How to reinvent a party

When I embarked upon my journalism career, a good 12 or 13 years ago, I shared an office with Nigel Farage, who is now head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Well, ‘shared’ is perhaps a rather big word. Since he belongs to a party that chose not to recognise the legitimacy of Brussels, he rarely turned up at the European Parliament. When he did, we’d share a jovial bit of morning banter, eyes watering from the tobacco smoke that suddenly engulfed the room (this being before the European Union banned smoking in its buildings and then in much of Europe).

The one piece of advice that everyone seemed to be giving me at the time – even the eurosceptics – was: “If you’re serious about a career in the British media, be careful not to get too close to UKIP.”

This was at a time when UKIP only had three MEPs [Members of the European Parliament], and a definite reputation for being part of the loony fringe. The following European election – in 2004, I think – the number of UKIP MEPs jumped up to 11. They didn’t become any more normal, and they didn’t show any greater willingness to turn up for the turgid parliamentary plenaries.

This was at a time when people like Robert Kilroy-Silk, the rather pompous and blatantly xenophobic former BBC chat show host, were being drawn to the party. His invective against the Arabic world – “We owe Arabs nothing”, he spluttered, and then proceeded to explain why they should show some gratitude towards our puny island – grated with what might be considered mainstream voters. His obvious vanity – “I cannot hide my tan, or my looks and I don’t intend to, and I am not ashamed of either” – also didn’t sit well with the regular Joe Bloggs.

He was only the highest-profile member of what was, on the whole, turning out to be a rather nutty lot.

The problem with a party like UKIP, which was founded around the single premise that the UK should withdraw from the EU, has always been that it attracts nutters. Like the British National Party (BNP), UKIP was a perfect platform for xenophobic bigots to air their populist and hate-inspired views.

This was one of the main reasons why the more rational wing of the UK’s eurosceptic movement disliked UKIP so much. All one ever heard of the eurosceptism in the UK seemed to be: “those nutty UKIP folk are at it again”. It prevented a proper debate taking place about why leaving the EU might actually make sense for the UK. It didn’t go down too well with our European partners, and was probably one of the reasons why the then-British ambassador didn’t get invited to more sauerkraut or bouillabaisse soirées.

On Thursday, UKIP won an astonishing 147 local council seats in the England, 23% of the total seats available. Before the election, they just had 7. This surprised even Farage, who optimistically predicted they would get 100.

David Cameron, our PM, has been forced to eat his words, having previously dismissed the party as a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies. Gaining so many seats across the country, and in many areas that have not been traditionally UKIP territory, makes them seem anything but insane.

The march towards Thursday’s result started some time before the election, though. The past couple of years has seen the party’s leader, Farage, appearing everywhere. I’ve been absolutely astonished by the extent to which the BBC seems to have been embracing UKIP, portraying the party not as a fringe entity but as a serious force to be reckoned with. But then Farage always knew how to use the media.

Farage is a terrific orator and, whatever your views about Europe, when you listen to him he really seems to make sense. When he talks about the UK’s immigration policy, he really touches a chord with ordinary people. Of course something needs to be done about the UK – and the EU’s – daft and schizophrenic immigration policy; but few people tackle this issue. And few could tackle it with the aplomb that Farage has mastered. In silver tones, he repeats and repeats again that we’re not against foreigners, just those foreigners that are not going to contribute to society.

And who can argue against that? It’s positively seductive.

I’m not a huge fan of Farage. I knew him briefly – and always enjoyed our smoke-asphyxiating morning conversations, filled with humour and joviality – but I think he deserves tremendous credit for turning the party around, and positioning it squarely alongside the other three main parties.

This is even more astonishing given that UKIP, as noted above, was initially formed as a single-issue party. And I’m still not entirely sure what else it stands for. Nor, I imagine, are most of the electorate. Getting across this message will be the challenge for Farage over the next couple of years. And I’m certain he is up to it.

I’d just like to leave you with one further thing that the footage from the BBC news reports yesterday reminded me of. By Jove, the head of UKIP can really down a pint. Maybe that’s why the great British public voted for his party.

