to allow a further derogation of our rights? The Magna Carta is arguably the most significant document in the entire history of democracy; it has influenced our unwritten constitutional rights and also laid the basis of the United States’ Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It is our duty to protect these rights for all people in times of turmoil stringently because it is in these trying times that our ability to rise above the fear-mongering and inhumaneness of terrorist actions and live in a truly civilised society is tested. We can only hope that those who are at risk from being unfairly treated by this proposed extension do stand up and take an interest in politics. Politics has certainly taken an interest in them.
Allan Millington is a member of the Young Fabians. He is currently Chair of the City [of London] Fabians. For more information about the City Fabians, email chair@ cityfabians.com.
“
Ironically, the very freedoms these terrorists seek to destroy are now being destroyed by our own Government in response to this threat.
”
anticipations
ONLINE anticipations
TACKLING TERRORISM
Gordon Brown should have been brave, not bold, in his handling of the pre-charge terror detention issue, argues David Parker
S David Parker is a member of the Young Fabians.
“
Hard won rights must be defended unless there is clear, unequivocal evidence that contrary measures are needed.
”
o the Government triumphed in the House of Commons with their Counter Terrorism Bill by 315 votes to 306. Unless you’ve been locked away for the last few weeks you will know the Bill will allow the police to detain someone for up to 42 days before they decide whether or not to charge them. This Bill has caused great controversy splitting some in the Labour Party; leading 36 Labour MP’s to vote against it. There are very few people who deny the threat we do face from terrorism. However, I want to avoid turning this into an emotive debate about terrorism and examine objectively the 42 days proposal and ask was this the right way to respond to the threat? What was the government’s case for this measure? The central argument relates to developments in technology which have made it increasingly difficult to collect the necessary evidence within the current 28 day pre-charge detention period. These cases involve searching thousands of computer’s, email accounts, tracing call’s etc. A lot of the information may be encrypted and take time to gain access to. Furthermore, terrorism has taken on a much more international dimension, with worldwide terrorist networks. This requires British agencies to co-operate with agencies from around the world, which obviously can take some time. While the complexity of these cases is not in question, senior public figures have criticised the government’s response. Sir Ken McDonald QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told the home affairs select committee that “for our part as prosecutors, we don’t perceive any need for
the period of 28 days to be increased. Our experience has been that we have managed comfortably within 28 days. We have therefore not asked for an increase in 28 days”. He was then asked about police officers’ assertion they required an extension. He replied that prosecutors were “better placed” than police to judge whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge a suspect. The Government accept the 28 day limit has not yet been fully used, however, they envisage a time when 28 days will be exhausted and when a longer period will be needed. They insist that this requires advance preparation, rather than rushing half-baked legislation through Parliament at the time of an atrocity. However, one must ask whether it is appropriate for the Government to seek to erode fundamental British principles of justice and fairness, not via evidence based policy making, but on the premise that we may need such provisions in future. When putting these concerns to a colleague I was told I must trust the party; that there must be a reason for the legislation which they are unable to tell us because of national security concerns. Of course, Gordon Brown has daily security briefings, and he refers publicly to some 2,000 terrorist suspects and 30 active terrorist plots. But how does this translate into 42 days? Hard won rights must be defended unless there is clear, unequivocal evidence that contrary measures are needed. Assuming the case for 42 days is clear, there is still the question of what prevents arbitrary use of these powers? Six weeks detention without charge could destroy an
individual’s life: they may lose their job; their reputation would be impaired even if they are released without charge (mud sticks); their family will suffer extreme distress; and the detainee maybe emotionally damaged. The potential for abuse of the system was a big worry for many parliamentarians. Their worry was compounded by the case of the Glasgow airport bombings, in which 5 individuals where held for up to 27 days but three of which released without charge. The Government brought forward a number of concessions to deal with MPs’ concerns including; 42 days being defined as a reserved power i.e. it would need to be activated by the Home Secretary and confirmed by Parliament, the suspects must appear in front of a High Court judge every 7 days, those held for over 28 days and then released without charge would be entitled to claim compensation for every day they are held beyond the 28 days. While these concessions show a more sincere approach from Gordon Brown (unlike Tony Blair’s approach to 90 days) they have serious flaws. Many have pointed out that the compensation package will prove to be unworkable, if not unenforceable by the courts. Furthermore, questions have been raised about Parliament confirming these powers. What exactly are they confirming? That the powers can be used in this individual case or that circumstances allow these powers to be invoked? It cannot be the first as this would undoubtly prejudice that individuals chance of a fair trail further down the line. So it has to be the latter known as a declaration of exceptional circumstances. One must enquire as to how much of a control that actually con-
14
SECURITY
stitutes. That in the event of a terrorist attack a vote will be taken as to whether these powers can be used. At such a time, in such a heightened climate, no parliamentarian is going to vote no. The only concession of any substance was the requirement for the individual to appear before a High court judge every 7 days. A further element that concerns me is the government’s argument. Technological developments will always be taking place. They are likely to increase in pace. This argument will then never go away, it will never be satisfied. This does not mean that we should not respond to changing times, that we should stay wedded to the methods of the past, but we could respond in a more thoughtful way. As this argument will never go away it does beg the question does this give government a free hand to increase precharge detention incrementally in the future? Is there a less infringing way to respond to this new terrorism? Proposals such as post-charge questioning and allowing intercept evidence combined with other measures could be an effective response. There have been massive changes to the law since the Terrorism Act 2000. A myriad of widely drawn terrorist offences have been created. Without getting too legalistic, some existing antiterrorism provisions are extremely wide-reaching. In the event of a terrorist attack, I find it improbable that a suspect could not be arrested and charged under a lesser offence, and then continued to be questioned after charge on further offences when new evidence is beginning to come to light.
