Blogroll: Lustig's Letter
I read blogs, as well as write one. The 'blogroll' on this site reproduces some posts from some of the people I enjoy reading. There are currently 3 posts from the blog 'Lustig's Letter.'
Disclaimer: Reproducing an article here need not necessarily imply agreement or endorsement!
Ah. Un problemo, as Boris Johnson might say. Because it wasn’t the British ambassador who used those words, but Mr Johnson himself, when he was still mayor of London and the then Republican presidential candidate had upset him by suggesting that parts of London were ‘no-go’ areas for the police because large numbers of Muslims lived there. (You can watch Mr Johnson venting his spleen by clicking here.)
As you may remember, the pro-Brexit campaign was built on a simple, clever slogan: Take back control. It was, of course, a sick joke. Even before the UK has left the EU, it has sold – no, not sold, given away – its independence of action to a would-be despot in Washington. Imagine a lapdog jumping through hoops, and there you have the perfect image of Mr Johnson’s relationship to the US president.
Trump could, of course, have ignored the ambassadorial leaks – they weren’t the first such unauthorised disclosures, nor will they be the last. (WikiLeaks, anyone?) But he seized his opportunity: Kim Darroch, he said, was a ‘wacky ambassador that the UK foisted upon the United States’ – a ‘very stupid guy … a pompous fool.’
(Perhaps he doesn’t know – in fact, he certainly doesn’t know – that Darroch grew up on a council estate, won a scholarship to a private school and then studied zoology at Durham university. Unlike, for example, Boris Johnson. Eton and Oxford. Of course.)
To be fair, and in the interests of reciprocity, which is a time-honoured principle of international diplomacy, we should note that any Western ambassador in London could have used exactly the same descriptions of Theresa May’s administration as Sir Kim did about Trump’s. Dysfunctional, faction-riven, clumsy and inept? Yup, spot on.
Trump’s insults in response were, as Martin Kettle wrote in The Guardian, ‘knowing acts, deliberate interventions, designed to weaken a country that thinks of itself, and is still often seen in Washington, as America’s special ally. They were a wilful assertion of power over Britain … a crude act with implications for any country that seeks alliance with America or indeed with any other global power. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin will have been watching approvingly.’
So Darroch came to the view that he had no option but to quit. (I can’t help wondering, however, why the Foreign Office couldn’t have refused to accept his resignation.) And Boris Johnson, by deliberately and repeatedly refusing to back him, sealed his fate.
It’s not hard to work out why. Johnson thinks Trump will be post-Brexit Britain’s salvation. ITV’s political editor Robert Peston reported last Wednesday: ‘This summer, Johnson wants Trump to publicly celebrate his very special relationship with a Johnsonian Britain – in the twin hopes that this expedites a post-Brexit trade deal with the US and (perhaps more importantly) it persuades EU leaders to belatedly agree an acceptable Brexit compromise, to stay on the right side of a UK that may seem stronger as Trump’s acolyte.’
Yes, you read that right. ‘Stronger as Trump’s acolyte.’ Stronger as the plaything of an unpredictable, frequently unhinged, always ignorant narcissist, than as a major partner in an alliance of 28 democratic, European nation states.
It is, of course, ludicrous folly. Look where toadying up to the White House got Theresa May, dismissed by Trump this week in another of his Twitter-spews for having – inexplicably – ignored his advice on how to leave the EU: ‘She went her own foolish way – was unable to get it done. A disaster!’
Here is the verdict of the Washington-based foreign policy analyst Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution, writing this week in The Atlantic: ‘Theresa May did everything she could to accommodate Donald Trump. She was the first leader to visit him after he became president. She offered him a state visit to the UK at a much earlier stage in his tenure than his predecessors received one. She uttered nary a word of criticism of his administration … Trump could not have wished for a prime minister who was less demanding or more sycophantic … Trump gave May nothing in return.’
So a Trump sycophant in Downing Street is about to be replaced by a Trump acolyte. Our only hope is that on both sides of the Atlantic, the nightmare will soon be over.
I’m beginning to wonder if I should turn these weekly blogposts into a Hero of the Week feature. There’s no shortage of villains (I’ll happily leave you to draw up your own list), so perhaps I should do more to find people who seem – against the tide – to make the world a marginally better place than it would otherwise be.
Last week, I drew your attention to Janet Barker, the Greenpeace protester who was ejected from a City of London banquet by a none-too-gentle Foreign Office minister, Mark Field. (He was immediately suspended from his job by Theresa May, who was said to have found his decision to frogmarch Ms Barker out of the room with his hand around her neck ‘very concerning.’)
This week, I offer you Carola Rackete, a German environmentalist and activist with the charity Sea Watch International who was arrested in Italy last weekend for having rescued 53 migrants from an inflatable raft off the coast of Libya and landing them, without permission, on the Italian island of Lampedusa.
According to the Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini, who makes Nigel Farage look like a dyed-in-the-wool bleeding heart liberal, she is a ‘pirate’ and an ‘outlaw’ and her actions were an ‘act of war.’
On the contrary, said a judge who cleared her of having endangered the lives of four Italian police officers when the rescue ship she was captaining collided with a patrol boat that was trying to prevent her from docking. The judge, Alessandra Vella, ruled that Rackete had not broken the law and was carrying out her duty to protect human life. (Signor Salvini said he was ‘disgusted’ by the ruling.)
