London Progressive Journal

In January 2007, the Iraq Solidarity Campaign informed the international community about the damage which the growth of poverty has caused to the children of Iraq, through the much- publicised paper "Western Civilisation - The Unspoken Fate of Iraqi Children".

The report, which was published by a wide variety of publications including the Morning Star, the UN Observer, Palestine Chronicle and the Global Research Institute, reported that the increase in poverty since the 2003 invasion has resulted in the growth in the child sex trade, the forced separation of families, an increase in drug and alcohol abuse. Psychiatrists have also highlighted the effect of the ubiquitous violence on the school attendance rates and performance, referred to in the report as "learning impediments".

The report also found that 400,000 of Iraq’s children are also suffering from a condition called “wasting”, which is characterised by chronic diarrhoea and high deficiencies of protein. However, the conduct of the US-backed government of Iraq has sunk to a new low, with news that the regime of Jalal Talabani and Nouri Al-Maliki, who are not satisfied with the murder of one million Iraqis since the occupation began, now plan to starve the rest by eliminating Iraq’s already meagre ration service by June 2008.

The ration system was first established during the 1990s to combat the widespread poverty which had resulted from the UN Sanctions, in a British and American backed blockade which saw the murder of an estimated 1.5 million children due to “embargo related causes”. The 6,000 children lost per month was viewed by America’s Madeline Albright as being a “price worth paying“.

Whilst the country was ruled by Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party, the United Nations themselves praised Iraq’s ration system as being “the world’s largest and most effective relief effort” and even in the face of invasion, the “tyrannical” Iraqi President “ruthlessly” provided his population with an advanced six months' supply but now the “independent” Iraqi government have decided to end the system, which has saved millions from starvation, on the grounds that the closure is “in line with the obligations it has made to the World Bank“.

Some analysts say that millions of Iraqis will be affected, particularly families with no bread winners, as well as women, the unemployed and children. It is also believed that Iraq is going to lose control of its own inflation and that the people are therefore going to experience a price increase in food, fuel and other daily essentials.

In other words, British and American Troops who are based in Iraq at the “invitation” of the Iraqi Government are going to be made to shoot their bullets at, and kick down the doors of, an increasingly starving population. Is this what being against Saddam or Al-Qaida now means?

The news has come as a shock to both campaigners and Iraqi families, in the face of recent allegations by one Arab newspaper, which recently revealed that Iraqi MP’s were being offered five million dollars each, to vote in favour of the privatisation of Iraq’s nationalised oil. It was further revealed that monies brought in from oil revenues were not even going towards the so-called ”reconstruction” of democratic Iraq.

But campaigners, led by the Iraq Solidarity Campaign (ISC), have sworn that plans to eliminate this essential service will not go unopposed in either the Middle East or the West, and have already begun to mount a challenge to the Iraqi regime and the US/British occupying powers, in a direct challenge which is already gathering momentum.

Within twenty-four hours of launching the campaign, the international petition “Act Against Iraq Poverty”, addressed to the governments of Iraq, Britain and America, has been endorsed by a variety of political parties and personalities. The ISC demand that the ration service be maintained and be developed to provide for the needs of Iraqi families.

Already the petition has been signed by many political organisations including the Communist Party of Britain’s Somerset Branch, RESPECT (renewal), a Liberal Democrat councillor, the Polish Labour Party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, the Australian Socialist Alliance, the US Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Massachusetts Green Party. Even some members of the Democratic and Republican parties in the US have endorsed it.

This is alongside the National Revival and Sovereignty Movement of Russia, the Iraq Solidarity Association in Stockholm, the Uruknet Association in Italy, and the former Scottish MSP Tommy Sheridan’s Socialist Solidarity Party in Scotland.

The breadth of international support from campaigners has also come from as far afield as Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Mexico, Sweden, Thailand, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Sri Lanka, the UK and Venezuela, each with a crystal clear message to the occupying governments and their stooges; “If you don't shoot or torture your victims, you starve them to death. Shame on you!”

One supporter from the United Kingdom wrote, “I add my name to those who urge the UN, the British and Americans, to continue the rationing program in Iraq and stop the abuses aimed at hungry Iraqis!” with Ian Douglas from Cairo asking Bush, Brown, Maliki and Talabani, “What is a government that starves the people?”

