British withdrawal from ECHR suggests ad-hoc committment to human rights

Britain's proposed temporary withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, based on the case of the radical Islamist Abu Qatada, is an aberration that flies in the face of what the ECHR represents. The convention is there in the event that an individual who feels that his or her human rights have been violated has a higher body to go to in order to air their grievance, and removing this on a temporary basis suggests that the UK wishes to have this mechanism in place when it is convenient for appearance's sake, and to remove it when it feels there is a fundamental need to do so.

This undermines the very core of what human rights is about, and suggests that the UK feels it is above the capacity to abuse someone's human rights. This is certainly not the case - as we have seen in many countries, including Burma, Tibet, Belarus, and even the USA, a state can often be the most violent perpetrator of human rights abuses, and certainly does not act as a protector against those who would deny fundamental rights. Yes, there are occasions when the human rights of someone who has abused human rights themselves comes into question, especially where the national security of a state is a concern. However, Abu Qatada is certainly not the only person who presents a danger to the people of Britain, and to remove the mechanism, even temporarily, leaves the people of the UK (of all nationalities) open to abuse and a breach of their rights.

What needs to be done is to ensure that Abu Qatada is given a trial and a sentence, rather than leaving him to languish in imprisonment. What he has done may be a profound international issue, but a basic right should be to give everyone who is considered guilty of such a serious crime a fair trial in an open and democratic court of law. Where this is not possible in one's own country, it should be carried out in a country that follows this rule of law and is a signatory to human rights agreements at the international level. Abandoning such an important, and necessary agreement as the European Convention of Human Rights on a temporary basis is not, and will never be, the answer. Such behaviour should lead to an outcry of rage from UN and EU member states that do believe in justice in a fair and humanistic manner.

Supermarket pull-out in the US and Japan is a green relief

The news that the large retail supermarket Tesco is to pull out of the US after never having made a profit, as well as Japan, is refreshing news for local businesses and organisations. It is also said to be planning to take "a more measured approach to growth in China." The fact that the company has said this is a clear sign that it has recognised that the policy of significant and excessive expansion in as short a time as possible is not profitable, and certainly not good for society. It simply leads to a surfeit of stores all owned by the same firm, resulting in a lack of choice and diversity, and leads to a 'standardised' service that is at the expense of more intimate and personal local stores.

Tesco's departure will leave the way open for newer, local businesses to take their place, ideally run by local people who can have a say in the way their supermarket is run and the items it stocks so as best to meet their needs. Yes, Tesco may make individual concessions to local demand - the products it sells in Japan, for instance, will not be the same as those it sells in China or the US - but what Tesco offers is an identikit formula for each of it's stores that does not offer a unique or interesting shopping experience.

It might be argued that some people want a familiar, uncomplicated shopping experience at the end of a hard day's work, but the benefits of a firm being owned and managed locally is that those who are responsible for it can be more responsive to local needs and business conditions. This negates the need for regional, national or even globally-based managers to get on a plane to come and see how business is going for themselves, or else plan the business strategy for a store of lesser value at a distance, i.e. central planning. It is highly unlikely that every store or service can be given the attention it deserves in line with the needs of the local community at a distance, and this is the same for almost every other store or service one needs today. The loss of Tesco is not something to be lamented, but celebrated as an opportunity for local business ventures to make themselves known.

Boston bombing a tragic disaster

The explosion of two bombs in Boston shortly following a marathon is a tragic incident, and one that suggests the 'war on terror', so diplomatically uttered by Bush in another era, is far from over. Of course, no one knows whether this is yet an act of terror, but it certainly bears the hallmarks of one, targeting as it does a major US city and endangering the lives of individual civilians who were not in the least responsible for any bad treatment as perceived by nationals of certain other groups.

The real question is why has this occurred? The usual sentiment that it is a expression of dissatisfaction and even resentment of Western policies towards countries such as (for example) Iran and Afghanistan simply does not ring true. How can any collective group of individuals following a particular ideology or way of life hope to bargain with those they see as their oppressors by detonating a bomb that results in the needless death of innocent people?

The answer is that those responsible do not wish to bargain. They simply wish to demonstrate their power to destroy and intimidate. In this they have been successful, but what they have not been successful in is opening a platform for dialogue. Any sane person (and yes, this includes terrorists, as they know exactly what they are doing) knows that the structure of the international system is not going to be changed by perpetrating such a hideous and distasteful act. What they must realise is that the US (among other Western countries) does not forcibly wish to impose a Western way of life on them, but is seeking to instil the values of democracy and freedom that create a platform for peace.

