Russia and the EU - A partnership for the future

In order for Russia to recuperate its geopolitical influence and its standing amongst the American and Chinese powers it will have to forge new relationships with the most willing European countries, namely France, Italy, Spain and especially Germany. Russian ties with Germany have strengthened considerably over the past year, particularly in the area of business. Siemens recently ended a cooperation agreement with the French nuclear power group Areva to create a rival venture with Russian group Rosatom, thereby bringing to an untimely end a successful Franco-German company that had become the world leader in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, it is widely believed that President Medvedev aims to gain from this relationship by eventually proposing a pan-European security treaty that will destabilise NATO or render it ineffectual and by attempting to reformulate the Euro-Atlantic partnership along the Moscow-Berlin/Paris-Washington axis.

America’s current perception of Europe is that it is neither a problem nor a resource and that it is sufficiently stable and powerless so as not to merit any particularly special attention. Russia, on the other hand, is considered by the Obama administration as worthy of re-establishing a working partnership that acknowledges “the importance of Russian cooperation in achieving essential American goals: from preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, to guaranteeing security and prosperity in Europe”, as included in the ‘Report from the Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Russia’ (see full report here). It also states, on page 7, that “Without deep Russian cooperation, no strategy is likely to succeed in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear war.” Furthermore, it recognises on page 9 that “Washington should not expect that it can attempt to create its own sphere of influence on Russia’s borders while simultaneously seeking a constructive relationship with Russia.”

Russia’s influence is already being felt strongly across Europe in the energy sector. The continent’s energy security was severely threatened in January 2009 as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis and the untrustworthy and secretive system of gas trade. This event damaged its reputation as a reliable supplier of energy to Europe that could have helped it forge a new relationship with the European Union. Despite this, energy interdependence with Russia is an inescapable fact for much of the continent. However, Russia should be aware that it still has a lot to lose in alienating the EU member states. The EU and Russia will inevitably need to cooperate in the future to compete with the emerging economies of China and India, and Russia also needs access to the European markets, investment and technologies to allow it to modernise. Russia’s foreign policy must therefore abandon its hostile, conservative stance towards Europe, and the EU must also regularly welcome and encourage all forms of cooperation from Russia, whilst restoring cohesion of its policies among the member states.

Clandestine Immigration to Europe: Resolute action at last

For the first time, clandestine immigrants trying to reach the Italian island of Lampedusa have been stopped and returned to Tripoli by the Italian police forces. A total of 227 migrants were denied access to the island following negotiations between the Libyan and Italian authorities. This action is believed by Italian Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni, to mark a turning-point and a historic result in the fight against illegal immigration. Such a solution, which foresees the repatriation of illegal immigrants to their point of departure, regardless of whose waters they are found in, will also resolve the diplomatic row between Italy and Malta that started over this matter.

However, Médecins Sans Frontières has stated that forced repatriations constitute an illegal act that has never been sanctioned by Italian or international legislation. A spokesman from MSF Italia has said that in May 2005 the European Court of Human Rights condemned repatriations carried out by the Italian government as they were deemed detrimental to immigrants’ rights to seek asylum, “Sending people away from Italy without identifying them or granting them access, for those having the right, is illegal behaviour that contravenes asylum procedures as well as national and international legislation.”

According to the Interior Ministry, 37,000 clandestine migrants arrived on Italian shores in 2008; a 75% increase from 2007. Whilst forced repatriations may break asylum laws, they represent the only effective and proportional method to protect Europe from illegal immigration and uphold Italian and Maltese national security.

E-Petition for First Amendment Style Freedom of Speech

After recently discussing the virtues of the US First Amendment and the need to enact similar legislation in the UK, I wish to publicise the following petition:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/free-speech-act/

Spanish photographer, Emilio Morenatti, is currently exhibiting photos at the first International Festival for the Freedom of Expression in Cadiz that show the horrifying realities lived by women in Pakistan, all of whom were sprayed in the face with acid; one by her husband, another by a group of men in order to settle a dispute, another by her cousin four days after she married someone else and another whose attackers were aided by her teacher:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/30/lafotodelasemana/1241071105.html

Such photographs must serve to remind Europe that its freedom of expression must not be eroded by political correctness or the lobbying of religious minorities. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch politician, observes that the history of women's liberation in Europe, which has included the legalisation of abortion and the penalisation of rape in marriage, is at risk of being reversed by an increasing number of European elites that believe it is better to respect the cultures and religions of minorities rather than uphold the values of our legal system for all inhabitants. This belief has led to women's shelters employing mediators from the Islamic community that effectively return women to obeying their husbands and to all the other circumstances of abuse from which they were trying to escape, rather than teaching them to become self-reliant.

Democracy and theocracy cannot coexist, and for this reason there must never be a dual legal system whereby religious minorities can claim exemption from the mainstream laws governing the majority that defend and uphold civil liberties.

A Tribute to Thatcher

In honour of the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister, under similar circumstances to those we experience now under the Labour monster, the following is as pertinent as ever:

Featured Today on Iain Dale's Diary

We are very pleased to have featured on Iain Dale's Diary today!

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/ten-new-blogs-part-46.html#links

Waste of Time, Waste of Money – ID cards

At the minimum cost of £5.8 billion by current government estimates, which on their track record will no doubt over run massively, one would think that they must have a good reason for this scheme. It is claimed that identity cards will stop terrorists, catch criminals and prevent fraud. This is a problem where the costs involved are not the most salient issue. Once again, a serious infringement on civil liberties is worth preventing. We should not fight against this on the basis of the money that can be saved, as true freedom cannot be valued in financial terms.