15
The use of intercept evidence will help complement this process. We must also remember that there is a system of Control Orders in place which could be invoked if the above was not satisfactory. Some pose the question whether going too far with anti-terrorism measures is in fact a propaganda victory or even a victory for the terrorist. Fundamentalists will use 42 days as a tool to try and fill disenfranchised and vulnerable young men full of hate and convert them to their cause. Only one half of the battle is creating a modified criminal justice system which deals with the new terrorism. The other half is the ideological battle, the battle to win hearts and minds. In my view, 42 days is counter-productive in this battle. The only message that will get out there is we are prepared to lock people up for 42 days, not the safeguards, not the desire to protect liberty as well, just that we want to allow the police to lock people up for 42 days without charge. The question can be posed, does this measure make us less safe? Although the Bill made it through the crucial vote in the House of Commons it looks set to encounter a rough time in the House of Lords. Many figures in the House of Lords have voiced their concerns including former Law Lords and the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. Lord Goldsmith has voiced his dissatisfaction about the proposed safeguards, referring to them as inadequate. Furthermore, he has expressed his view that he feels the measures are unjustified. It looks set to be an inter-
“
Some existing anti-terrorism provisions are extremely wide-reaching. In the event of a terrorist attack, it is improbable that a suspect could not be arrested and charged under a lesser offence, and then continued to be questioned under further offences when new evidence comes to light.
esting debate in the House of Lords, one in which the Government could be in danger of losing. I do not doubt Gordon Brown’s sincerity for a moment. I understand how the events of 7/7 must have impacted on Gordon Brown. Being a member of the emergency COBRA committee and watching these events unfold will undoubtly have had a profound effect on him. Being Prime Minister he will want to ensure that if anything like 7/7 was ever to happen on his watch that he was fully prepared for all eventualities. Gordon Brown delivered a speech to the IPPR recently to respond to criticism on the 42 day approach. He spoke of his firm belief in liberty but the need for this not to lead us to bury our head in the sand. He stated we needed to respond to 21st century threats
”
with 21st century methods, but always back this up with stronger safeguards to protect liberty. The prime minister spoke of the balancing act between liberty and security. However, we must assess whether he has achieved that balance. I must say to the Prime Minister that I understand his good intentions but I think that he has gone too far in tipping us towards a security model. That it is too easy to over-compensate in these troubling times. I believe that a less infringing approach could have been taken which would have kept an effective balance between liberty and security, that would have addressed the threat and which a consensus may have been able to be built around. I would have liked to have seen the Prime Minister being brave rather than bold.
anticipations
TRIDENT TESTED
There is a legitimate ‘quiet’ case for replacing Trident, suggests Adam Leeder
T Adam Leeder is a member of the Young Fabians.
“
It is ironic that when arguing for the continued presence of such an immensely powerful part of Britain’s military apparatus, that the whisper is louder than the shout.
”
he replacement of Britain’s soon to be defunct arsenal with a new generation of nuclear capability is a sensitive issue, with strong feelings felt on both sides. The problem is that high-flown rhetoric – whether it be veined either with the masculine discourse of “the national interest”, or the lofty idealism of those who campaign for nuclear disarmament – often clouds the reality of this key debate. Here I hope to make the case for replacing Trident, by systematically deconstructing the case against – making three important points in the process. Firstly, replacing Trident still makes geo-political sense, despite the conclusion of the Cold War. Secondly, stating that a new generation of nuclear missiles in the UK would not depend on American acquiescence. Thirdly, that such a system would not conflict with Britain’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And finally, refuting the role of ‘cost’ as a factor. Replacing Trident certainly still makes sense in the present geo-political context. Paradoxically, those who argue that the end of the Cold War era means that Britain should abandon her nuclear arsenal, support the very case they seek to undermine. By referencing a sudden and major departure from the traditional geopolitical status-quo – namely the shift from a bipolar power struggle between America and the Soviet Union, to a world where stateless terrorism poses the greatest threat – they simply highlight that such unexpected changes in global balances of power can occur at short notice, consigning the previous status-quo to history. It is conceivable that in another 50 years time another equally profound geopoliti-
cal schism will make nuclear weapons directly relevant to the way political horse-trading is conducted at the international negotiating table. Are those who oppose the replacement of Trident really prepared to accept Francis Fukayama’s neo-conservative dictum that we have reached ‘the end of history?’ Opponents of Trident also contest the independence of such a system, questioning what the point is of having a nuclear deterrent, claiming that any British nuclear system would be subservient to America. This assumption is wide of the mark. The new Trident system would be entirely operationally independent from America, using a star sight aided inertial guidance system which does not rely on technological inputs from any other country - including the US Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system. Likewise, the submarines that would fire the missiles use exclusively UK codes and UK communications systems. Trident will not be dependent on American acquiescence. Furthermore, Britain’s continued commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is often considered incompatible with the construction of a new generation of nuclear missiles. Yet replacing Trident does not contravene the NPT in any way. Whilst the treaty obligates Britain to given “an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals” it offers no explicit timeframe for when this should be done – neither does it prohibit updating the existing systems. The fact is that Britain has made significant progress toward reaching the laudable and important goals set out in the NPT. The RAF’s WE177 nu-
clear bomb has been dismantled and not replaced, as have all Chevaline (Polaris) warheads. In other words, Britain is clearly working toward the aims of the treaty. Equally, reductions of arsenals under the NPT were always going to be based on the relative stockpiles of other nuclear powers. Given the reductions that Britain is clearly making – when replaced Trident will be downsized to fewer than 160 warheads – it can hardly be accused of not acting in the spirit of the treaty when the US and Russia have over 5,000 warheads each. Finally, the issue of how much Trident will cost the British taxpayer should finally be consigned to the scrapheap. The reality is that it is nearly impossible at present to accurately gauge how much a renewed nuclear deterrent will cost, since final designs have not been decided and the contract for construction has not been tendered. The Ministry of Defence estimate an original cost of between £15 and £20 billion in contrast to Greenpeace who place the figure at £76 billion. Such trading of numbers is pointless; the reality is that money should not enter into this debate, as this debate transcends money. A sober appraisal of the key debates that surround the replacement of Trident throw into sharp relief both the continued importance and viability of replacing Britain’s nuclear deterrent. It is unfortunate that arguments that favour replacing Trident are so often weakened by resorting to ‘macho’ rhetoric. It is ironic that when arguing for the continued presence of such an immensely powerful part of Britain’s military apparatus, that the whisper is louder than the shout.
