Libya – No fly zones FT 4 March 2011

Libya – No fly zones FT 4 March 2011

 Commenting on Libya the other day, ex-British Prime Minister John Major said “Events alter opinions”. He was right and he should know.

 

At the start of the Bosnian War very few were calling for military intervention (and John Major’s government was strenuously resisting it). By the end of the war, almost no-one wasn’t.

 

What changed the situation was events – and specifically Srebrenica and the infamous mortar bomb massacre in Sarajevo’s Markale market.
The problem is that between the two, around a quarter of a million people were killed, two million driven from their homes, the United Nations was humiliated and international rhetoric was shown to be sham.

 

There is a second parallel with today. In 1991 we were told that the Yugoslav crises would prove “The hour of Europe” had arrived. It hadn’t. Europe proved itself divided and impotent, even though the Balkan wars were in our backyard.

 

It is difficult not feel a wearisome sense of déjà vu watching European leaders on Friday saying something needed to be done in Libya, but failing completely to say what.

 

Libya is not our backyard. But what happens there and in the other countries of the Maghreb matter to us Europeans very much. If those who have overturned dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt (and hopefully Libya) in this “Arab spring” can create effective, broadly secular democratic republics on the model of Turkey, Europe’s crucial relationship with its southern (and oil-providing) neighbours will be fundamentally altered to the advantage of both. If they fail, then dictatorships will inevitably follow – and very likely extremist Islamist ones. The nature of our neighbourhood is being decided on the dusty streets of Libya’s towns and that matters to us very much indeed.

 

But now – again – time is not on our side. Muammer Gaddafi’s indiscriminate use of overwhelming force against his people – in flagrant contravention of his international obligation to protect them – is now having an effect. To do nothing is to acquiesce to the crushing of a people, which will almost certainly be accompanied – if it has not been already – by horrors which amount to crimes against humanity.

 

So what should we do? What can we do?

 

The answer is a lot in the long term – assistance, aid, trade, maybe visa liberalisation for new Arab democracies as they emerge.

 

But for Libya, there won’t be a long term unless we can do something quickly to stop Col Gaddafi slaughtering his people’s aspirations and killing many of them in the process.

 

It is clear that diplomatic pleading will not persuade him to halt or leave – the most impotent moment of the European summit on Friday was when leaders called on him to go, knowing he would do no such thing.

 

Of the other options available to us, only one makes sense and that is a no fly zone. Could it lead to us being drawn in further? possibly. Is that a risk? Certainly. But, as with Bosnia, we must calculate not just the risks of action, but also the risks of inaction. Here too, the risks of standing by and doing nothing are greater than those which will be incurred by a careful, graduated and proportionate response designed to assert the primacy of international law and enable the people of Libya to make their own choice about their government.

 

Thanks to the lead given by London and Paris we may assume the military preparations for a no-fly zone are broadly in place. We await only the right conditions to impose one.

First and most important there has to be a clear call from Libyans. This action must be at their initiation, not ours. They have already made this call.

 

The second is Arab regional support – perhaps even a regional face. The Arab League’s support for a no fly zone is remarkable and important. There now needs to be a diplomatic campaign to bring other Arab nations in.

 

It would be help this if Western leaders changed their language. To call for a no-fly zone as part of a revolution in favour of democracy not only sounds hypocritical given our past support for the region’s dictators, but is also very unlikely to attract the support of the those Arab nations who are neither democratic themselves, or very keen to become so soon. The case for action here needs to be framed around the urgent need to protect the ordinary Arabs of Libya and nothing else.

 

Third, the imposition of a no-fly zone will need at least the acquiescence, if not the active support, of the Security Council. The days when West could play fast and loose with the need for explicit UN legitimacy ended with Iraq and the new shift of power in the world.

 

There are currently discussions in train for a resolution to be put before the Security Council for the imposition of a no fly zone. It will be difficult of course to get China’s and Russia’s support, but not I hope impossible as the world continues to witness Col Gaddafi’s bloody progress in the desert. Given what is at stake for us, the right response of European leaders should not be to suck their teeth in indecision as they did last week, but to back this resolution and say they stand ready to enact it immediately if agreed.

Libya – The Times 25 Aug

 

Libya Article The Times 25 Aug

 

“If you love sausages and respect the law, take care to watch neither of them being made”. There are worse starting points than Mark Twain’s aphorism for those trying to understand what’s happening in Libya.

 

The overthrow of Gaddafi has been messy and is very likely to get more so. For those used to watching armoured columns streaming in triumphant order across the desert to depose a dictator and pull down his statues, it doesn’t look very impressive.

 

But this is what the future probably looks like. Better get used to it.

 

Like it or not, the ramshackle Libyan rebel army are, with support of the NATO based coalition, creating a new way of intervening and giving strength to a new strand of international law.