So three cheers for the judge, three cheers for Carola Rackete, and three more cheers for the thousands of people in Germany and Italy who immediately donated more than a million euros to her defence fund. (No cheers, on the other hand, for those people who have threatened her life and forced her to go into hiding.)
But why are desperate migrants still risking their lives by trying to reach Europe by sea from the north African coast? Thousands are still trapped indefinitely in appalling conditions in detention centres in Libya – just this week, more than forty were killed in an air attack on the Tajoura detention centre outside Tripoli. Little wonder that even the risk of drowning seems preferable.
And why are they having to endure such appalling conditions? Because that is what EU governments have demanded, preferring that they should rot out of sight in Libya than be granted asylum in Europe. According to the human rights organisation Human Rights Watch, Libyan coast guards have intercepted more than two thousand people at sea since the beginning of this year and returned them to detention in Libya.
In a report published last January, the organisation said it had found in Libyan detention centres ‘inhumane conditions that included severe overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, poor quality food and water that has led to malnutrition, lack of adequate health care, and disturbing accounts of violence by guards, including beatings, whippings, and use of electric shocks.’
All of which would be quite bad enough, even if it weren’t for the fact that the Libyan authorities are being given millions of euros by the European Union and its member governments to help them to intercept and detain migrants in these conditions. We all must shoulder our share of the blame.
And even as I write these words, I read reports of dozens more migrants feared drowned off the coast of Tunisia when their boat capsized on Wednesday.
Truly, Carola Rackete deserves a Hero of the Week award.
I wonder if the name Janet Barker means anything to you. It should – because she’s the Greenpeace protester who was manhandled and ejected from a London banquet last week by the now-suspended Foreign Officer minister Mark Field. (If you haven’t yet seen the video of the incident, click here.)
She and her fellow-protesters had intended to disrupt a speech being given by the chancellor Philip Hammond by making a speech of their own, calling for greater government investment and leadership in tackling the global climate emergency.
Emergency? Perhaps you missed the story the other day reporting that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased over the past year by the second highest amount of the past sixty years. Thirty years ago, the annual growth rate was around 1.5 parts per million; it’s now above 2.2 ppm and CO2 levels are at 414.8 ppm. If they reach 450 ppm, scientists say the earth’s climate will reach a tipping point beyond which the impact will be catastrophic and irreversible.
By my calculations, if current growth levels are maintained, we’ll be there in just fifteen years’ time. Words like ‘emergency’ and ‘crisis’ somehow seem inadequate.
So instead of fulminating against the latest idiocies emanating from both our main political parties – Boris Johnson’s new-found love of making model buses out of wine boxes, or Jeremy Corbyn’s insistence that there’s still plenty of time to make up his mind about Brexit – I’ve decided to pass on some extracts from what the Greenpeace protesters would have said at that Mansion House banquet if Mark Field hadn’t grabbed Janet Barker round her neck and marched her off the premises. (The full text of the speech they had prepared is here.)
‘The climate crisis cannot be fixed by stepping back and just leaving it to the free market. Nor will it be solved through simply fiddling around the edges with a few regulations. These things are too slow and ineffective for the speed of transformation required. Left alone, the market is not designed to bring us a green and prosperous future. It is time to step forward. It’s time to intervene.
‘The last five years were the hottest ever recorded. There are a growing number and intensity of extreme weather events. Millions of people are already losing their homes and livelihoods. Coral reefs are set to disappear. Crops are set to fail. People and animals are set to go hungry. But look at this banquet. Look at each other. You are dining out while the planet burns.
‘Sometimes we have to take action and spend more money now, simply because it is the only option. To stand a chance of saving the lives of millions of people here and all around the world, we must limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 1.5 degrees of warming gives us a chance of avoiding catastrophic droughts, crop failures, food crises, heat-waves, forest fires and flooding. Just a chance.
‘Yet just two weeks ago, Mr Hammond, you pretty much said “Please let us off the hook, otherwise it will cost too much.” What price would you pay to secure your children’s future on a liveable planet? What price to protect you and your families’ homes from irreparable flooding? What price to prevent millions of people worldwide from homelessness, statelessness and poverty? It’s time to change how the Treasury thinks. It’s time to redefine what it values.
‘If you want to know whether a policy is good, include the benefits as well as the costs. Here, the benefits include an economy fit for the 21st Century. Cleaner air. Warmer homes. Increasing the survival chances of civilisation itself. The Chancellor got his sums wrong. It’s time to change the Treasury’s models to fit with reality.
‘Policy decisions must no longer be hampered by the short-sighted logic of “decarbonisation at least-cost.” Having a comparative advantage in the technologies that every country in the world will have to adopt is an economic opportunity, not a hindrance. Now is the time for a new approach. It must be about “maximising every decarbonisation opportunity.
‘The UK has been the birthplace of some of the greatest innovations, feats of engineering and cutting edge entrepreneurship in the world. We are now one of the leading creators and makers of the new technologies that can massively cut our carbon footprint, power our homes, factories and offices, and protect, harness and utilise the land, wind, waters and sun that are abundant on these isles. Talent, creativity and optimism are needed now more than ever before to avert the very worst impacts of climate breakdown.’
I think it’s a shame the protesters never got a chance to make their speech. If you agree, do feel free to share this with your friends and others. If nothing else, it makes a change from the latest antics of the mop-haired blond bombshell from Camberwell.