Comments to the occupiers from US citizens have also included “Over a million slaughtered, millions of widows and orphans, millions of refugees - and now the dirty occupiers want to snatch the bread from the mouths of the living - stop this genocide of the defenceless Iraqi people.” As others have stated on the petition, the occupying powers need to pay the Iraqi people reparations for the damages and trauma caused by the illegal invasion in 2003. There have been other demands for an independent commission to be established and see to the perpetrators of the war and invasion be tried as war criminals.

The international campaign against the elimination of the rations has been established against the backdrop of the seriousness that ending the service will cause to the Iraqi people, as one health worker recently told Dahr Jamail of the International Press Service: "I and my wife have five boys and six girls so the ration costs a lot when it has to be bought. I cannot afford food and other expenses like study, clothes and doctors."

But as one woman recently said to Al-Jazeera, "If they reduce the quantity of the ration, we will be displaced [made homeless] as the money to pay bills will have to be used for food. If we are considered a poor family today, tomorrow we will be considered absolutely desperate."

Caroline Flint the new Housing Minister has proposed that new tenants on council estates will have to sign up to "actively seek work" as a condition of their tenancy. So now it's a case of "no dog, no cat, no loud music, keep the place spick and span and you must get a job". Most council tenants and their families will see this as patronising and insulting and completely out of touch with reality.

There is something disturbingly familiar about this rubbish: it's like the old Victorian notion of the deserving and undeserving poor.

An Englishman's Home is His Castle

Some Englishmen live in castles, draughty old buildings with leaky roofs and big holes in the walls. Most castles however have been taken over by the National Trust and English Heritage. For the rest of us however, slum clearance was supposed to get rid of inadequate housing!

There is a myth supposedly derived from bourgeois law that "an Englishman's home is his castle". Or maybe in council estates and housing schemes throughout Britain, "a little old lady's high rise flat with a view of the sewage works is her castle" would be more accurate. It means that having a home or a tenancy gives you certain rights, these might be limited by tenancy conditions, but linking it to benefits and "work" is a step too far.

Council Housing or "social housing" began in Britain as a policy of "homes fit for heroes" after the First World War. Until the late 1970s, even the Tories seemed willing to support it in practice, if not in principle. All that changed under the Thatcher government.

Housing estates have always been acknowledged as centres of urban deprivation labelled at various times with words like "Inner city", "Isolated", "Poor access to services", "Juvenile delinquency", "Anti social behaviour", then "ASBOs", "Long term unemployment", "Youth crime and disorder", "TWOC" (stealing cars), "Urban deprivation", "Drug and alcohol", "mental health problems", "Under- privilege".

Government responses have been varied: "short sharp shock", "right to buy", "choice", "trickle down" or "laissez faire", "tough on crime... tough on the causes of crime", "social inclusion", "regeneration".

Language

Over many years the language has been altered to disguise the real issues. Unemployed people are now NEET (Not in education, employment or training). They are also workless. In fact "worklessness" is now one of the worst types of "ness" you can catch. In the Margaret Thatcher years, it was apparently possible to also catch "fecklessness" and "idleness", or at least that's what the Daily Mail would have you believe. Poverty and unemployment are the big issues whatever you call them.

What is clear is that, far from dealing with the fundamental issues, successive governments have tended to label people first and then make life difficult for them. After all think how easy it is to take on the poorest and most vulnerable people in society than take on the idle rich and their feckless progeny.

What are the demographics of council housing at present? In many areas the "right to buy" has badly affected housing stocks. This means that in some areas only the poorer quality, more run down areas have remained under "social housing". In many cases the populations of the estates are old, or single parents, or people with health problems. In other areas there is a very transient population with poor job prospects, few skills and little chance of finding a job.

Labour

Over the course of the Labour Government since 1997 there have been some changes, some additional investment in some areas, but on the other hand the negative effects of "modernisation" such as Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) and the ever increasing mountain of legislation that seems to be intent on criminalising young people for - being young. Exclusion zones, ASBOs and such like are ostensibly a response to the of tenants' perceptions of "disorder" and so on. But in many cases the types of problems that are being targeted are low level issues, symptomatic of a clear lack of things to do for young people and places to go.

Lack of opportunities, poor facilities, isolation and in many cases police repression led directly to social explosions in many areas in the 1980s and 1990s in Britain. The riots in Brixton, Toxteth, Broadwater Farm, Meadow Well stand as legacies to the failure to offer a future to young people. There will be many more riots in the future unless the problems are properly dealt with.