New guidebook to The Hague

At long last, after three greuling years of work, our new guidebook has been published. We had a book launch last Friday at the American Book Center, which was a resounding success. Mayor Jozias van Aartsen was there and predicted the book would be a bestseller. Come on – let’s prove him right! You can order the book now on our website.

A (n alleged) war criminal in State House

There is now an indicted (alleged) war criminal in State House (Kenya’s official presidential office). This sets a worrying precedent for international justice. But it is something that Europe and the US can do something about.

The election in Kenya took place on Monday, March 4. After a fairly significant delay – “just enough time to finish stuffing ballot boxes”, said a somewhat cynical aquaintance of mine – the result was announced on Saturday afternoon. Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of the first president of an independent Kenya, won 50.07% of the vote, which was a pretty narrow margin to gain control of the presidency. But a narrow margin is enough.

Kenyatta, of course, is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his (alleged) role in the 2007/2008 post-election violence.

This is a bit of a blow to international justice. Irrespective of whether he was responsible for attrocities in 2007/2008 (alleged, alleged – everything is alleged), his election to the highest office in the land sends out the irrefutable message that the ongoing trial in The Hague does not matter. It also gives him the perfect opportunity to reconsider the country’s signature to the Rome Statute and maybe bow out of international justice altogether.

In England, upon which the Kenyan legal (not to mention judicial) system is based, it is courteous practice for politicians to suspend their political duties whilst a serious trial is pending.

Not so in Kenya.

This will be a test of the mettle of both Europe and the US. The US has been surprisingly outspoken when it comes to Kenya, with foreign secretary Hillary Clinton strongly hinting that Washington will have to reconsider its relationship with the country if an indicted (alleged) war criminal is in charge.

Michael Ranneberger, former US ambassador to Kenya, was particularly outspoken, and consequently well-regarded by many Kenyans that for decades have been understandably frustrated with the country’s political machinations. True that he often found himself at odds with the White House because of this.

Britain has been far less obvious of its condemnation about the way that the Kenyan political apparatus has behaved – and, in all of honesty, it has the historical obligation to be the most outspoken of all.

For too long Kenyan politicians have been allowed to eat at the trough of oppulence and corruption – read Michele’s Wrong’s excellent book on this – whilst economic interests have compelled the rest of the world to look away.

And now I rather fear this extends to serious allegations of violence, too.

On the plus side, though, it looks as though the election was not marred by the same levels of violence that were seen five years ago. So perhaps this international justice wotzit does work.

Imagine…

Imagine being the son of Muamar Gadaffi right now. Born into a world of obscene opulence, suddenly incarcerated and about to be tried by your father’s worst enemies. Reminds me of that John Lennon song.

Hague lukewarm about The Hague

Tomorrow is the day that the United Nations votes on Palestine becoming a non-member state of the United Nations. And, pending something totally unthinkable, such a bid is going to sail through.

With recognition of statehood comes a whole host of benefits, one of which is the ability to access the international courts such as the ICC. It seems that everyone is talking about this at the moment. I blogged about it nearly two months ago. As I previously noted, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the previous prosecutor of the ICC, declined to open an investigation into crimes on the Palestinian Territories because the status of Palestinian statehood was in question. Should the UN vote for Palestine to be accepted as a non-member state, I would argue quite strongly that such statehood is no longer in question.

Should Palestine join the ICC, it would be unthinkable for the court not to at least consider an investigation within its territory. The pressure to do so would be great. The ICC badly needs a case outside Africa, and Fatou Bensouda, current prosecutor, knows this. There is none that fits the bill better than Palestine.

So it is with some dismay that I see one of the ICC’s largest member states and biggest contributors – the UK – inching away from any suggestion that Palestine could possibly gain access to the courts. This makes a mockery of international justice, which should be global. The UK should not be standing in the way of the ICC’s ability to investigated.

Today, before the House of Commons, foreign secretary William Hague promised that the UK will not vote against the resolution for Palestine to join. However, in order for them to vote in favour, a couple of conditions had to be met. Hague expressed one of them as follows:

“Our country is a strong supporter across all parties of international justice and the International Criminal Court. We would ultimately like to see a Palestinian state represented throughout all the organs of the United Nations. However we judge that if the Palestinians were to build on this resolution by pursuing ICC jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories at this stage it could make a return to negotiations impossible. This is extremely important given that we see 2013 as a crucial year for the reasons I have described for the Middle East Peace Process.”