16
SECURITY
THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY
The Irish Referendum result has implications for European security, argues Peter Luff
F
or those of us who believe that European integration is crucial not just for our own continent but for the political and economic health of the world, the ‘no’ vote in the Irish referendum came as a severe blow. One of the difficulties we are facing, however, is to understand exactly what the implications are for European security at arguably the most dangerous time since the end of the cold war. The opponents of European integration argue that, taken together with the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by French and Dutch voters, the result of the Irish referendum removes democratic legitimacy from the process of integration and that the proposed reforms should be abandoned. This analysis not only deliberately confuses a number of issues but would deeply endanger our security in the coming years. What we can never be certain of is exactly what voters in Ireland, France or Holland thought they were rejecting. Was it some or all the specific amendments to previous legislation contained in the Lisbon Treaty, the accumulation of decision making powers that it represented? Or the very nature of the Union? What we do know, however, is that the results signal the danger of a breakdown in the social contract between the Europe’s institutions of governance and its citizens that could endanger the future of the European project. To claim that this is exclusively, or even primarily, the fault of the institutions alone, however, is arrant nonsense. Both the Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties were agreed by the governments of the member states as well as the directly elected European Parliament and so carried, by definition, democratic legitimacy for all those who claim to believe in
17
representative democracy. The essential problem is the failure of governments in all member states to engage citizens in an understanding of both the objectives and the process of European integration. Whereas the populations of the original six member states knew exactly why a European Community was critical to a Europe devastated twice within fifty years by catastrophic wars, today’s European citizens have not been made aware of the real threats to their security which, if not addressed in a unified and coherent way, could lead to equally devastating results. Never before have we faced so many issues that threaten our very survival if not tackled collectively. Foremost is climate change. Europe’s lead on this issue, especially in the Kyoto and post Kyoto negotiating processes has been of fundamental importance in driving forward international agreement. It is a prime example of how the European Union is able to use ‘soft power’ – its economic strength, negotiating skills and recognition of the importance of the rule of law - to achieve global results. Robert Kagan famously suggested that, on major strategic and international questions today, “Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They often emphasise process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.”
This approach is more crucial than ever when dealing with a whole raft of security issues. Never has there been a greater need for a unified and coherent European foreign policy. The Lisbon Treaty contained provisions designed to create a more unified foreign policy by strengthening the role of the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy and providing whoever was appointed with a ‘far reaching support system , including a policy unit to provide assessments and early warnings of crisis situations, a political and security committee and a military committee”. This did not go far enough but it was an important step forward. At the very least, had it been in operation a decade ago it might have helped to avoid Britain’s greatest foreign policy catastrophe in fifty years – the invasion of Iraq! Seen in this context, the Irish referendum result is in danger of damaging the opportunity Europe has to both safeguard its own interests and build a safer world. Is there a way forward? I would suggest that a way forward that could bring an end to the endless wrangling that has consumed so much energy could be, ironically, the calling of one more referendum asking all European citizens to decide whether or not they wished to be part of a European Union with certain clearly defined goals. If some countries, including the UK, voted to leave, that would be respected but, from then on, the legitimacy of the co-decision making process of the of the European institutions would be accepted. Change, when necessary, would come through the representative democratic process and not through the false populism of referenda. Europe might then be able to play its full role in guaranteeing its own and global security.
Peter Luff is Chairman of The European Movement UK. For more information, visit: www.euromove.org.uk.
“
The Irish referendum result is in danfger of damaging the opportunity Europe has to both saeguard its own interests and build a safer world.
”
anticipations
PANIC ON THE STREETS OF YAOUNDE
Graham Bamborough with a personal account of security in Cameroon
T Graham Bamborough is a member of the Young Fabians.
“
In the weeks that followed I would become accustomed to producing my papers on a near daily basis.
