The Green Liberal

Whatever you think about this climate camp protest at Kingsnorth - (and I hope you will think about our grandchildren's right to live on a planet without having to deal with the pollution we have left, and tipped up climate we are in the danger of causing) -  I am sure you support the right to protest.  Women would not have got the vote if the Suffragettes had not chained themselves in Whitehall, or thrust themselves in harms way to get noticed, and for the issue to be discussed.  Likewise, we would never have got any cycle lanes in London if it had not been for direct action on the streets in London in the face of party political intransigence to consider the issue in the lat 1980s.

As a prospective parliamentary candidate within the Lib Dems, I nonetheless strive to retain ties and communication with  friends in both the corporate sector and the NGO sector.  I therefore cycled down to Rochester from Greenwich to take part in the protest march towards the site, and to go up to the site and observe. I told the Police that I was a green Lib Dem, and wore my Lib Dem sweatshirt:  - not sure if it helped - but they didn't search me, or try and stop me at all (unlike many many others I spoke to). Other protestors on the march were mostly nice and calm, environmentalists, a few councillors (Green party, and Liberal Democrat) with women and kids everywhere.  People passionate about the planet.

On arrival at the site for the Climate camp site, which lies several miles away from the Kingsnorth power station itself,. I was immediately struck by the line of police at the entrance, rather intimidating and menacing I thought.   Inside the site there were people from across the environmental movement, setting up their own tents, and the bigger communal regional tents. The volunteer organising team were trying doing a grand job in welcoming people and directing them to the right part of the site.  The police were already getting in the way,  and thwarting necessary organisational set up and behaving like bullies already. And this was day minus one. Police officers were - singly and in groups - making regular forays into the camp site,  noseying around when there was nothing to see/or observe particularly - thwarting innocent campaigners and visitors trying to put up the larger tents, and get the site in a ready state for the serious workshops scheduled to begin Monday. Earlier in the day, the Police had come around the site and confiscated screwdrivers, sellotape, and gaffa tape.  Even drawing pins, marker pens, and blutac (for some of the workshops). Outrageous!  People putting tents up, some with misc-shapen, or broken poles, had no materials to fix them.  I had to pinch myself that this was England – the land of the free - Britons never never shall be slaves – not Soviet Russia, nor a Chinese re-education camp.  Worse, the Police were intimidating most visitors on arrival at a holding point half a mile away, and searching their rucksacs and possessions.   They say they can do this under section 1 of PACE.  If I was a first time protestor, this would put me off completely.  The implication being that to protest is to become a criminal. Who are the police protecting?  The innocent public? The criminal corporate sector who want to ignore worldwide calls (and agreement) to cut back on CO2?  If there were any aggressive, violent demonstrators, I saw none.

Whilst some Police on the march whom I spoke to were the paragons of proper policing in the old genre - correct, polite, defending good order; en mass many Police came across to me as nasty, inciteful, and sinister - the boys in black (not the boys in blue), reminiscent of the paramilitiaries who aggressed and beat up protestors at the G8 in Genoa a few years ago.

For the first time in my life, I saw how the intimidation by the Police just on day minus one was already a major factor in the breakdown of cooperation between the organisers and the Police. Whilst there may well be intelligence that I am not party to, I saw no sign of aggression from amongst any of the protestors at the site, nor those coming to the site.  In these circumstances  I attribute responsibility to the Police for the breakdown of civilised cooperation and the subsequent clash on Monday. The Police provoked it.  The Police occur to me as a law unto themselves, or to climate-criminal corporations like EON. I no longer have any conviction that they serve the public, or defend individual rights.  My visit to Kingsnorth ended with this sad realisation. 

1. British Council and Russia

Working for the European Commission Tacis programme in Brussels in the early 1990s, managing environmental aid projects there (transferring hard technical know how, and soft multi-stakeholder consultation techniques), our underlying philosophy was of providing skills to help convert previously centrally planned countries to  pluralistic market economies.  We supported the growth and development of NGOs, and independent opinions and views.   But of course in the historical context, our optimistic expectations that we would help create a modern progressive Russia, underpinned by the rule of law were dashed. The Russian government always wanted to retain full control:  old habits die hard.