Of course, this is not a wholly selfless form of action, with its links to wider economic growth and the potential for business expansion it offers, but it is far more preferable than the methods used yesterday in Boston. It should be noted that I don't think war with certain countries is or has been any kind of legitimate act in the past, nor is it now, but it is the persons responsible for committing wrong deeds that should be held to account for their crimes in a court of law, not innocent civilians or current leaders. May those killed in Boston rest in peace.

China vs Korea - a clear partnership?

One of the big political questions at the moment is, should North Korea actually end up in a full scale war with South Korea, whether China will stand by it's ideological ally, or will it forego this role so as not to ruffle the West's feathers? This is none too likely given the myriad of economic and business connections that it is involved in with numerous Western countries. This is an intriguing question and certainly one that should be carefully considered. It is tempting to say that China would not stand by North Korea, and it has already shown a certain unwillingness, even disdain, for North Korea's self-asserted role as challenger to the US and South Korea. But why is this the case?

For one thing, North Korea and China are only allies in ideological terms. China has much that North Korea might want, such as significant economic success and financial aid, but the reverse is not true - North Korea has nothing to offer China in terms of material wealth and resources, and China knows this well. It is thus exploiting it's ideological link with North Korea to keep a country that is on it's south-eastern border on favourable terms and not have it as yet another target in the country's battle with the whole of the Western world. Although North Korea could not feasibly pose a threat to China's economic and military security, it could cause difficulties for it, and this is something which China would, sensibly, wish to avoid.

The real reason China would not come to North Korea's aid is that it simply has too much business with the West. The whole reason for China's economic success has been it's level of imports and business which tie it to Western countries interests, and to side with North Korea in the event of all-out war would lead to severe sanctions and a limit to it's continued growth, as well as adversely affecting it's relations with other countries. China knows that taking on the world in a war with North Korea would be politically futile, financially inconceivable and utterly pointless. There is no doubt that a China at war with the West would produce a significantly more worrying enemy than North Korea, but the fact remains that even in the event of World War 3 , China cannot hope to stand up to the US. The thought of such a phenomenon is quite terrifying, but the final thought to consider is to what extent China would risk world peace and stability for the sake of a small under-developed country in it's Far East. This is questionable indeed.

Croatian march over language clash could be a warning

The fact that 20000 Croats marched in Zagreb yesterday, in protest against a plan that would see the Cyrillic alphabet used by Serbs on signs in parts of Croatia, did not receive very much coverage in yesterday's press, amid the more pressing concerns of North Korea, the death of eleven children in a NATO strike in Afghanistan and further unrest in Egypt. However, the fact that this occurred is very significant for the Balkans, and suggests that all is still not well in this small but highly relevant corner of Europe.

Although the demands for bilingual signage in areas where a minority of one third or more of the population might not cause too much of an issue in other parts of Europe, for many Croatians it is a reminder of Serb dominance and the supremacist tendencies that led to the all-out Balkan wars of the 1990's. Although 20 years have passed, for this much passion to be ignited suggests that there are fears that there could be a backslide to the infighting and a push by the Serbians for increased autonomy and dominance in areas where Serbs are a significant minority. This would not be good for the country at all, and particularly not for Europe, as it would see conflict creep ever closer to Western Europe. As such, any decision on this matter should be carefully considered and not rushed into, with any possible dialogue that can occur to take place before any final decision is made.

It is perhaps surprising that language issues can be of such potent political relevance, given that Croatian and Serbian were at one point the same language. However, given that each state in the Balkans has now achieved it's own autonomy, autonomy has also been achieved for the languages involved, with Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and even Montenegrin all having constitutional movements in place that have established, or are attempting to establish themselves as individual languages. Although these languages are all still mutually intelligible, the fact that seemingly simply issues such as this can still cause tension is a warning that this autonomy is of high importance to the citizens themselves, and that all may not be well if tensions increase between the individual communities in question - one to watch? Definitely.

For another view on the politics of language, see:http://lostintranslation19872.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-politics-of-language.html

Scotland's stance on language policy is very welcome

Scotland's investigations into the possibilities for implementing language learning in schools that follow the European model of 1 + 2 languages is a very welcome development. Under this model, all primary school pupils would be learning two languages in addition to their mother tongue by the end of their fifth year. This is essential for the development of able and skilled pupils who live in diverse cultural communities as those that present themselves in our modern society, and for those who wish to be truly mobile in terms of their flexibility to take work overseas, or to contribute to developing overseas links in existing positions in the country.

