CentreRight

The case for observance of the Olympic Truce

Today Parliament will hold its first ever debate on the Olympic Truce, which it will be my privilege to lead off in the House of Lords. I believe the Truce represents a golden opportunity to advance a Conservative vision of international society and should be grasped with enthusiasm by Her Majesty's Government. 

The Truce runs from seven days before the Olympic Games until seven days after the Paralympic Games conclude. Since 1993 the Olympic Truce has been backed by a United Nations Resolution (A/RES/48/11) which ;

“Urges all Member States to take the initiative to abide by the Truce, individually and collectively, and to pursue in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations the peaceful settlement of all international conflicts.”

This UN Resolution which is renewed before each Winter Olympic and Summer Olympic Games is remarkable in two respects: First, it is signed up to unanimously by all 193 Member States of the United Nations and second, there is absolutely no record of any signatory to the Resolution ever taking any ‘initiative to abide by the Truce, individually or collectively’.

Some may say that I would have more success winning of the endorsement of the Unite Union for more radical public expenditure cuts than trying to win support for adherence to the Olympic Truce on a Centre Right blog, but I want to make the case that peace and truce as a means of achieving it are absolutely core to Conservative beliefs and values:

Law & Order: We believe in the abiding by the law and in the orderly conduct of state affairs. So when Her Majesty’s Government go before the United Nations General Assembly in 2012 to propose a legal instrument (a UN Resolution) which it currently has absolutely no intention of adhering to how is that ‘law abiding’? What example does that set to rogue states on the importance of adhering to UN Resolutions? War and conflict destroy order and create chaos. Peace gives a chance to restore order.

Defence & Immigration:  We have seen all too often how failed states, invariably riven by conflict, become incubators for terrorism and drug running which are then exported around the world to devastating effect. Resolving conflicts is therefore surely a matter of enlightened national interest. We all stand in utter admiration for the courage and commitment of our brave armed forces, so surely any initiative which prevents one more death or injury of these heroes worth taking? There are globally over 36 million displaced refugees as a result of war, much of the pressure on our own borders comes from migrants fleeing violence and insecurity in their home country.

Freedom & Prosperity: Conflict promotes fear and erodes freedom. Conflict destroys efficient functioning of markets and the process of wealth creation. I am involved in politics because I believe in the peaceful resolution of disputes under the law. That is what parliamentary democracy was designed for. The rejection of violence and tyranny and the protection of the rights of the individual upheld by parliament is the purpose of politics. Why should we so diffident in taking every opportunity to advance abroad what we have come to enjoy at home. Prime Minister, David Cameron made a Statement to the House of Commons on 14 June, 2010 in which he concluded:

“Insurgencies usually end with political settlements—not military victories... and we need a political process to bring the insurgency to an end.”

It needs also to be stressed at this point that a Truce is an agreement between two or more warring parties, and if one of those parties doesn’t abide then the others are released from their obligations also. Moreover, Truce itself does not bring peace and security it is the fact that when the guns fall silent then the voices of reason can be heard and when the guns stop then the delivery of vital humanitarian aid can start. We know that the ceasefire in Northern Ireland was the essential pre-cursor to political agreement and political agreement the pre-cursor to economic development.

David Cameron, William Hague and Andrew Mitchell have revolutionised the Conservative approach to foreign policy under the banner of ‘One World Conservativism’. The Olympic Truce represents the first and best opportunity to advance this positive vision at home and abroad and with it the possibility for London 2012 to leave a legacy not just of sporting venues and medals, but in lives saved, freedoms protected, law upheld, prosperity enhanced and hope in the veracity of international order restored. Surely that is something that all Conservatives would consider a legacy worth ‘not-fighting’ for.

Lord Bates: It was Conservative peers who defended the attack on religious freedom this week

By Lord Bates

My postbag and inbox were bulging with communications from faith organisations, church leaders and members concerned about a clause in the government’s Equality Bill. The clause proposed by the government would have removed the ability of church and religious organisations to appoint people who adhere to the teachings of the faith community. It was a blatant attack on religious freedom in this country.

As the Archbishop of York summed up:

“If religious freedom means anything, it must mean that those are matters for the churches and other religious organisations to determine in accordance with their own convictions. They are not matters for the law to impose.”

The Amendment to reject the government clause in favour of preserving religious freedom was argued brilliantly and sensitively by Baroness O’Cathain in front of a packed chamber in the House of Lords. The Government, fearful that they would lose the vote, embarked on some despicable and low parliamentary procedures to try and scupper and defeat the amendment. The manoeuvrings were exposed and blocked by the inspired tactical awareness of Baroness Anelay and messages to supporters communicated by Opposition Whips’ scurrying through the corridors and tea rooms.

The ‘forgotten’ war we must win

“Win the war against drugs and you will win the war against terror—they are two sides of the same coin" that was the view of the Colombian Vice Minister of Defence as a small British parliamentary delegation toured the former coca plantations of La Macarena on the frontline of the battle against FARC guerrillas.

Seven years ago Colombia was the most violent country on the planet: Its murder rate was 32 times that of the UK and today it is still 50% higher than Iraq. Decades of appeasement by government ministers of the terrorists/drug-traffickers had created a lawless country, a collapsed economy and grinding poverty.

Then Alvaro Uribe was elected as president, who, with US support took on the FARC attacking them at source—the coca plantations which the terrorists had operated with impunity through fear and corruption.