”
he temperature had just reached the unbearable pinnacle of the high thirties when we hit our first check point. A soldier brandishing an AK47 rifle had hopped onto the minibus and promptly ordered everyone to step out into the suffocating heat of the midday sun. I had been in the Central African country of Cameroon for only twenty-four hours and slightly confused by the language barrier found that I was standing by the roadside handing my passport over to a less than welcoming policeman. After a fruitless few moments during which he examined and re-examined the stamps that lay within I seized the initiative and, suspecting he couldn’t decode the required information thanks to a bout of illiteracy, directed him towards the relevant visa page that he had passed over on three occasions already. Satisfied I was permitted to be in the country he waved me through, and so after walking across the road block that bore more resemblance to a hastily constructed child’s bonfire than an official check point, waited as my fellow passengers had their identification cards examined. This was to be the first of three such stoppages on my trip from Douala to the capital Yaounde, stretching out what should have been a three hour journey to nearer four and a half. In the weeks that followed I would become accustomed to producing my papers on a near daily basis, be it high in the mountains whilst travelling between Bamenda and Bafoussam in the rural west of the country, or after being hauled out of a taxi in the capital city during the dead of night. On that occasion I was un-
able to produce my passport having foolishly judged that a UK driving licence would be enough to satisfy the insatiably greedy police officers and soldiers that manned the check points. Threatened with a night in the local station by a Kalashnikov toting militiaman, my travelling companion and I decided that a 3000 CAF bribe (£3.20) was a fair price for our liberty. The reason behind the over bearing security situation were a series of riots that had erupted across the country in the weeks preceding my arrival. Unhappy with the rising cost of living and despotic rule of the dictatorial Paul Biya, Cameroonians had taken to the streets. The ensuing violence and police response that followed left between twenty and fifty protestors dead, but in the longer run resulted in a schizophrenic President throwing a tight security net across the whole of the country. ID cards were to be produced on demand, freedom of travel curtailed and opposition leaders clamped down on. In a classic case of African politics the rights of the Cameroonian people were further down graded to preserve the ‘stability’ of the nation, and conversely, the lifespan of the Dear Leader. A week into my trip and I found myself talking politics over dinner with a group of local Doctors. After politely informing my hosts that contrary to their suspicions I wasn’t as a lobbyist in Westminster permitted to bribe my way through the relevant government ministries, I pushed the conversation towards the fall out from the protests and the incessant requirement to prove ones
identity. Just as my dinner companions were interested to learn that bribery wasn’t an accepted practice in UK politics, they were also keen to here my take on the check points and ID cards. ‘So do you not have these in your country?’ one of them asked genuinely. Like I had been quick to assert the transparency of my profession back in London, I politely informed him that in Britain the police did not have the power to haul a person from a taxi simply for not proving their identity, and that the check points I had endured throughout my stay were an alien concept on the English high street. On my flight back to Gatwick however I began to wonder if this would always be the case. Apparently enlightened we in the UK of course abolished ID cards along with ration books and capital punishment, and yet here in the twenty-first century we stand patiently awaiting the reintroduction of the identity paper. Under the current timetable 200,000 UK airport workers will be issued with ID cards as a condition of employment as of next Spring, with students encouraged to sign up to a card, finger prints and all, from 2010. In face of growing opposition the government has moved away from compulsion in favour of an initial voluntary scheme, but Labour has confirmed that if victory is ours at the next election, legislation will be brought forward to make the ID card a compulsory fixture in the nation’s wallets. This will help us gain easier access to benefits and services, argue proponents. They will keep illegal immigrants and the huddled masses out of our labour market.
18
SECURITY
ID cards will even protect us from the Islamic evil-doers that currently lurk on each street corner and under every minaret. They will prevent identity theft, right up to the point that a HMRC employee in Sunderland loses the disk with your finger prints and address saved on it. Hell, ID cards will even come smelling of a fragrance of your choice, in order to keep the bearer’s wallet or purse in tip-top condition. And with the London School of Economics estimating an initial cost of £10 billion to introduce and maintain the programme, perhaps they should. Let us be honest here, the government’s record of introducing such a complex and expensive scheme is far from impressive.
the threats it hopes to tackle. Ambiguity also surrounds quite how the project will work. There is no use in issuing people with a card that can sit in the bedside drawer next to outdated warranty agreements. If an aspiring suicide bomber is asked to produce their ID card at a nearby police station within seven days of a run in with the Old Bill, do the government really expect them to dutifully drop in and admit to living illegally under a false name? In addition visitors to the UK who upon arrival claim to be staying for less than three months will not be issued with a card, whilst it remains to be seen how the scheme will be used in Scotland. Due to these gaping holes in the programme any scheme
Spiralling costs and delays to the new NHS computer system, the roll out of Tax Credits and of course loss of fifteen million Child Benefit accounts suggest that implementation will be far from seamless. Perhaps government Ministers are seduced by Honda’s advertising slogan ‘Difficult is Worth Doing’, but when we’re talking about billions of pounds of public money and information of incredible sensitivity, the scheme could very well end up becoming a more expensive security risk than
would be an expensive waste of public money. In order then for ID cards to prevent terrorists from slipping through the dragnet they will have to be deployed in a more authoritarian manner; permanently about the person and producible on demand. The government of course knows this. If a person has committed no crime however then it is nobody’s business but their own what their name is, where they live and what their finger prints look like. It should also never be a
19
“
The domestic legacy of the Labour government should be lower class sizes, years of economic prosperity, and a transformed NHS, yet when historians look back at our time in office it could be the wrong reasons that resonate most heavily through the corridors of time.
crime to be unable to prove ones’ identity. Yet the government seems to think that the often exaggerated threat of terrorism justifies whatever draconian action takes fancy. Once we open the floodgates and stamp everyone with a barcode, where do we draw the line? Whilst it seems fanciful to suggest that Cameroonian
style road blocks are destined for a high street near you, it is certainly not hard to envisage over bearing police officers demanding identification from people simply because they don’t like the look of them. Imagine then that there is an outbreak of civil unrest, such as the race riots that engulfed much of the north in 2002. Why not set up roadblocks to track down the rioters in the wake of the violence, checking the identification of everyone in the area to cross reference finger prints? Before we
”
know it we could wake up in George Orwell novel, with our biometric data stored and checked by the government to make sure we haven’t been up to no good. I would perhaps dismiss this vision as fantasy if it wasn’t for Labour’s far from unblemished track record on civil liberties. Whilst the Human Rights Act may have been an early triumph for the government much of this good work has been undone by its heavy handed response to September 11th and the July London Bombings. At present Britons can be detained by their own government and held without charge longer than most other citizens of the EU, and if the Home Secretary has her way this time period will be extended to a staggering forty two days. The domestic legacy of the Labour government should be lower class sizes, years of economic prosperity and a transformed NHS, yet when historians look back at our time in office it could be the wrong reasons that resonate most heavily through the corridors of time. We have already eroded the eight hundred year old protection from detention without trial, please Labour, don’t brand British citizens with barcodes too. Photos by Lucy Johnston.
anticipations
HUMAN LEAGUE
The power of networks to provide a sense of security amongst humanity cannot be understated, suggests Rachel Bell
“F Rachel Bell is a member of the Young Fabians
“
Human security is not about complete protection from the unwanted, but it is about the collective provision of securities that we could not build in isolation.