NEET Hotspots

A recent development in policy has been the identification of NEET hotspots. These are areas where there is high unemployment and lots of "issues". Many of these are in close vicinity to places where "declining" industries turned up their toes. Figures quoted in "The Guardian" 5-2-2008 indicate that of the 4 million people living in social housing 1.4 million are out of work. So, in reality what NEET hotspot means is an area that suffered from being abandoned by capitalism, where lack of investment has created poverty, social problems and generational unemployment.

It would seem a fairly straightforward argument that where there is a NEET hotspot, then the best thing to develop would be a "work" hotspot. A "work" hotspot would also need to become an "infrastructure" hotspot. It would also become a "services" hotspot, because sooner or later it would become a "wages and salaries" hotspot.

But no, that would require serious investment. It might require planning of the economy. It might even require a Socialist Labour Government.

This article first appeared on Socialist Appeal.

It is not difficult for Britain’s major political parties to move on from their funding scandals: there’s a new one every week. Every revelation blots out the memory of its predecessors. Peter Hain’s misdemeanours dropped out of the news before we had heard the half of it. I want to drag you back there for a moment, because there’s an aspect to this story which was either missed altogether or mentioned only briefly in most reports. It says far more about the rotten state of British politics than Hain’s failure to declare his donations.

The new scandal concerns the identity of one of his donors. There is no suggestion of illegality here: it is a moral issue. But it illustrates, perhaps more clearly than ever before, the abandonment of everything the Labour party once claimed to stand for. It shows us that in any contest between money and principle, the money wins.

Hain was not the first beneficiary of Isaac Kaye’s munificence. Mr Kaye, who has made many tens of millions of pounds from his drugs companies, gave the Labour party a few thousand in both 1997 and 1998, and £100,000 in 1999. But Hain had two powerful reasons not to put his hand in this man’s pocket.

The first is that the company Kaye used to run, Norton Healthcare, is now subject to the biggest prosecution for alleged fraud ever launched in the United Kingdom. Norton is one of five firms accused of dishonestly fixing the price of drugs sold to the National Health Service. The charges relate to the period 1996-2001, when Kaye was chairman of the company. In 2006, Norton paid the Department of Health £13.5m to settle a civil case concerning the same allegations.

Norton Healthcare has been involved in other controversies. In 1998 the Department of Health named it as one of the companies offering “inducements” to doctors and chemists: Norton gave them mountain bikes and Marks and Spencer vouchers if they stocked its products. Labour’s health minister complained that “it is completely unacceptable for pharmaceutical companies to encourage health professionals to use their products through free gifts and other sweeteners.”

In the same year, the government announced that it was giving a Norton plant in London’s Docklands £990,000 in the form of “regional selective assistance”, whose purpose is to boost employment. This grant, the government claimed, would promote “inward investment in the manufacturing sector”. As Private Eye points out, the fund - as its name suggests - is normally used to bring jobs to the regions (which means places other than London). But there was something even odder: the week before the government announced this funding, Norton’s parent company revealed that it would stop manufacturing in the UK, and would shift the jobs in that sector to Ireland.

But the particular discomfort for Mr Hain concerns Kaye’s activities in his previous place of residence. Until 1985 he lived in South Africa, where he was involved in another “gifts for influence” scandal. His drugs company, Alumina, gave cars, televisions, chandeliers, swimming pool equipment, tennis courts, shares and trips abroad to people working in the health sector, including academics who sat on the government’s advisory panels, the head of the Medical Research Council and the minister of health. When these gifts were exposed, Kaye explained that they were “not an inducement, but in appreciation of their having prescribed drugs marketed by the Alumina group.” The official inquiry into the scandal found that he had “no scruples about applying dishonest or unethical methods.”

More importantly as far as Hain is concerned, Isaac Kaye has been accused of providing campaign finance for National Party candidates during the apartheid years. Kaye admits to funding the National MP John Erasmus. An article in the Daily Express, drawing on an award-winning investigation by the South African journalist Martin Welz, alleges that Kaye seconded one of his company’s executives to campaign for another candidate, Gerrit Bornman. It also claims he provided cars to help Lapa Munnik, the minister of health and a fierce defender of apartheid, win a by-election. Gerrit Bornman told the Express that Kaye had been a “substantial” backer of the National Party. I tried to contact Mr Kaye, but I was told he was unavailable. In the past he has denied funding the National Party and has maintained that his company’s gifts were not intended to win favours.