We are entering a ghastly period where ever more power is being shifted towards the control of the state. Every day we are drawing more and more parallels with George Orwell's 1984. Many European states have national ID cards; however none has the National Identity Register (NIR) that is desired by the British Government. The NIR will eventually have us all finger printed and eye scanned and it also envisages recording our DNA on file. Can this sensitive data really be entrusted to a government that has a track record of leaving confidential files, carrying thousands of people’s personal information, on trains and in taxis?

Such a scheme will inevitably treat us all like criminals that are guilty until proven innocent, thereby fundamentally altering the premise upon which our justice system has always operated. How long would it be until this data was sold or until it falls into private hands? Imagine what could be done if pharmaceutical companies obtained an entire nation’s DNA records and used the information to profile and scaremonger citizens into buying pre-emptive treatments. How is an ID card supposed to prevent terrorism? Terrorists do not operate in the confines of the legal system and there will be plenty of ways to circumvent the bureaucratic rules.

Having one document containing all of our details will make it easier for criminals to steal our identities! The ID card will increase police powers, as there will be more reason for us to be stopped and searched when they become compulsory to carry. Furthermore, an ever increasing number of public and private services will require our identity to be checked before use and as such, the government will be able to monitor our activities even more. It is not widely published, but the automatic plate recognition cameras installed throughout the motorway network and in most UK town centres are already watching us use our cars. There are 50 million number plate scans made every day and each is stored on the Police National Computer for five years.

Evidently, the government wishes to know everything about us. The NIR will hold fifty categories of information and, to add insult to injury, it will be private companies that set up these systems, with the first ID contract being awarded to Thales SA, a French defence contractor. For innocent citizens, is this really a matter of having nothing to hide or do we in fact have even more to fear?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution - A model of free speech for Europe

Many states have introduced legislation to prohibit racist hate speech, but such laws are unconstitutional in the US. In response to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, the US Government stated that it would be unable to provide prosecutorial or investigative assistance to member states where issues arose concerning Internet content as these would implicate fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression which is protected by the First Amendment, and could therefore not sign the Protocol. Consequently, US authorities can override this constitutional protection only when race-hate material poses an imminent threat to a specific individual. Whilst this ‘fighting words’ doctrine exists in the US, whereby only the words which incite imminent unlawful action and are likely to produce such action are denied First Amendment protection, the potential for incitement is greatly distorted as there is no captive audience in the case of the Internet and its users can easily avoid websites that publish racist materials.

Regulating hate speech will inevitably remain ineffective as the American policy on free speech currently determines much of what happens in other jurisdictions. Evidence of this can be found in the Zündel case. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the closure of the Ernst Zündel’s Holocaust revisionist website, which was hosted on a US server, considering the site to pose a serious threat to society. Despite this judgment however, the site is still hosted on a US server. The blocking of a site is therefore easily circumvented by copying content and establishing a mirror site on one or more servers in different jurisdictions where the content has yet to be blocked. Therefore, as nation-states attempt to enforce domestic legislation prohibiting racist expression in cyberspace, it is evident that the First Amendment presents the greatest obstacle to an effective regime of eradicating or minimising such racist hate. Consequently, racists around the world are taking advantage of the US’ status as a safe haven by using US providers as a relay for xenophobic and racist expression. Furthermore, foreign governments cannot obtain information from US providers regarding the identity of publishers of racist content as such content is not illegal in the US.

It can be argued that any international efforts to harmonise legislation among a group of nations will always be rendered futile by the effects of the US constitution until the US Supreme Court expands the categories of expression which cannot be accorded the protection of the First Amendment. The US has traditionally not regarded racist expression as a crime and therefore the act of upholding its constitutional values cannot readily be construed as tolerance or facilitation of illegal conduct. However, the contemporary problems concerning freedom of expression are not the same as those when the First Amendment was written in the late eighteenth century, when the concept of having a ‘false idea’ was not tolerated. Advocates of legislation argue that prohibiting racist expression is required to ensure that all citizens may enjoy equal participation in society, and therefore that racist speech should be considered of low value as it does not contribute to public discourse in a meaningful manner. It may be seen that the lack of legislation targeting extremist racists has not only failed to prevent the dissemination of racist materials in the US, but has led to a substantial growth in the number of racist groups. Furthermore, by allowing racist speech to continue, the First Amendment is failing to ensure that more speech occurs, as expressions of violent hatred are proven to silence ethnic minorities, thereby preventing them from participating fully in civil society and public discourse.

Nevertheless, the American model can be altered to restrict the freedom of the most extreme beneficiaries of the First Amendment. The government is however rightly reluctant to do so, as this amendment forms the cornerstone of the country’s liberties. In contrast to American situation, the UK constitutes a diametrically opposed example, whereby political correctness has stifled public discourse itself in instances where it addresses themes that may cause offence to certain religious minorities. What emerges is not only an inability to discuss matters of cultural significance, such as the future course of the national identity, but also a paradigm of deliberative democracy which prevails in many African states, whereby the state bases its authority on the placating of minority groups instead of the rule of law. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of expression as an absolute right with far greater scope for application than is offered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Europe as a whole, and especially the UK, must move towards the American appreciation of freedom of expression in order to secure our existences as pluralist, deliberative democracies.