Bring on the referendum!

So, people of Britain, you’re going to vote No in the constitution referendum because you’re a bunch of xenophobes are you? Because you’re a mass of ignorant bigots who still remember the bosch marching over the Channel to make you all drive VWs. Forget Europe, you’re all Americans now!

Actually, there are plenty of reasons why, with a decent bit of publicity, people might vote Yes especially if this vote comes down to whether we should stay in Europe altogether. Nobody will vote No if their nice farmhouse in France will get snatched back as a consequence. They won’t vote No if a quick weekend break in Venice might involve visas. They will vote Yes if they realise that most of the advances in employment and consumer protection have come from Europe and not our own government. They will vote Yes if they go along to Birminham’s city centre and see the remarkable transformation that has been achieved largely with European money.

The good thing about the referendum is that it forces the government to start promoting Europe’s achievements and power instead of pretending it doesn’t exist. They need to avoid the pathetic arguments and marginalise the thinking that says all Europe does is dictate the shape of our bananas. Where Europe has faults, which it does, they should work to address them. They should force MEPs to talk to their constituents from time to time. This is a real opportunity to get the British people to understand how regional, national and European government interlink and who deals with what, empowering them to start using these institutions to their advantage.

Most of what is being said about the constitution is too vague for anyone to make any sense of. It may not be the perfect constitution but if anyone really wanted us to be involved in making it better they would have kicked up a fuss two years ago during the consultation period, not when the thing is virtually finished. For good or bad, it will set out what we can expect from Europe in one document which we can refer to when required. This isn’t a concept we’re used to in Britain, but it might not harm us. The introduction to the constitution is actually quite an inspiring collection of values which few would disagree with and the rest is mainly aims and aspirations rather than specifics.

Many people in Britain actually have a very wide world view – that’s the nice consequence of the British Empire and what makes us feel so superior to the Americans (amongst many, many other things - smugness being one of our less attractive traits). The EU is already involved in common foreign policy where it’s efficient and where help from an individual state such as Britain might not be welcome. That’s a Good Thing. But if the UK wants to go to war against the wishes of France and most of its own population, this constitution isn’t going to stop it. We need to stop thinking of the EU as a sneaky Germanic superstate and compare it to America. Texas and California have entirely different tastes when it comes to the death penalty but they all manage to work together where it suits them. The EU is no different and all this talk of protecting ourselves against the threat of federalism is simply making us look stupid.

The British people should be trusted to have a bit of sense and vote Yes. It might help if Blair wasn’t in charge of the campaign though.

Israel and Palestine: an idea for peaceful separation

This is an idea that came to me while passing some of Europe's great rivers on a long and boring coach journey. I have lived overlooking one of London's docks for nearly two years and the water, filled with fish and birds, has been a calming influence for me in that time. It's a pretty twee idea, but imagining peace solutions is somewhat more cheering than trying to deal with the reality. And probably just as effective really.

The borders that have been effectively agreed since 1967 should be firmly established by the international community, with as much cooperation as is possible from Israel and Palestine. Israel has to be reassured that the international community will always support its right to provide a homeland for Jews, but that its current tactics are simply not providing security for its people. Israel has to give up its settlements and Palestian refugees must give up their right to return to what has become Israeli land. Both settlers and refugees should receive help in building a secure and permanent life within their own borders. The practicalities of all this has been sketched out by many other people so there's no need to go into in detail. The point is that both sides must be given viable states an international peacekeepers should take over security in the area as a prerequisite. It may be a semantic starting point to switch from Israel/Palestine to Israel and Palestine in writing about the area.

So, once the borders are decided and security established, the international community would oversee the construction of a canal running from the sea, around the Gaza Strip and the Westbank and the areas' agreed 'corridor'. A canal could be effectively patrolled with speedboats and each side would be free, if they wished, to construct any form of further security on their own side to prevent incursions.

While water would initially be used to separate, it could contribute in a very real way to bringing peace. Technology could be utilised to turn the sea-water into usable water for those living in Israel and Palestine. Water can be calming, it can create an oasis. Projects could be formed to bring young Israelis and Palestinians together in building attractive waterside areas. Eventually, and optimistically, bridges could be built over the canal to link the two communities. Instead of being a symbol of separation, the canal could become a symbol of peace and progress could be visibly marked: from the deconstruction of walls to the building of bridges.