 

Farewell Gladstonian Liberal Intervention with its foreign gunboats; hello People’s Liberal Intervention with its raybans, t-shirts and hastily converted pick-ups.

 

Of course Libya isn’t over yet. The last days of Muamar Gadaffi could be just as messy as the long days that led to his downfall. He is more than mad enough – and self-declared martyr enough – to do something very foolish at the end.

 

But even if, as we hope, the battle ends soon and cleanly, the peace that follows is likely to be just as confused and chaotic as the conflict which preceded it. How could it be otherwise? We have intervened this time to prevent a massacre and let the Libyan people shape their own peace, rather than to seek to impose ours – something which, by the way we ourselves weren’t very good at.

 

So, as we watch the Libyan National Transition Council struggle to build a Government (security should be its first priority), it would be in order to remember with humility that when we tried to do the same thing in Baghdad we didn’t exactly make a roaring success of it – nor in Kabul either, come to think of it. Nor indeed, in many places where we have tried to create a western peace after a foreign conflict.

 

We should, of course now do all that we can to help the Libyan rebels bring about order and government in their country. But we will need to do so with understanding and patience. Better for the mistakes that will inevitably be made to be local and regional ones, than our mistakes which they have to pay for, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

In 1997, before the Kosovo war started, I was in the little Albanian villages south of Pristina being bombarded by the main battle units of the Serb army. The following day I met one of the Serb artillery commanders and found that he was more worried about being indicted by the then infant Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, than he was of being bombed by NATO. The point about law, is that it exists not just to deliver justice after the event, but also to govern behaviour beforehand. Post-Kosovo, the World Summit of 2005 gave form to a new international legal concept – The Responsibility to Protect (R2P for short). This asserted that, under international law, there ought to be an obligation (note “ought” and “obligation”) on a Government to protect its people, not abuse them. Many of us thought R2P would never be more than a piece of well meaning rhetoric. But Libya has given R2P both form and precedent.

 

How the concept of R2P is carried forward post-Libya will also not be smooth or free of contradictions. R2P will be applied with force in places where it can be – Libya for example; but not be so applied in others, where it can’t be – Syria probably. But then this was true of classic Liberal Interventionism too. We did it in Iraq and Afghanistan because we could, but not in Chechnya or Zimbabwe, because we couldn’t. In the untidy age ahead, one of our mantras when it comes to intervention is likely to be “Just because you can’t do everything, does not mean you shouldn’t do anything.”

 

In this way, international law is no different from most other bodies of jurisprudence. These do not spring from a single pen or a single piece of paper; they evolve over time confusingly, inelegantly and often in contradictory fashion. Libya has placed us slap bang in the middle of that messy process – better get used to it.

 

Many of us, me including, feared that, after the Iraq debacle, the multilateral system might never be able to be used again for good ends. But it has been – and triumphantly.

 

So now, thanks to Libya, we have three international interventions options to choose from.

 

We could abandon the notion of intervention altogether, recognizing that we can’t make a success of it and shouldn’t try. In this case the next turbulent decades will be much more dangerous, as power shifts in a world which is increasingly instable and interdependent and increasingly equipped with weapons of mass destruction.

 

Or we could continue to intervene as in Iraq and Afghanistan; exclusively western coalitions; massive western troop deployments; a cavalier attitude to international law; shock and awe; a quick victory; followed by the long, slow, flawed attempt to impose our systems on their countries at the point of a bayonet.

 

Now Libya has offered us a third alternative.

 

Support R2P with force where its possible. Find other means where it isn’t. Assemble a coalition wider than the west. Obtain the backing of international law. Accept this means constraints on military action during the conflict and on our ability to influence the outcome afterwards. Measure success by the horrors we prevent, rather than the elegance of the outcome. Recognise the importance of the regional powers. Act, not to impose our will, but to give the local population the freedom to exercise theirs. Understand that this may well be disorderly – and perhaps sometimes worse. And remember that it hasn’t been much less so when we have tried to do it ourselves.

 

Will this be comfortable to watch? No. But it’s probably as good as we’ll get. Better get used to it.

 

1020

The Sunday Mirror Libya 24 March 2011

The Sunday Mirror Libya 24 March 2011

 

Here are three questions that need answering on Libya.

 

Why are we there? How will it finish? And when will it end?

 

We are there because Libya matters to us. Not just because upholding international law is vital for peace at a time of great turbulence in the world. I mean it REALLY matters to us – here in Britain. The Arabs nations of the Maghreb are our southern neighbours in Europe. They are a major source, not just of the energy we depend on, but also of one of the greatest threats to our safety – international terrorism. I had always imagined that the result of our foolish policy of supporting – and even arming – Arab dictators (including latterly that of Col Gaddafi), the Arab revolution when it came would bring in the Jihadists. Instead those brave protesters are demanding democracy and human rights. There is an irony in the fact that democracy has been brought to the Arab world, not by Western armies, but by Facebook, Twitter, and the courage of young Arabs on the streets. If the Arab Spring can now replace street demonstrations with effective democratic Governments, then we will have reliable neighbours to our south who share our values, and Al Qaeda will be more damaged than they ever could be by us.

