Politics
A ray of hope in North Korea amid fears of an attack on Iran
Published 19 February 2007
The tried and tested way of strengthening the forces of conservatism in any country is to rally a people at a time of war
It has been said many times, but it is always worth repeating: the war in Iraq has made it harder than it ever was for the international community to agree on ways of dealing with difficult regimes. And yet as Hilary Benn points out, in the latest of our Labour deputy leadership interviews (page 12), the question cannot be ducked. Benn remains a supporter of that war, but intriguingly he reveals to us his opposition to plans for military action against Iran (as distinct from his Prime Minister who, as ever, will say nothing to rock the boat). His attempts to differentiate between Iraq and Iran are not entirely convincing. The main reason is surely this: the United States as a nation, and George Bush as its president, do not enjoy the hegemony they took for granted just a few years ago.
Responsibility for policing the world is therefore more diffuse. It should be vested in the United Nations, and we note with cautious optimism a greater willingness on the part of the US and others to give that organisation a chance. Equally, however, regional groups are being required to take the lead. The European Union has for the past three years taken upon itself (amid grumbling from Washington) to negotiate with the Iranians over their alleged plans to acquire nuclear weaponry. A recent leaked paper from the EU's foreign-policy chief, Javier Solana, appears pessimistic about the progress of that diplomacy. Europe is coming under increasing pressure from the US to tighten economic sanctions against Iran, to persuade the Iranians to back down. The signals are mixed. The foreign minister of Germany, which holds the rotating EU presidency, says he has indications of a new willingness by Tehran to negotiate seriously.
As Rageh Omaar notes, on his travels in Iran (page 22), the main impetus for change is coming from within Iran itself, from a predominantly young population and from a media that are showing a lack of deference both to the clerics and to Iran's quixotic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The one tried and trusted means of reinforcing the forces of conservatism in any country is to instil a sense of victimhood in its leaders, and to rally a population at a time of war. In short, any form of military action - and it would have to be on an unimaginable scale to be remotely "effective" - would cause greater destabilisation to the region and the world than even the Iraq war has done.
According to Dan Plesch on page 15, the plans are ready. War can take place at any time. The political confusion in Washington described by Andrew Stephen on page 16 does anything but reassure. Bush and Ahmadinejad are capable of ratcheting up the language to a point where neither can back down.
What odds on the president, who has had his power eviscerated domestically by the Democrats, having one last military fling?
And yet events in another part of the world might provide some hope. Of the three countries named by Bush in his infamous "axis of evil" list, the most intransigent has been North Korea. Since negotiations broke down under the Clinton administration, the US has achieved no progress in its bellicose dealings with that rogue state (and here, for once, that term can be properly applied). Last October, a leadership that cannot feed its own people, and has left them in the Dark Ages, fired a nuclear test. Since then, the six-nation talks have intensified, leading to a very tentative agreement whereby North Korea promises to shut down its main nuclear reactor in return for fuel aid. In turn, the US and Japan have pledged to hold talks with Pyongyang.
The chances are high that the deal could yet unravel. But two early conclusions can be drawn. China, which in effect led the discussions, cannot be ignored in any area of tension, and its role will not necessarily be malign. And dogged, painstaking multilateral negotiations are invariably the best way to proceed. If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that a diplomatic route, backed where necessary by economic and other sticks, must be allowed to run its course; that evidence of malfeasance has to be open and incontrovertible; and that military action might achieve short-term goals but, without broad international consent, spells long-term disaster.
New followers of the green cause?
Sometimes the glass is half full. Anyone who has tried to travel abroad recently might suspect the airlines of having become paid-up members of the green movement. Their baggage rules are now so various and impenetrable that the lure of that Campari while watching the sun set over Lake Como weakens by the day.
We had hardly absorbed the security-driven bans on carrying toothpaste and lipstick than airlines imposed their own, revenue-raising restrictions. While you may now travel with the above items in a transparent freezer bag of limited proportions, one of your party will need a higher degree in spatial science to negotiate the number, weight and volume of your other items of luggage. One airline charges for checked-in bags, but allows as much hand baggage as you can carry yourself (and you do not want to sit next to the traveller testing that regulation to its limits). Another accepts one free checked-in bag per traveller, but charges up to £120 per bag (the same to bring it back) for any second item (unless, oddly, it's a pair of skis).
Even our giant-brained Environment Secretary, David Miliband, appears to have thrown in the towel, cancelling a flight to Washington and deciding to conduct high-level climate negotiations by video link. But David, admit it. It's not really the bird flu keeping you busy at home, far less fear of criticism for flying so far to chat about global warming. It's the baggage regime, isn't it?
Airlines, our children will thank you.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