Remember Russia never had a reformation, nor any long-established tradition of open enquiry and debate.  Democratic traditions are foreign. There were only two instances where they were fostered: first of all in the years up to the first world war, and the secondly in the early 1990s.  Both ended with the imposition of strong, top down rule. Could we have done differently?  Yes.  But all of us, young Eurocrats thought we were doing the best we could.  

Could the British Council have done differently?  I doubt it.  Given that they are part of the British embassy in Russia. In the light of British requests for the extradition of Lugovoi to answer the charge of killing Litvinenko, Russia will do all it can to make life difficult for Brits in Russia ( as it does with other countries that don’t kow tow to it – eg Georgia, Ukraine).  I expect that the  clamp down on the British Council will have some  support among Russians particularly in the countryside, because many Russians tend to believe unquestionably everything their Czar tells them.   In the cities, feeling will probably be more mixed:  British Council language courses are highly appreciated around the world. And British Council learning centres (like the Alliance Francaise, Goethe Institut, and Cervantes Centres) are prized for offering alternative viewpoints, something rare in Russia where  both independent media and independent non governmental organisations no longer exist. Even the Anglican church in Moscow has a member of the KGB sitting in the back of the church, noting the sermon, every Sunday. 

In the longer run, if the British Government really does cherish our freedoms, it will invest in and support the European renewable energy scheme developed by the Club of Rome called DESERTEC. This is a scheme for energy, water, and climate security, discussed at the European Parliament in November 2007.  To rely on Russia for fuel in the future is like relying on a bully to play by the rules. And their fuel is not carbon neutral.  Only renewables can save our freedoms.

2. Gazprom and Olympic Delivery Authority, and the British taxpayer

At the same time as Russia exercises its muscles over the British Council, I can imagine the UK’s Olympic Delivery Authority in negotiations with Gazprom, the KGB-influenced oil empire for £60 million sponsorship and advertising rights across the UK.  All that spin and charm.  Perhaps another deal will be done. Gazprom gets away with the nationalisation of Shell and BP’s oil interests in Russia,  the  2012 Olympics get some more money, Gazprom becomes a household name over here, and the UK taxpayer is not hit for more.  If the UK were to opt for a long term policy to support the development of renewables, you can bet your bottom rouble that Gazprom and others will spin all they can to persuade the British taxpayer that there is a cheaper alternative.  

3. Serbia, Russia and Kosovo, and the European taxpayer

I don’t remember when I last found myself agreeing with Russia.  But over Kosovo we appear to be on the same side.  Just for different reasons.  The Russians are against the independence of Kosovo because it would give  a precedent to its colonies in the north Caucasus which it has steadfastly refused independent political freedoms to.   I am against the independence of Kosovo at the present time because I am not convinced that it can survive economically on its own; and secondly unconvinced that Kosovo Albanians will safeguard the freedoms and rights of the Serbian minority in the north, as they were expected to do under UN Resolution 1244.  We already have one failed state in the Balkans: Bosnia.  We don’t need another failed state.

 Treatment of Kosovo under Milosevic was abhorrent, but blaming all Serbs for his behaviour is like blaming all Brits for Blair’s foray into Iraq.  Many Serbs say that it is the cradle of Serbian civilisation since the Middle Ages, but most appear to  have sold all their lands since then, and I met very few Serbs who had been down to see those churches and the sacred sites.  When I worked in Belgrade, my Serbian Government counterparts referred to Kosovo as southern Serbia, so in preparations for stakeholder consultation meetings, I suggested we invite Kosovar Albanians to Belgrade.  The answer was firmly “Ne”.  I even suggested having Albanian interpreters.  My Serb counterparts were horrified.   Given that Kosovo Albanians never showed much interest in working with Serbs, this reaction is understandable.  [see below for practical measures to resolve this]