 

If Col Gaddafi is allowed with impunity, to slaughter his people before our eyes (remember he promised to “show no mercy”), then this “Arab Spring” will be terribly damaged. And we will be showing that though we talk democracy, we aren’t prepared to defend it; that we say we value international law, but won’t uphold it. And a signal will go out to the other dictators in the region that the best way to stop demonstrations is to shoot them demonstrators in the streets.

 

However difficult and costly it is to do what we are doing now – doing nothing would in the end have cost us more.

 

So now we come to the more difficult bit? How will it finish?

 

The uncomfortable answer is, probably untidily. These things often do. When we liberated Kuwait in 1991, we had to leave Saddam Hussein in power next door, a no fly zone to stop him doing more mischief and a semi-independent Kurdish area in the north which we had to continue to protect. When you have to use force you may stop a greater evil, it does not mean you will always create a tidy outcome.

 

My guess is that this may end with a divided country. A free Libya to the east and Gaddafi-land to the west. My guess is that those Libyans who are left under the Colonel’s cranky dictatorship will not want to do so for long. But that is their choice, not ours.

 

Because that is what the UN Security Council Resolution says. This action is about protecting Arab lives and preserving their freedom to choose. No more and no less.

 

So how long will it last? I am afraid the straight answer is uncomfortable, too. As long as it takes. You cannot create a safe peace from such a situation overnight. But one thing is certain. Whatever the cost of protecting the lives of those who believe in freedom, the costs of allowing a dictator to triumph in blood in this region and at this time, would be far, far more.

 

569

 

 

 

Re-building Libya The Guardian 21 Oct 2011

Re-building Libya The Guardian 21 Oct 2011

 

Now the real work starts.

 

If there is one thing more fraught, more attended by failure and more difficult to do than fighting a war, it is building the peace which follows. Our modern wars are fought in weeks or months – but building the peace is measured in decades Wars are violent and swift. Building peace is long, painful and almost always untidy. Winning wars needs decisiveness. Building peace needs strategic patience.

 

What happens next in Libya is unlikely to be tidy or elegant to watch. Get used to it. The country is tribal by nature and the war has been tribal in its conduct. Finding a constitution – probably a highly devolved one – which can provide a framework to contain these pressures is not going to be easy – especially with such oil revenues to be distributed, so much religion to infect minds and so many arms in the peoples’ hands.

 

But there are strengths to build on. These are gifted people with some very able individuals who are more than capable of efficiently running their country, given a chance. With the world waiting at Tripoli’s door for its precious high quality crude, Libya will not be poor. There is real international goodwill to be built on. And, it seems a real desire among Libya’s people for genuine democracy – though note please London, Paris and Washington – one which will more likely see Turkey’s Islamic democracy as it model, than our secular ones.

 

So what can we do to help?

 

Only what we are asked to. This was a different war – we played our part to enable the Libyan people fight their own war on their own terms. We have to be prepared to let them build their own peace on the same basis. Interference will be unwise and unwelcome as they have already made clear. Sending in floods of uninvited businessmen to capture contracts as reward for our help is not likely to be well received. Ditto despatching the kind of small army of wet-behind-the-ears economic graduates to “help them re-build their economy” which we sent to Iraq in the early days.

 

When, as seems almost inevitable, the building of the Libyan peace starts getting untidy and inelegant to watch, let us remember when we did it our way in Iraq and Afghanistan, it wasn’t exactly a success either.

 

Our biggest mistake in Bosnia Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere – from which perhaps the Libyans can learn – was to fail to make the rule of law the first priority. Thus corruption, that constant by-product of war, became ingrained in the peace. The establishment of the rule of law – perhaps even martial law at first – which then develops over time into a reliable legal, judicial and prosecutorial structure based on the cultural norms of the country, is the essential framework which give the security people need and the framework for ownership and economic activity.

 

A key and early ingredient in this is to establish the state’s monopoly in the use of lethal force. This will be one of Libya’s earliest challenges – taking privately possessed arms out of circulation. It will not happen quickly and it may need to be approached with subtlety as well as forceful insistence (in Kosovo they simply converted the rebel forces into a kind of home guard as an interim step).

 

The next priority will be to get the economy going again. Jobs and the prospect of better times is the best way to persuade people to be committed to the future rather than re-living the past.

 

And then of course there’s elections.

 

Everyone wants these early – I prefer them as late as possible. Our mistake is to believe that elections are democracy.