”
reedom from fear and freedom from want.” This is the core aspiration of the Human Security Network, a diverse alliance of states drawn from Canada and Costa Rica to Slovenia and Switzerland. Drafted in 1999, the vision has extensive parallels with – and is in many ways a more ambitious version of – the dream of the welfare state: essentially that human collective action can eliminate fears of want, squalor and disease. In the hours, days and weeks after the Sichuan earthquake the global network of collaborative interdependence swung into action. Internet donation systems were established, global leaders exchanged phone calls, emergency food provisions were purchased, earthquake rescue teams were on airplanes, journalists were raising awareness, Chinese citizens from distant provinces were volunteering time and money to the relief effort, and so on. Pause a moment to consider the complex interaction of these efforts. Moved by television images shot by tourists on mobile phones, broadcast on lunchtime news, a British office worker can donate money online to an aid agency which transfers money to relief workers in Chengdu, who get blankets loaded onto a lorry which before long is answering some of the basic needs of hundreds of families who have lost their homes and shelter. Like Bevan’s NHS which never promised freedom from illness, this international network cannot offer complete protection from natural disaster but our sophisticated networks of interdependence do at least offer a degree of hope and security in the face of disaster. Human security is not about complete protection from the unwanted, but it is about the collective provision of securities
that we could not build in isolation. At the macro level international collaboration offers the prospect of greater protection from large scale disasters whether through tsunami warning systems or the development of vaccines for avian flu; at the micro level the scientific-industrial-medical complex offers protection against the diseases that strike us individually. The scientific-political-technical-administrative network of preparedness and interdependence quite literally equips us to be the answer to prayers which in the past could only be addressed to God. As Oxfam recently claimed in their recent report Rethinking Disasters, today “death and destruction is not nature’s fault but human failure”. Quite so, and despite the global reach of global human security systems countless millions still fall through. It is problems of human decision and human relationship that continue to stand in the way of the dream of human security through collaboration. The comparison between China and Burma, of course is the obvious example, if somewhat unrepresentative in scale. Admittedly relief distribution is flawed and inadequate, but it is clear beyond question that a prompt and unrestricted relief mission to Burma would have saved countless lives and mitigated much suffering. The essential difference between China and Burma was not one of infrastructure but relationship. Chinese officials collaborated with the international community, recognising that it is an interdependent member of the global human security network. By contrast, Burmese officials choose to block and resist the credible international offers of support for its flooded population. Like with global catastrophe and international diplomacy,
consider the dream of human security at the local level. According to a BBC poll 58 per cent of teenagers in the London boroughs of Croydon, Brent, Hackney, Southwark and Lambeth believe the police are unable to protect them from serious crime, and 62 per cent worry about others carrying knives. This too could be different. A recent IPPR report on youth crime notes that low levels of ‘collective efficacy’ are associated with antisocial behaviour and that “[s]omewhere along the way the belief that it is the moral responsibility of adults to socialise the young has been lost”. Their suggested solutions to this were meagre; the best was a system of reward schemes for community champions – but who seriously imagines that anyone will be transformed into a community champion by the hope of being honoured at some ill-attended meeting? Margaret Thatcher reportedly expressed disappointment to Frank Field that her radical taxcutting strategy had not lead to a rebirth of a giving in Britain. Tempting as it may be from the left to laugh at her naïve faith that people would be so innately altruistic, it is striking to realise that our political and technical networks of collaborative security provision ultimately depend on simple human choices to collaborate, to give time, to give money, and to trust the community enough to take personal risks. If human security depends on a network of interdependent trust and provision then, more often than not, a sufficient number among us are prepared to take the strain. But the will to collaborate or to trust is strangely recalcitrant, and when it fails sophisticated technological or administrative infrastructures can be rendered impotent.
20
OTHER ISSUES
TOWARDS A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT
The old nation state is being superceded by the European sphere, writes Jan Mortier
I
n a Globalised World, the unwritten and written social contracts between the European states and the citizenry have become null and void. The very concept of the relationship between the state, its powers and responsibilities and that of the citizen and their rights and social justices have changed beyond all recognition since the modern Westphalian state came into being in 1648. The eras of industrialisation through to the post Second World War period and the exponential epoch of globalisation after the Cold War have seen the rise of a new world order; one characterised by a simultaneous ascendancy of the legal enshrinement of human rights, a new interconnection of peoples and community networks, along with new global risks and instabilities that the state cannot retreat from. Traditional state structures are incapable of dealing with the challenges of the globalised world. European states are racing to catch up with the governance gap in globalisation; so many of the functions and powers traditionally associated with a state are now undertaken by the evolving mechanisms of the European Union. The post-industrial latetwentieth century has given rise to new forms of governance in the European space. Government is out and networked governance is in. Local and supranational spheres of governance seem more relevant to public policy than the traditional sphere that was the state. The question then arises: where does this leave the citizen, their place in the globalised world, and, in particular, in the European social space?
21
Globalisation, the rise of human rights norms, the political empowering of individuals and communities, and the radical changes in the nature of the state and modern governance, have altered the relationship between the citizen and the state. The relationship between the citizen and the European level is still not defined. This means that the old social contract has evaporated and today there is a vacuum where once there was certainty. The social contract of the old paradigm required that the citizen was beholden to the state through taxation and sacrifice; in return there was a specified provision of security, stability and a duty of care that the citizen could expect from the state. A citizen could expect a redistribution of income within the state’s economy that would ensure a living-income from a pension during old age; the right to an education at no further cost beyond standard taxation; healthcare; the right to a home; and an opportunity to progress within society. Most of all, the state would have a duty of care to the most disadvantaged in society. All of these freedoms and rights were fought for and won by the citizenry from the power of the state. All of this has now changed; the economy of the state has become merely a small and diffuse part of the global interdependent economy, within which no state can any longer hold sway over or close its borders. The citizen and their communities have been both empowered and disempowered by the state’s reaction to the globalised era. The state’s inability to address this world has allowed social justice to be swept away.