Taking money from Isaac Kaye defaces Peter Hain’s only remaining conviction. When Hain became a Labour cabinet member and was obliged to ditch everything he once believed, he was allowed to keep just one political memento: his admirable record of opposition to the apartheid government. When he moved from South Africa to Britain he became this country’s leading opponent of apartheid. The regime first tried to kill him then tried to fit him up for a bank robbery. He was a brave and remarkable campaigner. But in 2007 he trampled his medals into the mud to get the money he needed.

This is the story of our political system, of most of the world’s political systems. You enter politics with the highest ideals and end up grovelling to multi-millionaires. Campaign finance is not the only reason for the corruption of leftwing political parties. But any system without a cap on individual donations encourages the mass abandonment of political programmes. You need to spend much less time and effort and money to secure thousands of pounds from a rich man than to shake it out of the piggybanks of hundreds of new members. Who can blame you if you adjust your programme to please the millionaires?

The newspapers say that our system is one of the least corrupt in the world. It’s probably true - but so much the worse for the world. The British Labour Party knows that no enormity would persuade the trade unions to disaffiliate. So it can ignore their demands and concentrate on the needs of the multi-millionaires. In 2006 and 2007, 27% of its money came from individual donations of more than £100,000. Aside from the largesse of Lord Sainsbury and Lakshmi Mittal, almost all of this is City money, much of it from men who run private equity companies. To what extent this influences Labour’s failure to tax the super-rich, we will never know - which is, of course, the problem.

Because the Labour Party (thanks to the endless funding scandals) is always on the brink of bankruptcy, Gordon Brown has promised to do something. But, in line with the recommendations by the Phillips Review of party funding, he proposes to cap donations at £50,000. Witness the democratisation of British politics: even the ordinary millionaire can now participate.

Why should one person be allowed to give the equivalent of 1388 Labour Party membership fees? Brown’s formula would preserve Labour’s funding link with the trades unions - and the super-rich. I don’t mind how it is done; whether, as both the Phillips review and the Power Inquiry recommend, the state gives more, or whether the cap is set at £100 and parties must rely on a host of tiny individual gifts. (Who cares if they have less cash with which to bamboozle us?) Just get the big money out of politics.

This article first appeared in the Guardian newspaper on 5th February 2008. The article with full footnotes also appears on [Monbiot.com]

Whether Bush or Gore actually won the election in Florida in 2000, the Cuban American vote will have influenced the result. Most Cuban Americans in Florida are staunch Republicans, led at its core by the generally affluent exile community that fled the island when Castro came to power in 1959. About 400,000 of the 3 million Republicans in Florida are Hispanic, and most are of Cuban descent, living in Miami’s exile neighbourhoods, Hialeah and Little Havana.

Republican candidates know tapping into this pool will give them a real advantage in the state, and to do so they compete to parade their anti-Castro credentials. In Florida last week, Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee courted the Cuban American vote by downplaying their tough-on-immigration stance and expressing their support for Cuba’s continued isolation. The clear winner of the Cuban Americans’ affections, however, was ex-soldier and anti-Communist John McCain, who won the Florida primary this week. He did so by reminding the exile community that he was committed to fighting for Cuban freedom as a pilot during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and promising a continued hard-line stance towards Castro.

Any consideration of loosening the screws on the embargo brings loud protests from Miami, where Florida Cubans wield considerable influence and stubbornly insist on stonewalling Cuba. As one of the most successful immigrant groups in the US, their clout come not only from sheer numbers but from politicians and business leaders from a local to a national level.

They tend to view any discussion of easing the blockade as a betrayal to Washington’s supposed commitment to Cuba’s freedom, and in doing so do not realise that they are only making life difficult for Cubans, who under their country’s system lack the mechanism to put pressure on the government, which is the primary purpose of economic isolation. Since Bush came to power the embargo has been tightened several times, with no success in its goals, which flip-flop between destabilising Castro and encouraging democracy in the country.