 

Democracy consists of much more than just voting. It also needs the rule of law; an effective constitution capable of holding the executive to account; a free press; a vibrant civil society. I suspect that the public pressure for early elections cannot be long resisted. But the more of the above that can be put in place before voting, the safe the outcome will be.

 

Three final points.

 

It is a miracle that the fall of the dictators we supported like Gaddafi, has not been followed by Islamic fundamentalism. But if the re-building of Libya (and Egypt and Tunisia) fails, it will be. What happens now in the Maghreb will determine the nature of the whole of Europe’s southern relationship for decades to come. Helping Libya where we can is most profoundly in our long term interests.

 

It matters on a wider scale too. The eastern Mediterranean looks to me like one of the world’s most dangerous coming flash-points. A north Africa that is settled, stable and progressing towards Islamic democracy will greatly diminish the instability of that region. One that remains turbulent and full of conflict, greatly increase it.

 

And lastly, do not forget Turkey. They are now key and constructive players in this region (and very much so in Libya). Our old partners in Washington now view the Pacific, more than the Atlantic and the Mediterranean as their key area of interest. If we Europeans are looking for new partners in this region which is so crucial to us, Turkey would be a good place to start.

 

883

 

 

Liberator article 2 Dec 2013

LIBERATOR ARTICLE – WINNING HEARTS AS WELL AS MINDS

I have never really been a numbers man. If I had been, I may have had second thoughts about taking leadership of our party with our polling remained stubbornly around the asterisk mark.

In fact I may have had second thoughts long before that, when in in 1976 I was first selected for Yeovil only to find the party getting beaten at the ballot box by the National Front.

I have never been a numbers man for a simple reason: I am not the sort of politician who dreams of being an accountant.

That’s not to say that accountants do not have their place in parliament; frankly a few more on the Labour Party benches during the last government may have saved us from some of the mess we’re now having to clean up.

But while I doff my cap to this breed of politician and will always bask in their brainpower, concentrating on the numbers has never really been my style.

Which, you may well think, might make co-ordinating a General Election campaign a little tricky.

To which I would reply: “With numbers like ours, frankly it helps!”

Clearly, I jest – as, indeed a man of my considerable years is entitled to do. But within this there is a kernel of truth. For instead of being a numbers man, I am a hearts-and-minds man. I see the role of politicians not just to scrutinise but to lead. And the role of a leader is to pioneer, persuade, enthuse and cajole.

I enjoyed this part of my job that during my time as captain of our ship. And that’s how I see my role now that I’m back down in the engine room, stoking the fire.

So, guess who in this rather tortured analogy are the flames?

Yup, that’d be our members. They are the bright light that heats this party, the furnace of activity that powers our ideas, the flames that will singe our opponents if they venture too close.

Ok, ok, enough of that.

The General Election campaign will feature numbers, of course it will. The number of jobs created under this government especially apprenticeships. The amount of pupil premium funding awarded to each school. The proportion of people we will take out of income tax in your constituency and so on. These are all hugely important figures that we will all need to learn by rote as the campaign approaches (though there’s no time like the present…)

I am sure that, true to form, our manifesto numbers will shine, the sums will add up and confound the critics with the simple purity of both its liberalism and practical common sense. Described begrudgingly in 2010 by the IFS as the “least worst” of the three main parties our numbers are often right.

But numbers alone will not be enough come 2015. We live in a deeply cynical age where anything a politician says will be taken with a big dollop of cynicism by a sceptical electorate. We’re just not getting the benefit of the doubt any more. Pure statistics run the risk of hitting an impenetrable wall of doubt and distrust. Even the most finely-crafted arrow cannot pierce that kind of granite.

So I see it very much my role to make certain our campaign speaks directly to people in a way that does penetrate those defences. It is to make sure that we take each of our achievements and policies and craft a narrative that explains how each helps reach our fundamental goals: creating a society that is fairer, freer; much less conformative and much much more meritocratic.

That is why when our team crafted the central message that we will fight the next election on the argument that the Liberal Democrats will create a stronger economy and a fairer society, I insisted we added a third prong: enabling everyone to get on in life – that means empowering them and giving them the freedom to live their lives as they want, not as conformity demands

And it’s why you can be sure we’ll always strive to run a campaign with heart and passion which will both unite our activists and inspire the voters.

We must never forget what makes us a unique political force. In my opinion it is summed up in that one little verb, to enable.

Our mission in 2015, as it is in every election, is to set out onto the doorsteps of Britain and explain why we are the only party that will harness the powers of the state to set the individual free. Why we are the only party that will hammer away at monopolies that shackle us all, whether they be in the private or public sphere. And why we are the only party that embodies the spirit of Gladstone through a humanitarian interventionist outlook that keeps the world safe.

