How I learned to stop worrying and love Russia

The latest development in the Russia-Georgia saga has seen the USA pledge $1 billion in aid to Georgia after the damage to its infrastructure caused by the Russian incursion in August. Simultaneously, the American Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is touring countries in the former Soviet bloc, assuring its people that America has a continued interest in their wellbeing. Tomorrow, he visits Kiev, the capital of the Ukraine, which has already been paid a visit by our own David Miliband and which many have identified as a potential flashpoint in the beginning of a new Cold War.
Russia has already said it is not afraid of another Cold War. This is not surprising for, in terms of European energy supplies, Russia would have a significant advantage in any such 'struggle'.

Is this crisis indicative of a new cold war, or a cold snap? Russia's reaction to the initial Georgian incursion into South Ossetia was out of proportion. To invade parts of Georgia was a unilateral decision unbecoming of a large world power. It has drawn historical comparisons to Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938, where the German leader appointed himself the advocate for ethnic Germans living in that region. Medvedev's Russia had similar motivations when it leapt to South Ossetia's defence. The fear now is that something similar will occur with the Russians living in the Ukraine.
There is a consensus among EU and NATO member countries, that the newly aggressive Russian foreign policy is intolerable and that sanctions and isolation will greet a country that continues to try and forcefully impose its will on countries within its immediate sphere of influence. Furthermore, there is an argument that says the conflict has marked the end of what many see as the new world order that arose from the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
Such an argument is valid when one considers how Russia has chosen to return to the world stage as a major player. Yet, to blithely speak of a new cold war, a return to the Russia of old, is a fallacy that some Western governments have already been guilty of.
The nationalist concerns of Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia have been there since the end of the Cold War. In fact, the demand on the part of the former Soviet republics for individual national identity (including Russia) were driving forces behind the collapse of the USSR, arguably taking the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev further than he initially intended. As far as Georgia and South Ossetia are concerned, the situation has flared up before and in the past, Russia has mediated, albeit more peacefully. Russia's own attempts at playing peacekeeper in the area have been undermined by factors such as their involvement in the Chechyan war and accusations of their own self-interest in South Ossetia, principally from Georgia.
Ultimately, the current crisis has been another example of national interest being bound up in foreign policy and vice-versa. This is not only the case with Russia, but with the US, EU and NATO. Dick Cheney's tour of the area in the last few days has reminded the Ukraine and Georgia that the US has a vested interest in the region too. While this has been portrayed under the guise of humanitarian aid, these two countries are key to ensuring a smooth supply of energy to the rest of Europe, should Russia's isolation from the international community grow more marked. Gordon Brown has tied this into the need for alternative energy supplies and he is right to do so.
In the case of Georgia and the Ukraine, the drive for national and international recognition has led them to seek membership with NATO, an organisation that has found new relevance post-9/11 and yet, for Russia, could be perceived as a lingering Cold War symbol in a post-Cold War world. While NATO is seen as key to Georgian and Ukranian national security, in Russian eyes it has expanded ever eastwards. No doubt questions have been raised in Moscow as to why Georgia can join NATO, while Russia cannot. The answer is that Russia has internal problems it needs to resolve before meeting the criteria - but then so does Georgia.
Russia may revert to type, but politicians such as Bush, Cheney and McCain in US and Miliband in the UK, should refrain from identifying too quickly with Georgia. For McCain to declare 'we are all Georgians tonight' is another example of our governments quickly taking sides in conflicts which have complex ethnic and political histories.
Russia's actions in the Georgian crisis should be condemned. That said, future diplomatic relations should be mindful that Russia has returned as a world power and that. along with China, it can challenge the post-CW dominance of the West. If we want historical comparisons, it is more helpful to think of the return of the 19th century model of countries competing for spheres of influence, balance of power, although even this is not an ideal system, as WW1 eventually proved.
Russia is a potential ally in dealing with Iran, North Korea. But, the next US President and future Prime Ministers should be prepared for the fact that its need for international recognition may manifest itself differently from that of Georgia, the Ukraine or that of the West. One hundred years ago, Theodore Roosevelt told America to 'tread carefully and carry a big stick'. Russia may just be coming to the same conclusion.

This isn´t just a lecture on waste, this is a Gordon Brown lecture on waste

It was at the G8 summit on the 7th July that Gordon Brown warned UK citizens to cut back on wasted food in the home. This is a fairly typical piece of advice from Mr Brown, who until recently was (or at least was a contender for the title of) Mr Prudent.
However, in another brilliant display of timing, or in Brown´s case a distinct lack thereof, the leaders of the richest eight countries in the world were then seen sitting down to a superb banquet, which soon brought cries of hypocrisy from the UK and, no doubt, international media.