The last time around, in 2003, when Bush was beginning his campaign for re-election, I was in Miami to conduct anthropology fieldwork among Cuban Americans. The day I arrived in Little Havana, an open letter to Bush from a Cuban American congressman appeared in the Miami Herald newspaper, written in response to rumours that he might change his Cuba policy. The message was clear: “If you ease the embargo, you can forget my support. And the support of my friends.” This would mean the loss of a large Republican power base, and one which is beginning to splinter; anti-Castro exiles feel Bush has not been strict enough, while younger Cuban Americans and those born in the US might feel time is right for a change.

Cuban Americans’ voting practice sets them apart from other Hispanic communities in the US, who tend to vote Democrat due to their liberal stance on immigration. Many Cuban Americans switched to the Republican party in 1962, disgusted with Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, and have stayed with the GOP through Reagan’s anti-communist rhetoric and the party’s no-tolerance policy towards Castro. But this stance is not exclusive to the Republican party- Clinton successfully won many Cubans over by signing the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, tightening the embargo and attempting to impose penalties on third parties who trade with Cuba. The Act has been condemned by the World Trade Organization and is illegal under international law.

For all the threats and promises bandied back and forth by the exile community and Washington, nothing much changes. It is plain to see that the blockade, after 45 years, is not achieving its goals. It only evokes international sympathy for the regime which the leader then exploits, much like Saddam Hussein did when the humanitarian disaster caused by UN sanctions in Iraq garnered enough sympathy to obscure the fact that he was not complying with UN inspections, committing human rights abuses, and generally still up to his old tricks.

Economic embargos are a blunt instrument which punish the population, not the government. They only work when leaders are vulnerable to pressure from its people, which is simply not the case in most regimes to which it is applied. In the case of Cuba, it is an all-purpose political tool for both sides: the US uses it show voters it is doing something to promote freedom in Cuba, and Castro uses it blame the country’s economic woes on the US, which is certainly not the only reason for its problems.

Regardless of how they choose to vote, Cuban Americans need to use their influence to strike while the iron is hot. They could help shape policy at a crucial moment when the momentum of Castro’s possible departure could bring about positive changes for people on the island. The younger generation of Florida Cubans need to use their numbers to push for a more constructive method of helping their Cuban counterparts. Economics and human rights commentators have said that opening up trade would benefit the Cuban people economically and speed up Castro’s departure, removing his last scapegoat for Cuba’s problems. It is also safe to say that Cuba no longer poses any nuclear threat - the strategic purpose of political isolation has long since expired.

As the oldest generation of hard-line Cuban exiles gives way to a younger and more open one, the political landscape of Florida is changing. The power base in Florida is shifting, with a large number of non-Cuban Hispanics settling in the area who have Democrat sympathies- the Republican party may no longer take Florida’s votes for granted. American-born Cubans (ABCs) need to use this chance to support engagement with Cuba if they really want to help ‘free’ its people.

“If the press, a free press, be a foe to the tyrant – if its blessings be so great and innumerable, the question naturally presents itself, why may we not have one of our own?”

It’s over one hundred years since Samuel Cornish, an abolitionist, wrote these words yet we still don’t have a free press. Then corrupt governments controlled stories, now corrupt corporations are writing them.

A damning report published by Media Wise and researched by Cardiff University shows that newspapers are simply printing copy supplied by PR companies. Furthermore, they are doing so without any analysis and scrutiny.

The report looked at 2,207 news articles in five newspapers: the Guardian, Times, Independent, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. They concluded that 60% of the stories were comprised of material wholly or mainly supplied to them from PR companies or wire services - which when dissected also contained a large amount of PR. These figures don’t include stories where it was not obvious that PR or wire material was used, so in all likelihood the real figure is greater.

Even more worrying is the fact that the main source of the PR making its way into our newspapers is three times more likely to come from large corporations than it is from NGOs, charities and civic groups.

The report states that most journalists they contacted, “felt that there was less checking and contextualising of stories.” This was backed-up by the fact that just half of the stories sampled had any visible attempt to contextualise or verify the main source of information. So not only is PR driving the news agenda, it is doing so unquestioned.

Journalists have simply become conduits for big business to transmit their propaganda to the public. Instead of gathering information, questioning people in power and seeking out the truth, they have become copy editors. This is not an attack on journalists but the system in which they now operate. It may not be their fault due to increased pressure to produce more material for the web and the 24-hour news cycle but they could do something about it.

As the sales of newspapers continue to fall they are being forced to operate with smaller budgets. Editors respond by streamlining their staff, meaning fewer people have to write more. The result is a less credible product which the public don’t trust and don’t buy. It’s a cycle that must be broken. Editors need to take a stand and either employ more journalists allowing them to scrutinise and analyse more or produce less copy of a higher standard. Then and only then can they regain any public trust.