This is what inspires our activists to go out in all weather to win us elections. This is what brings people into the party so young and so passionate, and keeps them with us for life. And it is this central tenet that will inspire activists to keep working all the way up to 2015 and beyond.

I have said many times that I believe history will show Nick Clegg is, bby some margin, the best poltical leader of our day. But whether it is Nick on the front of leaflets, or Ming, Charles or myself, we are merely there as glorified cyphers. It is the people delivering those leaflets, and conversing on the doorstep, who are distilling the very essence of liberal democracy. And it’s that key message of liberalism – enabling, empowering liberalism – which will stay with voters long after the statistics have left their minds.

However, if you think this is me giving you permission to trash the coalition’s record or pretend we have not been part of government over the last five years when on the doorstep, it is most emphatically not.

We will be judged on how we have governed. It will be absolutely fundamental to how most people decide their vote. We cannot hope that a strong record of local action and a passionate declamation of liberalism will be enough to push us first over the finish line.

So my challenge to you, no matter how fed up you may be about some of the actions of this government, is to think hard about how our party has married our long-cherished belief in enabling citizens to the realities of governing in both a coalition and in an economic downturn.

Because if you cannot speak passionately and eloquently about what we have achieved in difficult circumstances – and more importantly, why we have achieved it – it will make it very difficult to persuade the average voter to put a cross next to the bird in 2015. Starting a doorstep conversation with an apology for being a Liberal Democrat will rarely win a floating voter over. Put simply, if you cannot convince yourselves of the merits of having our party in government, you will not be able to convince others.

The good news is, we’re here to help. Nick has made a series of important speeches in recent months where he has set out how his philosophy of liberalism has transferred into government. And the policy unit in headquarters has both distilled our many achievements into a handy pocket-sized booklet and secured data that shows how many people we’ve helped in each individual constituency.

So how would you look a voter in the face and defend health reforms, for example? For a start there’s the shield: Labour started these reforms and signed disastrous PFI deals that we’ll be paying back for generations; while the Tories are ideologically in-hoc to privatising healthcare and probably would have succeeded in doing so without us in government stopping them. Then there’s the stick: not only have the Liberal Democrats made certain there are now 4,000 more doctors in the NHS than under Labour but we have ensured that, in the new system, not only is there more integration of services but also that patients have a more personalised system and more democratic oversight – making healthcare work better both for the community and the individual.

Secondly, welfare reform. There is a truly liberal case to be made for changing a system that traps people in poverty, as Labour managed, by ensuring those with families would lose money if they took a job. Our changes to the income tax threshold, extra help with childcare and free school meals for infants all help give people on benefits the freedom to go into work. And what about the other parties? Labour, let’s not forget, introduced disability tests for those on welfare which we have improved – and Labour pioneered the ‘bedroom tax’. And what would the Tories do on their own? Cap child benefit at two children, stop housing benefit for the under 25s and talk relentlessly about the so-called “scroungers” in society. Many Conservatives look forward to the day they are unleashed from the Liberal Democrats not realising they would be held captive once again, this time by the likes of Burkah Banning Peter Bone MP.

Labour will want to talk about jobs. They mustn’t be allowed to get away with it. No Party in Government in recent years has plunged more people into popverty or destroyed more jobs and businesses than Labour did when they trashed our economy and plunged us all into a sea of debt during the last Government

This election is going to be the toughest fight of our lives. We will be asked searching questions and we won’t be able to rely on a lack of scrutiny to dig us out of a hole. Regrettably, thanks to our cynical and unimaginative national media, everything will be seen through a prism of Liberal Democrat MPs being sent like lambs to the slaughter. I suspect a regular question we’ll get asked both on television and on the doorstep will be ‘why should anyone vote for you when your party is going to be annihilated.’ When you think about it not much of a change from the regular question before 2010 ‘why should anyone vote for you when you are never going to be in power.’

Nothing angers me more than this lazy and sneering cynicism. It does all of us a huge disservice – we have all given our time and energy, and often many other resources, to achieving a more liberal Britain for the benefit of all of society. No one should feel anything but pride when they knock on a door with a yellow rosette pinned to their chest.

But it also isn’t true. Because of the hard work of activists over many years, we have now earned the right in communities across Britain to be listened to with an open mind. They have ensured that doors will not be slammed in our faces; that people will hear us out. What it doesn’t do is guarantee us the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t automatically transfer people into our column, even if they have voted Liberal Democrat many times previously. But it does mean that they will be willing to hear what we have achieved for them and their families; what our vision for a more liberal society entails and why we deserve to have their vote propel us back into government.

We must seize this opportunity. We must each be able to mould our achievements, our ambitions and our vision for liberalism into a simple doorstep pitch we can explain with positivity, pride and panache.