For me, it was an excellent example of a theme which has been recurrent throughout the summer months, as the threat of a recession continues to grow and Labour´s lead falls in the court of public opinion. That theme is, that Labour and, more specifically, Mr Brown himself have both lost touch with what we in Britain seem to want and in some cases, need.

The G8 summit in July was one of several examples of Brown being seemingly hypocritical, indecisive or stubbornly silent on subjects such as Britain´s foreign policy towards Russia or the aforementioned credit crunch.

I may be alone on this ( I know my dad thinks Brown has had it), but I´m a proponent of an argument which says the following: that, rather than Brown´s Labour government suddenly being out of touch, hypocritical or indecisive in this current climate, its actually the political and economic climate itself which has, as it tends to do from time to time, revealed a flaw in our beloved democracy - that politicians aren´t always in touch with what the public want.

This isn´t confined to Britain. The election race in America has also revealed how, ultimately, the political class can never quite get down from their lecturns and join what John McCain would refer to, perhaps, as 'ordinary Americans´(Please someone explain that phrase to me).
We saw Hilary Clinton downing whiskey in blue collar bars to prove she was 'one of the guys´. Obama has tried desperately to overcome his image as the face of the liberal middle classes and win over those same working class voters. Finally, John McCain is the folksy, straight talkin´candidate who knows what America wants. Joe Biden promises to give the Obama ticket that same 'ordinary´charm.
Now, remind me, how many houses does McCain have again?
Ultimately, the White House is an ivory tower. George Bush got into it by playing to the ´ordinary´card and swiftly became a self-titled war president. But, when Hurricane Katrina happened, the amount of power and luxury at his disposal coupled with his 'ordinary´charm made him just look out of touch and unprepared from behind the desk of the Oval Office.
Back here, while Brown may have hit a creative wall politically, anyone who thinks David Cameron´s Conservatives have their hand on Britain´s pulse should think again. I can´t help but wonder if, while the Tories may seem the lesser of two evils at the moment, they would actually be able to run the country any better.
Tony Blair went to war with Iraq against public opinion. The only difference between that and Brown is, in my opinion, that it didn´t affect the price of bread or milk-
However, with our irritating lapses into Blair nostalgia being what they are, people are starting to forget his love of grace and favour holidays at Cliff Richard´s villa and his tendency towards high rhetoric.
Perhaps it´s better to just be corrupt and not be accused of being hypocritical at all. Consider if Dmitri Medvedev had pushed for further sanctions against Robert Mugabe at the G8 summit. For him to accuse the President of Zimbabwe of electoral corruption would be like the pot calling the kettle corrupt, don´t you think?
Gordon Brown may have got it wrong in accusing us of being wasteful and then not pushing harder for the eight leaders to go to Tesco and get some microwave ready meals. However, as hypocrisy goes, things could be a lot worse.

Stephen Fry and Majid Ahmed - what do they both have in common?

Apparently, the admissions board at Imperial College, London did their bit to fight crime and uphold the public's trust in the medical profession, when they withdrew 18 year old applicant Majid Ahmed's offer of a place to study medicine, after he admitted to a spent criminal conviction from three years previously.

I must write to them and say thanks. Possibly a fruit basket? Or muffins? No, fruit because muffins, a doctor would tell me, aren't part of one's five a day.

Sorry, back to the point before I descend into hair-pulling and calling the members of said admissions board 'smellyheads' and other juvenile phrases.

The title of this piece asks: what has Mr Ahmed got in common with British national treasure, Stephen Fry? The answer is, they both had criminal convictions before applying to university. In
Mr Fry's case, it was credit card fraud. After serving a three month prison sentence, Fry was allowed to return to school and subsequently went onto gain a place at Cambridge University. The rest, of course, is British comedy history.
Is it an overreaction to compare this young man's current plight with Stephen Fry? One could argue that they are both isolated cases and that, if you looked longer, there are plenty more examples of people being turned away from jobs, university, positions of responsibility due to their criminal past. It is just a fact of life. This may be true. However, I pick out Stephen Fry, paradoxically, because he is a celebrity and because, it is possible that he would not be where he is today if Cambridge University had turned him away.