To put the other side of the case, as I understand, Yugoslavia subsidized Kosovo financially in the 70s and 80s, up to the Milosevic period. Despite its undeserved bad press in some capitals, Serbia is blessed with well educated, clever people, who excel in sports at world class level, and in the sciences and engineering. (Microsoft has one of its European technological hubs here). From an economic perspective, Serbia can do fine without Kosovo.  The real question is can Kosovo go it alone without Serbia?  I doubt it.  Following the NATO invasion in 99, the west ended up subsidising Kosovo instead of Serbia.  Kosovo can’t survive economically on its own, and will become even more reliant on drugs, money laundering and people trafficking if the northern Serbian part of the province  merges with Serbia.  OK import/export shops will continue from the southern half of Kosovo, although I have never fathomed where the money comes from to pay for the imports, nor what there is to export. The Serbian population in the north will naturally want to merge with their brethren in Serbia if the majority Albanian population don’t treat them with equal rights. It is always the case with confederations which bring together different peoples. Kosovo will require even more western funds to survive.  Otherwise it may turn to join Albania, so stirring up ethnic problems in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia with its own Albanian minority.

 Some OECD  ambassadors in the region confided in me their disquiet over the supposed Western consensus on Kosovo, and agreed that the current Atisaarhi roadmap won’t work, but said that their Governments were not turning a blind eye. This intransigence has pushed Serbian political opinion against the EU as well. It is almost too late to effect any change. All parties – the West, Russia, Serbia, and Kosovo, are slithering to a new stalemate which may see Kosovo declare independence on its own. But whether it is straightforward independence in the next few months, or managed self determination within this age of interdependence, external money is going to be needed to keep Kosovo going.   A Dumbledore is required, who will bring together all parties… and create a new order, a special working relationship between the EU, Russia, the US, Serbia and the Kosovar representatives, backed up by a 30 year civil reconstruction programme:  promoting understanding between the countries bordering Kosovo to the north, south, east and west, through proactive education and training.  All schools in Kosovo would have to teach  Albanian, Serbian, and English, and there would be strong financial support for schools the other side of the borders to do so.  Cooperation and common actions would be encouraged through the sharing of common water resources and acceptance that air pollution crosses borders. Religious traditions would use the environment as a  medium to help build mutual respect (including the Anglican church which has had strong links with the ex Yugoslavian Orthodox church). Over some 30 years, a multi-cultural society can be created, drawing on the finest traditions of Belgrade, Sarajevo, Skopje, and the EU. Soon it will be too late for this.

 Agreement between all key partners above might just begin to soothe Anglo/Russian tempers too. It would also minimise the burden on EU taxpayers of subsidizing Kosovo, and reduce the loss of income from Serbs wanting to travel, study, work and shop within the EU. The EU will be the winner here, as Serbs are rehabilitated back into the European mainstream.   As for Ratko Mladic  I am sure that just like other military leaders wanted around the world, the US does know where he is.  More than the Serbs I expect.

Delighted that Nick Clegg is a) leader of the Liberal Democrats, and b) has named his shadow cabinet so quickly.

 I know Nick since we were colleagues together inside the European Commission 14 years ago, working as development experts (he on trade, me on environment), providing technical assistance to the former Soviet Union.  In fact we then joined the Liberal Democrats at about the same time, convinced that Britain needed to go Liberal again, and committed to internationalism, human rights, and liberal values. 

I was a supporter of the Nick Clegg campaign because in his heart, I am convinced Nick understands the challenges we face as humankind on our planet.  We need to reach out to the unconverted, the 70% of the population who are either anti-going green, or just waiting till they have to adapt.  In the light of this, as a vice Chair of the Green Lib Dems, I am delighted that Nick has given Steve Webb the environment portfolio, and  brought Norman Baker back from writing his recent book and given him the  transport brief.