Today in Britain, we have “a social justice gap”. This gap is increasing. The promise of globalisation - “prosperity for all” - has not been fulfilled for the majority of the world’s population. And in our case, a large sector of the British population has also been left behind. Britain has seen an increase in social injustice not a decrease.; citizens, who in time of declaration of war, can still be summoned by the state to sacrifice their lives for the state, and must pay taxation to the state, are now told not to expect that the state will be able to afford to care for them in their old age; that healthcare and education should come at further cost in addition to the general taxation arrangement. Housing is now priced beyond the means of the average citizen. The most disadvantaged are no longer housed by councils, who conceal the true scale of the problem that began when the publicly owned social housing stock was sold and the funds not re-invested in new housing as promised at the time. In our progressive society, why is it that twenty-one year olds are sleeping on the streets of Shaftsbury Avenue during the height of winter? And the vulnerable aged, are cycled through a system that hospitalises, then discharges into the community without concern for what happens to the person afterward? Those who do enter the state care system have to suffer the indignity of nursing homes often understaffed with a ratio of only two care staff to every eighty patients. Contrast this to the Eastern social arrangement where it is customary that the family, often in impoverished conditions, will look after their aged in their own home right to the end of their
Jan Mortier is a member of the Young Fabians. He is Executive Director of think-tank Civitatis International.
“
Whereas the fountain of policy ideas for those in compulsory education has gushed forth incessantly, the trickle of change in adult education has slowed to a drop
”
anticipations
“
The old Social Contract is all but dead in name. To redress this imbalance caused by the processes of gobalisation, the answer does not lie in rolling back history...but must lie at the level of a new European political sphere.
�
life. On the other end of the spectrum, the American social model that has introduced market economics wholesale into the social care system, has produced a society that in 2005 left 46.6 million people without health insurance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Of that number, 8.3 million are children. In America, healthcare as we know it in Europe - free at the point of delivery and at no further cost beyond standard taxation - is granted only to children up to the age of two years old. In Europe could we ever imagine such social inequality on such a vast scale? We in the central West currently maintain a society where the family and community abrogates responsibility of care of the elderly as soon as they are no longer economically productive. We must at least have a social care system that respects the dignity of the individual, rather than strips it. Freedom and liberty are so much more than just the market and constitutions. Freedom is the sum of all the social and historical arrangements, rights, duties, responsibilities and customs that affect the individual and their community throughout the human life cycle and the multidimensional interaction between the many levels of authority from the sovereign citizen to the sovereign state and beyond during that cycle
of life experience in the postmodern world. The old Social Contract is all but dead in name. To redress this imbalance caused by the processes of globalisation, the answer does not lie in rolling back history, by throwing up state barriers to the globalised world, but rather in an acknowledgement that the state in the current era, is incapable of effecting change to redress this imbalance; states have had to pool their efforts to create a new space in which to govern once again. The answer therefore, at least for us, must lie at the level of a new European political sphere. It is there, at the European level, that we must seek to define a new Social Contract by defining a European social model. One that takes account of the paradigm shift in the rights of man against the rights of nature based on the theories of Locke, Bentham, Freidman and Paine. One that has produced a global social arrangement that prizes the frontier/pioneer concept of ownership of nature over a concept of stewardship and responsibility, for the care of nature and duty to succeeding generations. We should define a pan-European model of progressive social justice and discern a commonality of shared social and human values. The goal would be to define a European minimum stand-
ard of a duty of care that a citizen can expect as a human right, and that should be provided to them from their respective member state. We cannot yet legislate for effective and meaningful rights for the whole world, but we do have the capacity now, to legislate for these rights in the European Space. This would be a new Social Contract that would reassert the rights of the individual and communities within the new European political and social sphere as a means of overcoming the inadequacies of individual states in ensuring true social justice and the citizen’s right to human dignity. Governance at the European, national and local level should operate to a shared standard: a duty of care to the citizen and community. It should be implemented by all EU states, monitored and enforced, as is the case with the European system of Human Rights, through a process based on the principle of Acquis Communautaire. The project would, in effect, enforce a European minimum standard of the duty of care that a European member state has to its citizens, and should be a benchmark that Britain should live up to. It would be the basis of a new Social Contract, between the citizen, their community, the European political sphere and our British state.