Others have the job of making the numbers add up. Mine is the easy bit – to ensure we run a campaign with heart, soul and vigour; a campaign that inspires our members, the voters, and maybe even the cynical media too. I have a first class team to work with and a great tribe of activists relishing the fight. I could not ask for more. It’s time to stoke that fire. It’s time to get out campaigning again for what we have done in this Government, what we will do in the next and what Liberalism means in the modern age.

The Lib Dem Conference The Guardian 31 August 2012

 

 

 

 

The dews are heavier in the garden, the mists gather in the valleys and there is a morning freshness which tells us the sad news that summer is passing.

 

Even if we were blind to nature’s signs, we would know it to be so from the newspapers and commentators. The August silly season stories (my favourite this year was a news item about wireless transmitters being installed on hairy ants from Yorkshire) gives way as it always does, to the press’s September pre-conference bombardments on the political Parties and their leaders.

 

Every party dissident, minor or not, suddenly finds themselves welcome on every front page and and in every news studio. Opinion pollsters, out of business during the dead days of summer, suddenly find themselves able to use a late August poll to predict the outcome of an election still three years away. I remember one in 1995, two from the election in which the Lib Dems doubled their seats, which had me losing my seat in Yeovil. Charles Kennedy was told the same in 2001, two years before he led us to our greatest ever score of elected MPs.

 

Even the normally scrupulous Martin Kettle, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, preferred to suggest Armageddon for us in the next election using a mid-holiday poll showing us at 10%, rather than Tuesday’s poll in his own newspaper giving us 15%; no comment on the fact that this was precisely inline with our average between 1997 and 2001, before returning 52 seats in Parliament. When you have a point to make, any fact will do.

 

Liberal Democrats have long ago learned to ignore the polls and get on with the job in hand. I should know. I am the only political leader in modern British History who has presided over an opinion poll rating represented by an asterisk – denoting that no detectable support could be found for us anywhere in the land!

 

We will be judged at the next election by one fact and one fact only. Whether we have had the mettle to stay the course in delivering effective Government for our country at a time of crisis. That is the only thing that matters. All the rest is the froth.

 

History has not dealt us the easiest of hands.

 

It does not help that we are trying to prove that coalition Government works in such difficult circumstances. Or that those with whom we have to work are not (to say the least) natural bedfellows. These things make life more difficult. But they do not lessen the need to see it through – or the consequences for us if we fail to do so.

 

We face an existential choice both for our country and our Party.

 

Britain is confornting the severest economic crisis for half a century at a time when everyone else is in crisis too. When our major trading partners in Europe are facing economic melt-down. When the traditional foundations of wealth and how we make our way in the world are changing. When conflict and instability seem a growing contagion. And when the whole structure of world power is changing. In these circumstances who can be surprised that the attractions of easy solutions are more seductive than tough ones; or that popularity is hard to come by.

 

As it is for our country, so also for our Party.

 

When we all overwhelmingly supported Nick Clegg’s decision to lead us into Government we knew it would be difficult. We also knew that we were embarked on a course which would change our Party as well as our country. Nick challenged us to leave our comfort zone and make the change from a Party of perpetual opposition, to one capable of carrying the burdens of Government. Without Nick, that decision would never have been made and the historic opportunity to show who we really are, would never have existed. It is the job of our Leader to take us into Government. I failed; Nick Clegg has succeeded.

In my view he has led our Party in Government, not flawlessly of course, but with a skill no-one else in British politics could have matched and a grace under fire which should make us proud. If you want to see how successful he has been, just listen to the complaints from the Tory right.

 

Of course, now there are plenty of easier courses on offer. In tough times there are always petty ambitions to be aired, the kind suggestions of our enemies to be ignored to and helpful comments from the sidelines to be endured.

 

But there are mighty things to be done in the next year. Getting growth out of hard times; ensuring that even in austerity, Britain can remain a fair society; limiting the powers of the state to snoop into our lives; protecting our fundamental rights from attack in the name of security; asserting our independence as we run up to the next election and preparing the way for the partnerships and polices which will be necessary afterwards.

 

None of this will be achieved by being distracted by mid term summer polls, passing newspaper comments, or short term personal manoeuvring. The right thing for Liberal Democrats to do now is to continue to do what we have done so well so far. Concentrate on the job we set our hands to under Nicks leadership. Nothing else.

 

903

 

Lib Dems – 20th anniversary 29 Sep 2012

 

 

Lib Dems – 20th anniversary

 

It is said that the four most stressful events in a person’s life are marriage, divorce, a death in the family and moving house. When our new Party was founded we did all four. Our old Parties, the Liberals and the SDP died, as we united in the Lib Dems (or the Social and Liberal Democrats as we were then called), we had to divorce ourselves from those old colleagues who didn’t want to come with us and we move to a new home in Cowley Street.