Nor am I saying that young Mr Ahmed is necessarily going to turn out to be the man who singlehandedly cures cancer. However, given that he has, in his own words, worked with disabilities charities and helped raise £11,000 to help poor children attend a summer camp in Wales and taking into account the good references from charity workers and doctors he has worked with, why not give him the chance?

The counter-arguments I have heard include : the fact that he is entering into a heavily oversubscribed profession, that he should have mentioned his conviction on his original UCAS form and that, ultimately places should go to other students who haven't commited a criminal offence. The author of a post on the Telegraph website says that if a doctor committed burglary, he would be struck off. Yes he would. If a doctor also happened to find himself in the position where he was systematically killing his patients, he would likewise be struck off...and Harold Shipman seemed like such a nice chap in the beginning.

The point here is that he's not a doctor yet and Imperial College, in taking the moral high ground and upholding what they see as the public trust in 'the integrity and probity' of doctors everywhere (quote from BBC news website), seemed to have missed the point that your average criminal mastermind doesn't usually confess to a criminal background. Mr Ahmed was later advised to write a letter confessing to his conviction. I remember my own UCAS application to university all too well and, at the time, there are plenty of teachers, parents and handbooks telling you what to write and what not to write in an application. This was a boy of 18 who probably got lots of contrasting advice. Imagine how much younger he was when he committed that burglary. People make mistakes but, especially at university, they change. I like to think for the better. Yes, he committed a criminal offence, but in a world where much worse is done on the streets of the UK every day, a young man who has tried his best to come back from a four month community service referral deserves a chance to reform.

Oh, and I thought of another example to conclude. Leslie Grantham, a.k.a. Dirty Den from Eastenders, got the part in 1985 in spite of a sixteen year prison sentence for murder. And the Beeb didn't let him go until nineteen years later when he was caught exposing himself on a webcam.

Next Week on 'Where Are The World's Priorities?'

....

America's love affair with the Second Amendment.

A new chapter in the debate over the United States' Second Amendment - the right to bear arms - unfolded last Thursday. A ruling by the US Supreme Court was passed by a majority of 5-4, that 'enshrines for the first tme the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life' (BBC's Justin Webb).
To elaborate, the Supreme Court was ruling that a ban on handguns in the district of Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. A single security guard working in the capital, Dick Heller, was the main catalyst for this decision. He argued that of he was allowed to carry a gun at work, it made sense that he should be allowed to use it in his home life as well. Unfortunately his viewpoint conflicted with a thirty two year old ruling by the Supreme Court, which prohibited the private use of handguns in the US capital. That is, until it was overturned by the present day Court in Thursday's landmark ruling.
Within the context of Mr Heller's case, the ruling makes a kind of sense. One could imagine that Mr Heller is a law-abiding citizen who is good at his job and resents being treated like a criminal the second he takes a gun, which he is trained to use in the defence of himself and his colleagues, off his work premises. So far, so rational.
Where this gets more worrying is in it's ramifications for how the American public chooses to define the Second Amendment.
Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain said that the ruling proved that 'gun ownership was a fundamental right - sacred, just as free speech or amnesty.' Further, Justice Antonin Scalia gave the Court majority opinion when he said that said that the Constitution did not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defence in the home”(The Times website).
While being only two examples, they do point to a certain reading of the Second Amendment, which says that the right to bear arms in self- defense is as relevant now as it was in 1791.
I am left wondering, has no one considered how the ambiguity of the language in this Amendment leaves it open to numerous interpretations? Even a comma in a different place can slightly change the meaning of the phrase - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The amendment works in lofty, ideological terms with it's concern of the 'security of a free state". And where exactly does the 'well regulated militia' fit into modern day DC life? Are Al Quaeda not a well-regulated militia, to use a darker, contemporary example. The pro-gun elements in this debate have latched onto the latter part of the sentence, which simply says the right to keep and bear arms. But are we talking sleeping with a musket under your pillow or keeping a prized and various collection of guns in your shed?
The right to defend yourself and the right to possess a gun is a line which can become all too blurred. Look at Tony Martin in this country. Would he have courted media attention, let alone a life sentence in prison, if he had clubbed his intruders with a baseball bat that simply knocked them unconscious. Instead he chose to 'defend himself' with a shotgun.
Give the average American citizen a gun and the question shifts from 'Is the burglar going to kill me before he robs my house?' to 'Can I shoot him before he shoots me?'

Both are a bit too ambiguous for my liking. Rather like the American Second Amendment.