22
OTHER ISSUES
CHANGE EU CAN BELIEVE IN
The institutions of the European Union should be harnessed for social good, argues Mark Anderson
I
n this economically globalised world, divided as it is into nation-states, it is the business community which holds the levers of power. Free trade and the opening-up of capital markets have allowed businesses to move freely around the world, investing in those countries whose fiscal and legal regimes suit them best. This marketisation of nation-states has, over the last 50 years, transformed the role of national governments. Today, governments are principally in the business of attracting and retaining inward investment and ensuring that the indigenous business community does not migrate elsewhere. This politico-economic matrix pits nationstate against nation-state, each one trying to make itself more business-friendly than the next. An ultra-competitive global marketplace has been established – one in which business investors shop around for the best deal, haggling as they go. This has stimulated a race to the bottom in which governments, aiming to out-do their neighbours, lower taxes, deregulate, privatise and open up their labour markets in the hope of attracting the latest roving multinational flashing its wares. This situation is, of course, very good for business - lower taxes and increased labour market flexibility, for example, mean greater profits and enable businesses to respond more effectively to market forces. The changes which capitalist countries have undergone over recent decades have been less kind to many ordinary people, however. Lower taxes mean less money spent on education, health, public transport and social security. Increased labour market flexibility leads to greater job insecurity and worsening workplace conditions. Yet the sort of policies which are necessary for developing a
23
more egalitarian society never materialise at national level. The European Union institutions, however, have, over the last several decades, been passing laws relating to equality in the workplace, health and safety in the workplace and environmental protection which have served to increase equality and improve both working conditions and the environment. Because of inter-state competition and the cost implications that such laws have for industry, individual nation-states acting alone would struggle to pass the sort of laws that are passed regularly at EU level. The area of environmental protection provides a perfect example of how the EU 27 nations acting in concert can implement the sort of progressive policies which defy the will of the business community. The vast majority of environmental protection laws that are in effect in the UK originate in Brussels. The EU has, over the years, passed hundreds of laws in the area of environmental protection and, as a result, we have cleaner air, rivers, lakes and beaches than ever before in modern times. Most of these laws – such as those relating to waste management – have cost implications for industry: in order to comply with them, money has to be spent treating waste, disposing of chemicals safely, etc. If the business lobby had had its way, few, if any, of these laws would have been passed. Imagine, now, a world in which the EU does not exist. Imagine that the UK and other European nations today had the same environmental protection laws that were in place 50 years ago. Imagine that a British government, acting alone, were to propose passing the sort of stringent environmental protection laws that are in place today throughout the EU. What would happen if the government were to propose such laws, bearing in
mind the cost implications that such laws have for businesses? The corporate media may have a financial interest in seeing that such regulatory laws were not passed. Businesses would make it clear to the government that if such environmental laws were passed, they would move their operations to a competitor nation where they would not have to bear the costs of complying with such laws. Faced with this sort of political and economic pressure, governments would step back from passing such laws, and environmental degradation would continue apace. The (understandable) fear that governments have of losing-out on business investment, and the ability of the media and the business community to shape government policy, should not be underestimated. Legislators are not faced with such dilemmas, however, when it comes to passing legislation at the EU level. For a myriad of reasons, the media does little to pressurise European legislators into taking policy in a particular direction. More importantly, passing laws at EU level (and thereby creating a level playing field in which the same rules have to be observed by all economic actors throughout the bloc) means being able to pull the rug from under the feet of roving business investors. Within the confines of the EU, there is no scope for businesses to choose which member state to invest in on the basis of which member state has the least financially onerous environmental protection rules: the rules remain the same whichever member state they invest in. By harmonising environmental protection rules at an EU level, the politico-economic matrix which in areas such as trade union law and corporation tax has led to a race to the
Mark Anderson is a member of the Young Fabians.
“
An ultra-competitive gobal marketplace has stimulated a race to the bottom in which governments, aiming to out-do their neighbours by lowering taxes, deregulating and privitising.
”
anticipations
“
Greater harmonising of employment law at the EU level would make it easier to ensure a greater level of job security for workers and would make it possible to restore some of the bargaining power which trade unions in many European countries have lost over the years.
”
bottom throughout the world has, in so far as environmental law is concerned, been banished from the EU. In the area of environmental protection, the message to the business community is clear: if you want access to the largest internal market in the world, you must respect our rules. Creating a level playing field within the EU in the area of environmental law does not, of course, eliminate the fact that those businesses which are most dissatisfied with the obligations that European environmental laws place upon them can always move their operation to another part of the world where such obligations do not have to be met. The fact is, however, that the EU represents the largest internal market in the world and provides businesses with enormous profit-making opportunities. For most businesses, faced with the prospect of having to comply with environmental protection obligations and the question of whether to invest in the EU or not, staying outside the EU altogether is often not financially expedient. Harmonising environmental law at EU level empowers member states, freeing them from their fear of the business community and the political and economic consequences of passing those progressive laws desired by voters. The harmonisation of environmental law at EU level pro-
vides a model for how this politico-economic matrix (which gives such succour to business interests) can be bypassed in other policy areas so as to develop the sorts of progressive, leftwing policies needed in the fight against exclusion and inequality and which nations-states, when acting alone, struggle to get off the drawing board. Harmonising income tax at EU level would make it easier to develop a more progressive income tax system. The same is true with regards corporation tax. Concerted EU action would make it far easier to tackle tax evasion, close tax loopholes, limit the availability of offshorebanking and influence the operations of tax havens and low tax economies around Europe and further a-field. Greater harmonising of employment law at EU level would make it easier to ensure a greater level of job security for workers and would make it possible to restore some of the bargaining power which trade unions in many European countries have lost over the years. Harmonisation – removing those divisions which allow businesses to play EU nations off against each other – enables policy-makers to put the interests of citizens at the heart of policy-making. The greater the number of institutions with tax-setting and employment-law setting powers, the easier it is for businesses to play these institutions off against each other and the easier it is for them to get the low taxes and the flexible labour markets that they desire and which have such detrimental effects on the most disadvantaged people in society. The fewer the institutions with these legislative powers, the easier it is to re-address the agenda-setting balance-of-power between government and business. What, after all, should the
principle role of the various national governments of the EU be? Harmonisation would make it easier to develop progressive employment laws, and make it easier to implement the type of progressive tax system needed to fund schools, hospitals, public transport and social security at levels commensurate with the needs of a modern, complex and civilised society. Instead of competing on the basis of who can provide businesses with the most attractive tax and employment regimes, should it not be the role of national governments to compete with each other on the basis of which state is capable of delivering the best public-services? Furthermore, faced with having to operate under the same tax and employment rules throughout the EU, businesses would be forced to focus their efforts not on maximising profits through investing in those European countries with the most favourable tax and employment regimes, but on delivering excellence, efficiency and innovation. Under such conditions, European businesses would soon become world-beaters. If, as progressives, we can begin to engage in meaningful debate as to the opportunities that European integration provides and then muster the confidence to take the pro-European case to the public, we will be a few steps closer to realising the true potential of the democratic left. Social democracy is founded on the principle of internationalism – the idea that it is only by acting together that a better world can be shaped. European integration provides a model for other regions of the world and nourishes the hope that the dream of international solidarity can one day be realised. It is time for the democratic left to raise aloft, with purpose and conviction, the banner of internationalism.