 

It was not easy. Indeed, as the founding Leader of the new Party, there were many times when I though we wouldn’t make it. We had no money – the Inland Revenue Inspectors actually came to close us down for unpaid National Insurance, just hours before I was announced as the the Party’s first Leader on the steps of Cowley Street. Our membership was plummeting. Our opinion poll ratings were in low singe figures (they were soon to go lower still – I am the only Party Leader in Britain who has presided over an asterisk, signifying that the Party was within the margin of error of nothing in the Polls). And we were in a do or die fight with David Owen’s continuing SDP for our very existence. The overwhelming consensus opinion of commentators of the time was that we were done for.

 

They reminded us, I well recall, that there had been many attempts to set up new Parties in Britain, but none had survived since the founding of Labour – and we were about to go the same way.

 

But we did survive. And then we grew. And now we have become the strongest third Party in Britain for only a handful of years short of a century. And there is a reason for that. In fact there are many. Our members believed in the Lib Dems even when others didn’t and in the end that enabled us to begin winning again – starting at local level, but soon clocking up great by-election victories, beginning with Eastbourne.

 

Secondly, there was a space for us. Liberalism is the only political philosophy which makes any sense of the world in which we now live – it combines the internationalism we need if we are to solve our global problems and a belief in individual liberty and power which lies at the heart of this age of new technologies.

 

And lastly the public wanted us as an alternative to the tired old, corrupt old, failed old choices offered by Tory and Labour.

 

I often think that, at our best, we Lib Dems combine all the best of our two old parent Parties. The dedication to grass roots politics, the radicalism and the sheer bloody minded determination of the old Liberals. And the modernity, intellectual rigour and understanding of modern economics of the old SDP.

 

I am confident it remains a winning combination, clear that our rise and rise from those early days of near disaster can and will continue and certain that our country’s politics is better, safer and much more democratic because of the decision we took to risk all, come together and found the Lib Dems 20 years ago.

 

525 words

Lebanon 6 August 2006

Article Lebanon

6 Aug 2006

 

Listening to Prime Minister Blair’s recent “arc of extremism” speech, with its echoes of King Abdullah of Jordan’s “Shi’ite crescent”, one may have doubts about his grasp of the intricacies of the Middle East. But his basic point about the Manichean struggle under way between moderation and extremism in the Arab world is correct. There can be no doubt about who will win this in the end. The great civilising and tolerant religion of Islam will, in the long run, no more fall prey to the forces of extremism, darkness and ignorance, than did Christianity and the West when it to was (still is in some cases) challenged by the call of extremism.

 

Unfortunately, as Keynes once said, in the long term we are all dead. And a large number have been added to the cruel list of the unjust dead in Lebanon and Israel these last weeks. As I write it looks as though as though the United Nations Security Council will, finally, pass a resolution calling for a cease fire and interposing an international force between the warring parties. We are at last, perhaps, God willing coming into the end game of these weeks of tragedy and danger. Not that it will be plain sailing after this – as one part of this crisis draws to a close a new passage, perhaps of equal danger, will open up. If an international force is deployed, how does it steer the delicate course between being too weak and becoming trapped and impotent in the conflict, like the UN in Bosnia – and being too strong and swiftly becoming the enemy that stands between either or both sides and the war aims they have not yet abandoned. An international force, however strong can only maintain peace by consent – it cannot make peace between two parties who don’t want it. Any international force will need to be strong, strongly backed by the international community and have a strong mandate. All these things can be built in New York. But the crucial condition for their success, the consent of the parties to peace on the ground, can only be built in the Lebanon. Maybe both sides have achieved enough to call it a victory and are exhausted enough to want it to end. The next few days will tell, but I can’t see it yet.

 

What we do not need to wait to see is how much has been lost in all this cruel stupidity. And I am not just referring to the innocent dead – so many of them children – who are filling up the graveyards.

 

Israel has lost most and suddenly finds itself in a weakening position, after decades of, largely, getting its own way in the Middle East. The corner stone of Israel’s strategy for survival, the invincibility of its armed forces has been severely damaged. Its political position, especially in the West has been weakened by its abandonment of proportionality and the terrible mistakes it has made in targeting.

 

But the Arab world has lost as well. Hezbollah’s sustained and flagrant breach of UN Security Council Resolutions, not just recently, but over the last few years, may have done it no harm on the Arab street. But it has exposed Hezbollah to the wider world as an organisation of threat rather than responsibility. The wisest thing for Hezbollah now would be for it to convert its relative military gains in this contest, into political gains, by showing itself to be a responsible partner in building a new peace in Lebanon. But will it be wise enough to do this ? The biggest losers of all, however have been moderate forces in the Arab world. The real importance of the events in Lebanon may not lie in Lebanon. They may come from a dramatic shift in the centre of gravity of Arab opinion, and especially opinion on the street. The effects of this have yet to be seen – but they are likely to be felt well beyond the borders of Lebanon.