Although learning only one extra language is undoubtedly beneficial, learning two extra languages is highly admirable, and this is the general standard set for jobs within the European Union or United Nations, with a few notable exceptions. If young people are to contribute to the colourful mosaic that is the European continent, and the world, then languages are going to be needed by everyone in every corner of it. Scotland is leading the way by promoting inclusiveness and offering young people the options they need to compete in today's world. The potential issues to overcome now are which languages to teach, and whether they are universally relevant or should be to some extent tailored to local needs.

What is praiseworthy is that targeting children so young embeds the language in their brains and develops cognitive learning abilities that will be particularly useful later on. They will remember the language more easily than older children (i.e. those in secondary school) and will have a much higher chance of being considered bilingual. Targeting older students with language classes generally leaves them cold and with a mixed ability to learn, as the age at which languages becomes firmly engendered in the brain has come and gone. If they have been learning since early childhood, the chances that they will use and continue to develop the language skills learnt are greatly increased. What remains to be seen now is whether this policy is actually implemented, and how the parents of young children will react to it's place on school curriculums.

Global arms treaty a positive achievement, but caution is needed

The achievement of a global arms trade treaty is indeed a memorable and significant achievement in the history of the United Nations, and for the international system more generally. However, the extent to which it will work in practice is something that will only be seen with time, so it is important not to blow the fanfare too loudly just yet. It was always likely to be fairly predictable which countries would vote in favour, which would abstain and which would vote against, so no real surprises came in the form of vetoes from Iran, North Korea and Syria, nor in Russia's decision to abstain. Russia has vested interests in the global arms trade, but it is also keen not to be seen to challenge the West too much, with which it must also be seen to at least remain on good terms.

North Korea certainly comes as no surprise with it's continuing anti-Western, anti-American rhetoric, and certainly Syria is within it's rights to mention the 'small' issue of non-state terrorist groups, since states are clearly not the only actors involved in the arms trade, nor in many other very significant areas of international affairs. With 154 votes in favour of the agreement, this is certainly a majority, and a majority to be praised, but the 23 abstentions and vetoes that remain suggest that there is still a long way to go, as this is not a small number of states who are in favour of lesser regulation of arms.

Perhaps the real point to mention here, however, is that as historic and admirable as the United Nations achievement is, the reality of reaching a consensus amongst 192 member states is highly impractical and it is unlikely to ever reach an overriding consensus on such important yet controversial matters. Does this detract from the achievement? By no means. For today, and perhaps for the next few days, it is enough to celebrate the historic achievement that has been made. Following on from this, a cautious approach should be adopted that allows the situation to be monitored to see how it plays out. This agreement is a significant one, but it is not the end of the story. The global arms trade still has plenty more acts to follow.

Bankruptcy of small US city is disappointing

The news that a small US city has had to file for bankruptcy due to a decreased tax base is extremely disappointing, but unfortunately a sign of the times. As the world becomes increasingly urbanised, smaller towns, cities and rural areas have, or appear to have, increasingly little to offer, especially for the young seeking employment. The incentives to remain are few as employment and higher living standards, in addition to the culture and lifestyle many young people seek can only be found in the big cities. This is even more relevant to the USA, where the big cities are the true definition of city life due to their large scale. But where does this leave the older generations, and the smaller towns and cities left to try and forge an existence for themselves?

The mass migration of people to larger towns and cities has grave implications for the political, economic, social and cultural make-up of smaller towns and rural areas. First of all, as Stockton in the US has shown, it leaves a place with a much lower amount of tax funds with which to fund local life. It also, to a certain extent, deprives a town of the economic potential it might have based on the lifestyle young people want. In terms of employment, it leaves demand for  what little industry remains, such as agriculture and local services, to fall away, supported by the locals that remain just trying to eke out a living. This is a very sad trend, but one that is unlikely to be reversed any time soon.

So what is the solution? Young people in the UK have recently said that the tide is going against those who do want to stay in their smaller and rural towns and villages, as if they want employment of any repute, they must leave and head to somewhere larger in order to 'make it in the big wide world'. However, isn't it at least possible that the bigger cities within a region or urban conurbation that have a higher level of economic success story could cross-subsidise by putting funding into a smaller town or village? Isn't it possible to provide incentives for young people to move there by building cheap, affordable housing that can be either rented or bought? This could increase the population by encouraging people to stay and build families there. There are many solutions, it's simply a matter of whether national, regional and local governments decide to implement them.