More damaging than what the PR material is saying is the fact that it is stopping more important issues making the headlines. While some PR is undoubtedly newsworthy and based on fact, much of it is not and with limited space available in newspapers it’s squeezing more important news out. When asking a panel of senior journalists to judge the news value of PR generated stories against those produced by other media outlets, the report found that “overall, our experts ranked those ‘alternative’ stories that received no mainstream coverage as significantly more newsworthy than those PR inspired stories that appeared in the mainstream press.”

The conclusions of the report were that their findings portrayed a “picture of the journalistic processes of news gathering and news reporting in which any meaningful independent journalistic activity by the media is the exception rather than the rule.”

We have all heard the PR gurus claim they can get almost any story into the newspapers and near the top of the news agenda. Perhaps that is not as hard as first thought, as it seems that the press is no more independent now than it ever has been. In fact the situation is even worse, as we are being fed information from big business under the guise of quality journalism. And as papers continue to try to produce more with less the situation is going to get far worse.

A full copy of the report can be accessed at www.mediawise.org.uk/

On the final day of his trip to India last month, Gordon Brown made public his belief "that India should assume its rightful place in the deliberations of the world including membership of the UN Security Council". A few days later, Labour MP Keith Vaz tabled a motion in the Commons arguing that "it is only right that India be given a seat at the United Nations Security Council to reflect its international position." The British government's pronouncements reflect a growing sentiment that as the largest liberal democracy in the world, with an economy rapidly growing in size and importance, India should be recognised as a major political player and granted access to the elite club of the veto-wielding permanent members.

The current Security Council membership consists of 5 permanent members (the 'P5') and 10 non-permanent members serving 2-year terms. The Council was formulated to reflect the post-war balance of power, which, reformists argue, has undoubtedly shifted since the Council was last altered in 1954. In recent years, 2 reform proposals in particular have gathered momentum. Kofi Annan's plans in 2005 suggested either expanding the Council to include 6 new permanent and 3 new non-permanent members; or creating 8 new members of a new class, on a non-permanent basis, serving 4-year terms, and 1 more non-permanent member serving the traditional 2-year term. Alternatively, a group led by Argentina, Italy, Canada, Colombia and Pakistan, called 'Uniting for Consensus', advocates an increase in the number of non-permanent members from 10 to 20.

However, only permanent members hold the crucial veto power. The US has typically been open to reform of the Council to include additional permanent members, but without the veto power held by the current P5. This is a transparently self-interested policy: any additional veto power dilutes that of the current P5, who of course wish to maintain their elite status. Veto power effectively enables the holder to perpetuate unpopular policies; both its own and those of its close allies. However it is increasingly difficult to justify the power balance of the P5: Europe is represented by both France and the UK, while Latin America remains entirely without representation, and India's population of over a billion people, likewise.

What should be the selection criteria for a new permanent member? India's claims are based on its enormous population and economic growth, as well as its position as a founding member of the Security Council, and a reliable supplier of peace-keeping troops. Despite these factors India has not held even a non-permanent seat on the Council since 1992. Japan and Germany point out that they are, respectively, the 2nd and 3rd largest contributors to UN budgets, and both occupy prominent economic positions in international politics. Brazil is the most populus country in unrepresented Latin America, and has its largest GDP; Africa also has no permanent seat, despite being the continent which contains more UN member states than any other.

Claims have also been advanced for a Muslim nation holding a permanent seat, as 1.2 billion Muslims are currently unrepresented on the Council. Opponents argue that veto power, in the hands of a Muslim nation, would render the UN less powerful in the Middle East. This is ironic given the US's persistent veto of resolutions pertaining to Israel. Furthermore, damage to the UN's credibility in the region may already be too extensive, given the unpopular US-led invasion of Iraq, explicitly lacking in UN support. This leads one to the conclusion that any reform must surely address the worrying lack of consequences for the violation of a Security Council resolution: basically none, evidenced by the inertia and frustration that followed the escalating crisis in Darfur.