I have a certain amount of respect for Hague, but he clearly has not thought this statement through and he is certainly no lawyer. For the past decade. the ICC has been fighting against the perception that justice is totally detached from politics (a statement no one really believes anyway, but is always worth throwing out from time to time). Hague has just trounced all over that ideal.

Anyway, Palestine has strongly suggested that it can’t adhere to such a condition, so the vote will sail through and Britain will abstain. But the ICC should have expected a great deal more for one of its most important backers.

Remembering the truth about Sudan

It is interesting how different environments lead to different interpretations of the truth. When I lived in Khartoum, everything that the outside world was doing to resolve Sudan’s manifold problems seemed wrong. They just didn’t understand. Having spent the past month immersed in the world of American advocats and lobby organisations, the tragically twisted picture of what things are like in Sudan is compelling. But still wrong.

For a close follower of Sudanese affairs, it is almost impossible to ignore the voices in Washington clamouring for change in the country. I spent an interesting couple of hours with Jonathan Hutson, communications director of the well-funded and one would like to think well-meaning Enough Project, who took me through a compelling video that he was putting together. At the time, it was a work-in-progress; the finished product is here:

Whilst the problem is very real, it is not at all clear what to do about it. The line that is almost always trotted out by Washington’s powerful anti-Sudan lobby is: ‘Remove Bashir. After all, he is an indicted war criminal.” Simple. Job done. Crystal clear message that everyone can understand. Get the bad guy. Start talking about nomadic tribes versus pasturalists and people’s heads start drooping.

The problem is that removing Bashir does not solve the problem. It is also not clear to what extent he is still the problem in the country. There is good evidence that, ever since he took power, he has used historic tribal rivalries to shore up his own powerbase. But the fact that these tribal tensions exist? Surely that is also part of the problem.

Moreover, there is a very worrying trend happening in Sudan – and it has been going on, apparently unnoticed by the black-and-white get-Bashir lobby, for a rather long time.

Like any leader that has managed to hold on to power for more than two decades, Bashir is a wiley old coot. He will do anything to hold on to that power. it. He has spent the past year shifting around people within his own party, who were starting to look slightly threatening.

I’m not afraid to admit that I under-estimated Bashir’s sagacity. I made a little wager about a year ago that by the end of this year, Bashir would be gone. An embarrasing, though thankfully not very costly, error on my part. But seen with the eyes of the past, I don’t think my little wager was as outrageous as it might have seemed.

Bashir had lost South Sudan and thus the north’s principal source of oil wealth, leaving the northern economy in tatters (from which it has still not managed to recover0. At the same time, the Americans had diplomatically stabbed him in the back and not given him what he thought they would – though this was never written anywhere, there was a tacit understanding that, with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which led to north-south separation, the way could be paved for the lifting of sanctions. This has not happened yet. Not even close.

And many in his party blame him for this.

So what Bashir has successfully managed to do is push aside many of those close to him, and started drifting towards the more extremist elements within the country. Just as he did in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration was being such a royal pain in the proverbial.

The problem is that few among the lobbyists seem to be asking the question: what comes next? (Some of the more sobre organisations importantly are, though, and this will form the basis for a separate blog entry in the near future.)

This is a very important question.

Last night, I was at a conference organised by Wanda Aikin and Raymond Brown, two human rights lawyers I have quite a lot of respect for. They have been tirelessly fighting for the rights of victims around the world for many years and currently represent victims in the Darfur case. At this particular conference, they were launching their new Hope and Reparations Project (HARP) for Darfur.

Part of their presentation focused on the use of the word ‘genocide’. They argued that, from a legal point of view, a good case can be built that what is taking place in Darfur is indeed genocide. And yet still journalists and editors shy away from using the term, for fear of ‘crying wolf’.

I thrust up my hand afterwards and pointed out that the reason many journalists (myself included) might shy away from using the genocidal term is that it has some dark and sinister connotations that throw everything into a black-and-white silhoette of reality. I was more-or-less repeating this blog post that I wrote many years ago.

With the deft aplomb of an accomplished lawyer, Brown managed to duck my question whilst appearing to answer it – and I neglected to follow up with him at the cocktail reception afterwards.