These coca plantations were not a ‘Colombian’ problem they were a ‘global’ problem as they spewed their produce onto the streets of affluent countries chiefly in the United States and Europe (the UK being the largest market in Europe accounting for 40% consumption).

Carrying its twin diseases of violence and anarchy through illicit drug routes in West Africa and Mexico, cocaine is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and many times more through the networks of crime and gangs which live off its proceeds. This compares to total deaths from terrorist attacks around the world of 15,765 (2008).

"Prime Minister, you are no Sir John Major."

This past week I have found myself reflecting on one of the most devastating put-downs in political history was delivered on the 5th October 1988 during the televised US vice-presidential debate in Omaha, Nebraska by Senator Lloyd Bentsen: After his opponent Senator Dan Qualye likened himself to Jack Kennedy, “Senator,” Bentsen remarked, “I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”

The trigger for the reminiscences were press reports that John Major had become the ‘patron saint of Brown’s inner circle’ as they drew parallels to the problems he faced whilst in government. As someone privileged to serve as a junior minister in John Major’s administration I would suggest contrasts condemn rather than comfort the current incumbent of 10 Downing Street:

• John Major was a deeply loyal Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher and emerged as the strongest candidate from a highly competitive field in the leadership contest which occurred following her untimely removal as leader;
• John Major won a General Election in 1992 with the largest popular vote (14.093 million) ever recorded for political Party in a British General Election;
• John Major initiated The Downing Street Declaration in 1993, which was followed by an IRA ceasefire. At the time he had a shaky majority of only 21 in the House of Commons (Brown has 63) and showed immense political courage in being prepared to jeopardize the 12 Unionist MPs’ support in pursuit of an historic peace settlement;
• John Major committed British forces to the First Gulf War with a clear objective and exit strategy—to liberate Kuwait, and did so with UN Security Council backing and full support of our allies resulting in a swift and decisive victory. John Major developed the idea to establish a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to protect the Kurds refugees against the genocidal attacks by Saddam Hussein an act which to this day ensures Major retains hero status amongst the Kurdish people;
• John Major staunchly defended British interests in the Maastricht Treaty, unlike Gordon Brown's sell-out in the Lisbon Treaty. Major negotiated a series of crucial opt-outs for Britain from the Delors’ plan for Economic & Monetary Union, the social chapter and the retention of our border controls which along with the exit from the ill-fated ERM laid the foundations for a world-beating period of economic growth;
• John Major when faced with plotting about his leadership by the parliamentary Party had the political courage to invite his opponents to step out into the open, to ‘put up or shut up’ and forced a leadership election which he won by 218 votes to 89;
• John Major thought about the long-term strategic advantage of the nation rather than the short-term tactical advantage for his premiership, consider the National Lottery which has raised over £22 billion for good causes, transformed the funding of sport in this country and laid the foundation for Olympic success in Sydney, Beijing and to securing the games for London in 2012;
• John Major left a golden economic legacy in 1997 with strong growth, falling unemployment, a national debt half its current level and a Public Sector Borrowing Requirement which was £2 billion and falling compared to currently £104 billion under Labour and rising. In fact John Major’s administration was the only post-war government to leave office with every economic indicator improving; and
• Finally, people liked John Major. They thought him a decent, honest political leader and still do.

“I knew John Major, I served with John Major. Prime Minister you are no Sir John Major.”

North Korea’s latest nuclear test is a desperate act designed for domestic appeasement

North Korea’s latest nuclear test is a desperate act designed for domestic appeasement rather than foreign belligerence. There are a number of factors essential to the stability of the regime and all have contributed directly or indirectly to the decision to conduct a second nuclear test:

Uncertainty in the search for a successor to Kim Jong-il (The Dear Leader)

In August 2008 Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke and was not seen in public for six months. When he re-appeared the fact that Kim had visibly lost weight and looked frail and this will have led to concerns in the upper echelons of the North Korean leadership that he may be perceived domestically and internationally as weak. Weakness would be seen as a serious threat to continuity of the regime. There are clear signs that this is leading to a vigorous internal power struggle between Kim Jong-il and the military.

Kim Jong-il may seeking to position one of his two eldest sons as successor, whilst the establishment favourite remains Jang Song-taek, Kim Jong-il’s brother-in-law.  In January there was a major re-shuffle with at least nine cabinet ministers replaced. Last week Choe Sung-chol, a senior figure in North Korea's Workers Party of Korea, was executed for promoting better relations with South Korea--all signs that hardliners are consolidating their grip.

BNP: The real threat to 'Christian' Britain

There is a growing use of a campaigning technique by the BNP in these elections which seeks to present the British National Party as the defender of ‘Christian’ Britain. This should not go unchallenged. They use careful imagery in their leaflets designed to scare voters into belief that their traditional values and way of life are under threat. I wish to argue the case that the BNP is the exact antitheses of Christianity and it is they who represent the true threat to Christian values in this country.

In Section 2 (b) of the BNP Statement of Principles we read: ‘The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic  character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.’

There are at least two points here that the Christian would wish to carefully consider:

(a) The BNP is ‘wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European people’ and (b) the BNP is committed to ‘legal changes’ which would ‘restore’ the overwhelmingly white make-up’ that existed in Britain prior to 1948’.

These phrases have a sinister echo in modern history and follow Nazi Party claim that the Germanic and claim to be part of an Aryan race and that the Jews and other non-Aryans such as Slavs and Roma were engaged in a sinister plot to ‘dilute’ racial purity and destroy the Germanic peoples and must be stopped. The eventual result was the Holocaust.