Prime Minister Brown's proposals bring into sharp focus the need for decisive action on UN reform. His predecessor, Tony Blair, tacitly admitted (and arguably exacerbated) the growing impotence at the UN, by supporting the US in their war in Iraq, contrary to prevailing UN opinion. Gordon Brown's outspoken approach is admirable in comparison, and by tackling the issue head-on he may succeed in forcing the issue at the infamously bureaucratic UN. However, the US's trigger-happy veto tendency (since 1984 they have exercised their veto power on more occasions than every other permanent member combined) only demonstrates the extent to which they dominate the UN.

Perhaps the best chance the UN has to reform its Security Council will come with the appointment of the new American President later this year. It seems likely - indeed, hopefully certain - that the next President of the world's only Superpower will be markedly more internationalist in his or her outlook. If this is the case then it is to be hoped that the UN can be reformed in order to regain a level of respect and authority in the international arena. As for India, it has certainly made a strong case, powerfully supported by one of the P5, for its inclusion in the elite veto club of the Security Council.

We have witnessed in recent weeks the blatant theft of an election in Kenya. The way it will ultimately turn out nobody knows, but already a huge amount of damage has been done, to the people, the economy and the progress of democracy in Kenya. It is worth looking at another fairly recent African election, in Nigeria, to gain some perspective on why this has happened again and what the consequences could be for Kenya if resistance to electoral fraud isn’t successful.

First of all, the positives. The opposition in Kenya have not lain down or been scared off by heavy handed police tactics. They have managed to get their choice to be speaker in the parliament, the third most powerful position in the country, despite the presiding clerk’s pathetic appeal to “not make this political”. The other positive has come from the fact that other countries have recognised that a fraud has taken place and have made it clear that they want a resolution that in some way brings in the opposition (though by rights, the only resolution should be that Mr Odinga is made president). The United States initially accepted the result, happy to have Mr Kibaki in power again as he has been supportive of their so-called war on terror, whereas Mr Odinga was supported by most Muslim voters. However, even they have backtracked on seeing that no-one else was willing to wholly swallow this fraud, and they are now demanding a compromise.

Of course, any such compromise would still essentially be rewarding the fraud, as it would leave Mr Kibaki in some position of power, even though the people of Kenya have just voted him out. It could be worse though; it could be Nigeria. In April last year there was massive fraud in both Nigeria’s parliamentary and presidential elections. So massive was the fraud that an independent Nigerian observer group called the election a “sham” and the EU dropped its normally mild condemnation of fraud, saying that the elections were not “credible” and then issuing their most damning report of an election anywhere, ever.

The massive corruption involved in the election in Nigeria serves to highlight the problem that blights the country and serves to hold it back. Those in power have little checks on their spending, and so the rewards of office are vast, and none want to give it up. People lower down in society are denied the fundamental services that government should provide due to this, and so, following the example set by the ruling class, are driven to corruption themselves, though in their case it is in order to survive. This top-down corruption affects the whole of society. In the massively oil-rich Rivers State for example, the governor has a huge budget to spend on a relatively small number of people. But with few checks on spending, twice as much was spent on helicopters in 2006 than was spent on healthcare. Then there are the new cars, gifts, catering and the private jet, whilst the people of the state remain amongst the poorest and least educated in all of Africa.

Whilst this kind of corruption is not new to Nigeria, the fraudulent elections of last year serve to further re-enforce it. As the president, Mr Yar’Adua, and his party blatantly stole an election, they are explicitly endorsing corruption and the theft of power, and anything else that you can get. They will not fight corruption on anything more than a superficial level, as they are the beneficiaries. This was highlighted by the recent sacking, on a minor technicality, of probably the most popular man (or least popular if you are a member of the ruling class) in Nigeria. Mr Nuhu Ribadu had made a name for himself by doing his job with zeal, and as the head of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had been hunting down corrupt politicians and state governors for their looting. However, he started getting too close to those who support the president, and as Mr Yar’Adua (pictured) stole the election, he needs all the supporters he can find.

So, with a phoney president in charge and the head of the anti-corruption body removed, how does the world react to this oil-rich nation? This week Britain’s High Commissioner, Mr Robert Dewar, has said that Nigeria’s anti-corruption campaign will restore the confidence of the international community and create a great deal of opportunities for foreign investors, and that Britain wholly supports Mr Yar'Adua's commitment to implement economic and electoral reforms. He managed to say this with a straight face. Also this week, the World Bank decided to invest over $2.4 billion on projects that will include “governance”, after commending Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts over the past four years. No-one from the bank mentioned the stolen election or that the man largely responsible for any improvements in corruption levels has just been forced out. The World Bank’s Africa region vice-president, Mrs Ezekwesili, another person with a remarkable ability to keep a straight face, publicly agreed with Mr Yar'Adua's observation that "corruption is a cancer stunting the country's development". Well, he should know.