The real problem with colouring everything in the stark shades of black-and-white is that people fail to understand the problem that is Sudan. And perhaps, until you have lived there and started interacting with the ordinary people that still call the place their home, you can’t really. There are a lot of able-bodied people in the government working for change. And there are a lot of sinister extremist elements working for the wrong kind of change.

Bashir is an intelligent pawn in a darkly disturbing game of chess. Removing a pawn, even if it has learned how to move sideways, does not necessarily bring about check mate. It could leave you exposed elsewhere.

An insight into the US Israeli lobby

It’s an open secret that the US Israeli lobby wields considerable power in Washington. Last night, I had the privlege to attend an event commemorating the life and works of a veteran journalist who embodied a very different position.

Helen Thomas, now 93, was one of ten children from Lebanese immigrants. A feisty character, she covered the White House from the end of the Dwight Eisenhower administration in 1958 up until half way through the Barrack Obama presidency. She was forced to resign in 2010, following comments that she made against the state of Israel.

Her forced resignation provides some insight into the power of the zionist lobby and media in Washington DC.

I’ve watched the comments again and again, plus her defence of them, and it seems quite clear to me that their meaning has been repeatedly twisted by those papers that would have preferred to see the back of her. Her departure is a clear example of how criticism of Israel isn’t the way to advance one’s career, at least not here in the US.

Here are three videos documenting the issue. I welcome any thoughts. Is it just me or is this bitter criticism of Thomas’s views and her forced departure unjust?

The first video is of the initial remarks that Thomas made when asked what message she had for those living in Israel. She claims that she didn’t know she was being filmed, since it was with a small handheld phone. She said that the Israeli’s should “go home”, and then indicated that they should return to Poland and Germany. This perhaps wasn’t the most subtle way of putting things, and was always going to bring up the bitter memories of the Holocaust. But then Thomas was never known for being subtle. And, besides, it was always clear to me that there was more lying behind her words than this initial quick reaction suggests – as she subsequently explains.

The next video is her attempt at justifying her comments. She is being quite eloquent in her defence, I feel, but the fact that the CNN interviewer keeps trying to distort what she is actually wanting to say is totally frustrating (and very characteristic of how CNN behaves – HLN being a spin-off of CNN).

The final clip is of Thomas being interviewed by a more sympathetic journalist, Paul Jay, who wrote in her defence here. The interview is much milder, and she is given much greater scope for elaborating on what she actually meant. Perhaps she could have said things differently, and maybe she wishes she had done, but should she have really been forced out in disgrace? The Israeli lobby may claim that they don’t call the shots, but this is clear evidence to the contrary.

suggests

Palestine inches closer to joining ICC

The central reason that Palestine has not yet signed up to the International Criminal Court (ICC), much as it might like to, is that it is still not widely enough accepted as a sovereign state. This could all be about to change, should an apparently inconsequential vote at the UN get passed.

It’s actually not really true that Palestine is not widely recognised as a sovereign entity. In fact, at last count, 130 of the 193 member states of the UN recognised the country for what it is. One might justifiably argue, therefore, that it is indeed a country – and therefore damn well has the right to independently sign up any international treaty that takes its fancy. The issue is that the countries that matter – most notably, the United States – do not recognise Palestine as a legal state in its own right.

The stance of the US is a particular consideration for the ICC, because, although there is next to no chance that the country will join any time soon, the ICC is very dependent on the co-operation of the US for rounding up war criminals. The US is starting to prove its worth in the Kenyan case (blog entry on this shortly), and is becoming more and more active in hunting down Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony. Accepting Palestine into the ranks of the ICC, when the US refuses to recognise its statehood, is asking for trouble.

This may have been the thinking in April, when the then prosecutor of the court Luis Moreno-Ocampo rejected the validity of an investigation into crimes on the Palestinian territory, on the grounds that Palestine is still not a recognised state.

This may be about to change. This Palestinian delegation to the UN has drafted a resolution that requests recognition as a “non-member state” of the UN. This resolution, which may be voted on as early as this Autumn, needs a two-thirds majority in the general assemply to pass – a pretty low hurdle, given the number of countries that recognise and/or support Palestine. Unlike a request for membership, the five permanent members of the Security Council do not have the right to veto a request for non-membership statehood.