24
OTHER ISSUES
STATE OF THE UNION
Unions could more effectively represent their members by embracing the information age, argues Alex Baker
T
he decline in union membership is often blamed, in more or less vitriolic terms, on Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s. This is a plausible account: union membership stood at 13.2 million in 1979 and now stands at less than half that amount. Yet, the decline of British union membership has continued for almost twenty years unabated. This cannot be solely the result of labour reforms in the 1980s; indeed, as each year passes, it is increasingly testament to the fact unions have failed to properly adapt to changes in the world around them. The power of the internet to affect change has yet to be harnessed by these monoliths of labour representation. The internet offers unions a huge and unprecedented opportunity to facilitate effective wage-bargaining for their members, but requires a radical change in thinking by union bosses and their consituents alike. My suggestion is for unions to set up their own social networking websites, similar to Facebook and MySpace. These sites could be a space where their members can share information with each other about pay and conditions. It would be an space where they could highlight issues that span workplaces, and begin campaigns for change. In essence, it could facilitate many of the tasks unions currently perform for its members. Most crucially, however, is the sharing of information on pay and benefits. A social networking site would allow individuals who would otherwise never meet, but who nonetheless work in similar jobs, to build a relationship which allows them to put their own remuneration into its proper context. Armed with this information, individuals can then themselves negotiate their own pay settlements, instead of relying on umbrella agreements that come
25
from the collective wage-bargaining process. This ‘do-it-yourself’ benchmarking process could be a dangerous weapon in the armory of the worker, precisely because it undermines their exploitative power: their monopoly on such information. The idea that the internet can be used as an effective tool by unions is informed by economic theory. In particular: the positive benefits of using networks to diseminate information, as well the potential for decentralized wage-bargaining to achieve better results. In 1988, two economists - Lars Calmfors and John Driffil - suggested that wage bargaining was most effectively achieved when union concentration was either low or high. Here success is measured by the extent to which wage increases are not passed on through higher prices (i.e. that they are ‘real’ gains) or unemployment. With high union concentration, a single monopolistic firm acts on behalf of workers across the entire economy. Thus wagebargaining will take into account the potential negative impact for the rest of the union’s membership across the economy as a whole. With low union concentration, there is sufficient competition between unions to limit the extent to which wage-bargining leads to increases in the prices of goods; the competition between unions moderates wage settlements. The worst case scenario is where unions are concentrated at the industry level; here wagebargaining can have negative impacts on prices for those workers outside the industry. From the 1980s to today, we have increasingly been moving from an industry-level concentration of unions to a high, economy-wide concentration of unions, as is evidences by the
creation of ‘super-unions’, such as Unite, which bolt together industry-specific unions (and more recently some have added an international dimension through partnerships with unions overseas). Yet the widespread disemination of information on pay and conditions would essentially move us to the other extreme; where we are all our own miniunions. This model is consistent with low-union density, and therefore ensures that the negative effects of any one individual’s (union’s) pay demands on other workers are moderated. The gains on aggregate across all workers could be higher than is currently achieved by a centralised wage-bargaining process. Of course, this model of wage negotiation is not without its problems; there could be significant distributional effects amongst workers (i.e. some may be better than others at using such information for their own ends). Although this is not fatal to the idea, it would require effective policies to redress any such imbalances. What is certainly true is that the current model of merging union into union is not having the desired effect of stemming the flow of members out of the door. Unions have to fundamentally reassess their purpose and relevance in the modern economic environment, and may need to accept that the current model is not the best for delivering their objectives. Social networking platforms are just one potential solution - one in which unions take a passive role in facilitating wage-bargaining. I daresay the suggestion would be ridiculed by some union bosses. But these union bosses will soon themselves be unemployed if they don’t take effective action. And they would find it difficult to blame Margaret Thatcher for that.
Alex Baker is Editor of Anticipations
“
The current model of merging union into union is not having the desired effect of stemming the flow of members out of the door.
”
anticipations
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
26
P M B E U E • W P U L F L M O S F F P T W U U
PORTUNITY•DEMOCRATISATION•PUBLIC S IN THE 2008 LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE MUNITY•EDUCATION•PUBLIC SERVICES•W EDITION OF ANTICIPATIONS: BLIC SERVICES•PROGRESS•EDUCATION•CO EQUALITY•SOCIAL JUSTICE•OPPORTUNITY UCATION•PUBLIC SERVICES•COMMUNITY EMOCRATISATION•FROM•PROGRESS•EQU •SOCIAL JUSTICE•EDUCATION•EQUALITY WELFARE•COMMUNITY•FULL EMPLOYMEN PORTUNITY•VALUES•DEMOCRATISATION• ULITLATERALISM•FREEDOM•RIGHTS•WELFA LIC SERVICES•PROGRESS•EDUCATION•CO FREEDOM•WELFARE•EQUALITY•OPPORTUN LOYMENT•RIGHTS•TO•MULTILATERALISM• MUNITY•EDUCATION•PUBLIC SERVICES•W OPPORTUNITY•PROGRESS•FAIRNESS•FULL S•SOCIAL JUSTICE•VICTORY•FREE TRADE• FARE•EQUALITY•RIGHTS•FREEDOM•COMM FREEDOM•WELFARE•EQUALITY•OPPORTUN PLOYMENT•EDUCATION•MULTILATERALISM WHAT SORT OF PARTY DOES LABOUR NEED TO BE TO WIN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION? TUNITY•PROGRESS•FAIRNESS•FULL EMPLO WELFARE•MULITLATERALISM•FREEDOM•RIG UALITY•SOCIAL JUSTICE•OPPORTUNITY•EM UBLIC SERVICES•PROGRESS•EDUCATION•C email your idea/article to anticipations@youngfabians.org.uk by Friday August 22nd 2008