The benefits of this fraud for those in power in Nigeria have shown why those in Kenya have been tempted to follow their example, as so far there have been no negative consequences for them. It should also show the opposition there that if they back down in their fight now, the international community might suddenly forget their conscience and go straight back to dealing with whoever is in charge, however they got there. It doesn’t bode well for attempts at fighting corruption in Kenya either, another country where this is already a huge problem. The unfortunate lesson that others may take is that if you want to steal power, you should make sure it is done in both the presidential and parliamentary polls, to stop the rightful rulers gaining a foothold.

Here we go again. Another election race underway for the seat of power in the White House. Historically, you may elect a female, a Mormon or a black male to represent you in government. However, these are early days and there could well be many changes en route prior to the election of the new president. I would like to urge Americans to do their research and elect the right person for the job. The people you choose to represent you by virtue of your vote can make an incredible difference. A truly successful election must be one in which all voters are informed about all the policies their candidates stand for, and what they don't stand for.

The current election race in the United States is taking centre-stage because Americans (rather unfortunately) elected an idiot, twice, to represent them. Those of us who are watching from all areas of the world are watching closely. The credibility of your nation is in tatters, no thanks in part to "Dubya." Nonetheless, you elected him and you have thus had to live with the consequences. None more so than those still being held without charge at Guantanamo Bay, or those suffering with daily suicide bombings and food and fuel shortages such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine.

George Bush's legacy will no doubt be in great contention given the divisive nature of your country. The last election clearly highlighted the fact that although you disagree with his policies, you would stay the course while conflict endures.

I am appealing to your better, more intellectual natures. Consider that a celebrity endorsement does not a president make. It should only highlight how important it is to cast your vote. Many, many of you did not vote in the last election, and in hindsight, perhaps it would not have made so much of a difference. However, with your apathy and your desire to maintain the status quo you have unwittingly shaped the course of your nation's history.

You are so quick to judge other people, other cultures you do not understand. Yet, you are never willing to hear what bumbling fools you look like to the rest of us. And yes, it is very easy for us to sit in our not over sized chairs from overseas and say "if I were American, I would never have voted for him." So kudos to you for actually having the effrontery to elect a terrorist to run the country. Did his father's example teach you nothing? How many wars or conflicts must America have before you realise that your allies are seeking other forms of friendship?

All that dim-witted Dubya has done is ruin millions of lives. However, this writer must take great issue with those who elected him and chose to have that man represent the "free world," while he made issues about weapons of mass destruction and axes of evil.

Here are the real axes of evil: uninformed voters, puppet presidents and disenfranchisement. And the real weapons of mass destruction: ignorance, apathy, territoriality and stupidity. All of which mainstream America has in abundance. Though I suppose none of Dubya's spin doctors managed to tell him that. I urge you to 'be the change you want to see in the world,' as Gandhi once said. Instead of letting a celebrity or an exit poll tell you what you should be thinking, make an informed decision about what is really important to you, and your candidate of choice. Vote for that candidate only if you think he or she will be the candidate to best represent your interests; that is the power of your vote. Use with care and dignity.

In this appeal to you, I entreat you to use your vote to bring positive change to your country. Consider the millions of people around the world who marched in peaceful demonstrations against the war in Iraq and who were blatantly ignored. Consider the economic recession with which your country is now faced. Consider the "daddy's boy" who would not have otherwise been elected to govern a box of chocolate. Consider the racial profiling many innocent people have had to endure; a direct result of the ignorance of your administration proliferating messages of hatred and intolerance while speaking of peace and tolerance. Conversely, consider the lack of support your troops are receiving on their returns home or even in the field. Consider the "inconvenient truth" about climate change when your president could not wait to begin drilling in the Beaufort Sea near Alaska to get at the oil. Consider Dubya's platform on education and your illiteracy rates. Many of you are facing a debt crisis and help is far at hand.

You elected a hypocrite and I have no doubt that many, many of you will disagree with my words. That is your prerogative.

These words however, are mine.

This writer's views are not necessarily those of London Progressive Journal.