Should Palestine receive statehood approval from the UN, the ICC’s stance not to accept the region as a member or to investigate crimes on its soil would become untennable. You couldn’t have the world’s number one judicial body failing to recognise Palestine in defiance of the world’s number one peacekeeping body.

But it isn’t a done deal yet. Hostility to Palestinian statehood is rife in Washington, and policymakers know all too well what is at stake. In October last year, UNESCO, the UN’s education, cultural and scientific body, made the error of recognising Palestinian statehood. After a year of intensive lobbying, it has still not got its funding from the US back. Other bodies have taken heed.

At UN level, of course, the US’ leverage is somewhat curtailed. It doesn’t have a choice of what it pays into UN coffers – this is determined by the treaty it has signed up to. However, what it can do is place pressure on the Palestinian Authority directly to withdraw its resolution before the Autumnal vote.

What Washington may be offering the Palestinian Authority for dropping this resolution is shrouded in mystery. What price is Israel’s most vociferous guardian prepared to put on the threat that, should Palestine gain statehood, it suddenly has a new weapon in its aresnal against its neighbour? And how seriously should the US take the ICC?

The independent bookstore

It was some with a certain grim sense of tragedy that I noted last year that The Travel Bookshop in London – of Nottinghill fame – had closed down, weighed down by debt and unable to raise sufficient funds to be saved, Not only that, but it seemed that independent bookstores everywhere were destined, sooner or later, to go the same way.

If only the proprieter of this condemned bookshop and looked to America. Washington DC, in particular.

Here, independent bookstores are thriving. In fact, (I would like to say that I am writing this blog entry from one, but this would be a slight fabrication. I had wanted to write the entry from one, but the policy of the particular shop in question – Books-a-Million – was to only let members access the free wifi, which had been advertised in large letters outside. So I am writing from Starbucks instead. Which kinds of undermines the ‘Go Indies!’ message I am trying to put across. Drat.)

Here, independent bookstores aren’t just shops. They are social clubs, with cafe or bar attached, where folk will come and just hang out. And occasionally they’ll buy a book, too.

It’s a model that has really taken off, at least in Washington DC, and I’m certain could be applied elsewhere. Many US fads eventually make it over to London, so it’s only a matter of time before this model takes hold there, too.

Owners of independent bookstore owners take note – before it is too late.

The awesomeness that is New York

The might of New York – a better picture will be forthcoming shortly

It’s quite impossible to walk through downtown Manhatton without being overawed by the concrete jungle towering above. During my week in New York, I have tried time and time again to stroll nonchalently through the monolithic structures towering overhead.

Today, stomping my way towards the Empire State Building (one of the singularly most impressive buildings in the city, even though it may no longer be the tallest), I determined not to look up at the looming giants above, and certainly not to let any feeling of wonderment to cross my face. But it was all for nought.

The city truly is remarkable. Not only because it is a city of mightily tall buildings, but because there are so many of them, crowded together in such a small place.

Over the weekend, I took a trip to the Statue of Liberty, itself the equivalent of 23 stories. It was erected at the end of the 19th century, at a time when the tallest building in Mangatton was a modest five stories. Then, in the first half of the 20 century, everything seemed to go crazy – and the world of the skyskraper was born.

New York is a city where you really feel the might of America.

Coming back today from a number of fruitful meetings, I witnessed a thoroughly peculiar incident on the city’s metro. People were laughing. The metro was horrendously crowded, the press of weary city types pressing closely together made things uncomfortably hot (despite the air-conditioning, I should add; London take note: the tube here has air-con!) and everyone was no doubt tired. But people were laughing! Complete strangers cracking jokes with one another.

I was so shocked I decided to look around the tube. Okay, there were quite a few people gazing wearily at the floor, but many others appeared relaxed, lying back, glancing around from time to time at other passengers, as the vehicle trundled through the labyrinthine tunnels of underground New York. There seemed to be no taboo on meeting people’s eyes.

These are just two positive observations from my time in New York, which perhaps give some indication of why America will continue to do well in an era of the rising Asian tigers, and why Europe is destined for weary decline, unpleasantly sandwiched between the East and the West.

Power and optimism.