 

Iran and Syria have been the big gainers. They have been wise enough to stay out of the fight and look set now to have a part to play in any wider peace that comes out of all this.

 

And it is to that peace that the world should now turn its attention. The only redeeming feature of these weeks of blood tragedy and loss would be if it led, at last to the wider Middle Eastern settlement which has been so miserably long in coming, which includes at last a resolution to the Palestine problem, which provides the only context for a US exit with dignity from the Iraqi tragedy and which would enable the great nation of Arabs to get back to what they do best – living in peace and pursuing civilisation, rather than war.

 

810 words

The Leaders Debate The Daily Mirror – 5 March 2015

The Leaders Debate The Daily Mirror – 5 March 2015

 

Paddy – Mirror Op-ed – 450 words

 

Back when he was Leader of the Opposition David Cameron goaded Gordon Brown for being frightened of live television debates.

 

He shouted across from the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons, jabbed his finger in the Prime Minister’s direction and accused him of running scared.

 

But there is only one party running scared of these debates now – the Conservative Party. And there is only one man running scared – David Cameron.

 

By wriggling, ducking and slipping out of every proposal put forward by the broadcasters, the Prime Minister has shown his true colours.

 

In the words of his great idol Margaret Thatcher – he is too “frit” to defend his own record.

 

Despite what the Conservatives might say, these debates breathed new life into politics five years ago, with 22 million of us tuning in to watch them. We should not allow them to be killed off in the interest of one man and one party.

 

David Cameron sang their praises when they were in his favour but now he bullies the press and hides behind his office in Downing Street. This is simply unacceptable.

 

These debates do not belong to the Prime Minister or the Tories, they belong to the British people.

 

So let me be clear. If David Cameron will not defend his part in this government then Nick Clegg, is more than happy to defend ours. He has already written to Ed Miliband proposing this.

 

This is because Liberal Democrats believe in debate, we are proud of our record in Government and we have fought every step of the way to cement these debates in the political calendar.

 

We are proud that in Coalition we lifted the country out of recession, cut taxes for working people, created two million apprentices and stopped the Tories trampling on our civil liberties.

 

What’s more, David Cameron is not only proposing a ludicrous, seven-sided, bite-sized squabble fest of a debate but has say it must take place before the Conservative manifesto is published.

 

This means he avoids being grilled on his party’s plans for Britain. I’m not surprised for they show every sign of being truly frightening.

 

The Tories have put on us notice, they intend to return to the nasty party unless the Liberal Democrats are there to constrain them.

 

David Cameron and the Tories might not want these debates to happen but the public, the Liberal Democrats and the broadcasters do.

 

It is time for the Prime Minister to ditch the excuses and stop playing politics with these debates – if he does not then history will judge him as he judged Gordon Brown – frit.

 

Paddy Ashdown is the Chair of the Liberal Democrat General Election Campaign

Languages – the Guardian 9 Sep 2014

The Guardian – Languages

 

When people ask me how many languages I speak I say I have forgotten six. That’s the problem with languages. If you don’t get the chance to use them you can use them. But with a little practice they soon come back and you can once again enjoy the magic of communication with other people in their own language and on their own terms.

 

As human beings we are above all, communicating animals. That’s what we do best and rom the first moments of our lives its what we do first with our brains and most with fellows. Language is, quite literally the stuff of life. And the more you can speak of other people’s languages, the more you can be part of their lives and enrich your own.

 

Actually I was a disaster at languages at school. I obtained, as I recall, 5 out of 200 in O level French – which is probably an all time record. Badly taught, I could never see the point. But then as a young Royal Marine to Singapore in the early 1960’s (as a batchelor I should stress) that I was told that in Malay there was one word for the phrase “lets take off our clothes and tell dirty stories”. Suddenly I saw the point. I never found the word, by the way. But in the process of looking learnt my first language. When I was sent to fight in the little jungle war in Borneo in the mid-60’s I was the only person in the whole Commando Brigade who could speak the local language. So was sent up to the deep jungle where few white men had been since the Second World War. I was living among the Dayak people. They still had dried human heads hanging from the rafters in the Long Houses in which they lived. I took one look at them and decided I would feel altogether more comfortable, if I knew their language too.

 

Mandarin Chinese came next. Though this is not a language you can learn in your spare time. I spent two and a half years as full time student, living amongst the Chinese in Hong Kong – and learnt the hazards of thinking you know more of someone else’s language than you actually do. One day, at a banquet with my fellow students and teachers I tried to make small talk with my female Chinese teacher. “Have you ever flown in an aircraft” I asked. Or at least that was what I thought I asked. In fact, muddling my Chinese tones, what came out of my mouth was “Have you by any chance sat upon a flying penis?”. I was utterly perplexed when everyone collapsed in mirth around me. But then I didn’t come to learn that word for another six months.