The canals built in Britain in the past were great technological feats: ambitious but also very practical in moving goods and people. The world could contribute to peace and security in Israel and Palestine with a canal: it is certainly their moral duty to take more practical steps to solve this situation, which is not getting any better while a seemingly unending state of conflict exists between them. The Palistinian state cannot be said to truly exist while Palestinians have to justify their movements to Israeli soldiers all the time and lose their farmland to the fence/wall and the Israelis cannot feel comfortable in the state which was supposed to be their sanctuary while they live in fear of being blown up as they eat pizza. An international peace force is the only way to move towards peace.

Afterthought: in the light of this week's news of the peace agreement on Israel and Palestine agreed by Israel, the idea of international intervention seems more remote than ever. Well done Dubya...

Friday questions

This isn't your traditional Friday-bored-in-the-office-so-I'll-fill-in-a-questionnaire questions, but some of the questions that I have mulled over in what has been a busy week. Now that I can write shorthand at 60wpm (so far!) I can capture these questions. If you, the public, have the answers to any, or all, of them, please post them below

1. [actually, I deleted this question, but I can't be bothered to re-order the numbers. If I think of another question before I leave this computer, I'll put it in this slot]
2. If the (British) media really made an effort to report on some of the terrible things going on in the world, would anyone actually care?
3. How can the EU be made to work better?
4. Who should I vote for in the London Mayor and EU elections?
5. What is good luck?
6. Is there life on other planets?
7. [I deleted this one too. You don't need to worry yourself over that]
8. Why is Beverley Hughes saying she did everything right when she just admitted to misleading everyone?
9. Do I *really* look like the actress out of that film Secretary?
10. Are there lions in Rwanda?
[note: I met some very nice Rwandans this week, but it seemed too stupid to ask]
11. Would you buy one of these peace baskets?
[note: you already can in America and Rwanda]
12. Will they ever turn the lovely old buildings in Stoke-on-Trent into cool apartments?
13. What the hell is going on in Darfur?
[note: Human Rights Watch have released a report on this here. It's helpful]
14. Why are people racist?
[note: that question isn't meant to sound whiny and preachy, I really don't get it. I understand why people split up into different groups and might not like each other as part of those group, but I really don't get why you just wouldn't like a person who's sitting right opposite and is a person, only he looks different to you. Well?]

Reflections on crimes against humanity

Saturday’s forum at the Imperial War Museum to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide saw delegates divide over a central question: when should the international community intervene to stop deaths?

There seem to be two ways of preventing genocide. The first is through intelligence. A genocide – the systematic wiping out of a particular group – must be planned. Both the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide required planning of practicalities and a build-up of hatred against the target group to incite participation. It needs large numbers of collaborators. Given these aspects, genocide must be detectable.

The second way to prevent genocide is much more complex: intervention before killings on a ‘small’ scale become genocide. Weeks were spent debating whether the massacres in Rwanda should actually be called ‘genocide’ before any action was taken. Partly because of the obligation to act, states were reluctant to define the events as genocide. Politics trumped humanity. Many on Saturday called for action in Darfur, Sudan to prevent genocide, but this comparison was described as an ‘absurdity’. ‘Civilians are being bombed by the state’ we were told by a speaker in the audience, but this was not genocide in his opinion. Presumably people were saying exactly the same thing in May 1994 – it shows how unclear a situation can look from outside.

The distinctions between conflict and genocide were made clear at the conference: whereas conflict, simplistically, involves two sides fighting, genocide is a one-sided attempt to ‘rewrite’ humanity, to reduce diversity in the human race. Conflict resolution and genocide prevention must therefore be treated distinctly too. Before or during the event, evidence that this is what has been planned and carried out must be present and must be distinguished from the fog of disinformation that will be thrown out by the perpetrators. This requires specialised investigators. The international community must keep its eyes open: to remember past atrocities and see that it is not so unbelievable for one people to turn against another. Other countries that receive information of plans of genocide from informants must be obliged to take it seriously and act to protect the victim group. The need to keep racism out of education becomes more vital if it is viewed as a precursor to genocide.

Conflict resolution is different and it is up to the world to decide how seriously it should take this. There is no point in calling something a genocide just because thousands of civilians have been killed in conflict because while wars are acceptable to all countries the same bickering over terms and sovereignty that was present in Rwanda will be seen each time. Would countries condemn the killing of innocents in war and, as a consequence, stop bombing or fighting in civilian areas? While greater use of intelligence could contribute to preventing genocide, a fundamental change of world attitude is needed before rapid response to conflict can be achieved. While we can hope to become more sophisticated in insuring that Rwanda or the Holocaust doesn’t happen again, we still continue to live in a world where the deaths of 10,000 in Iraq can be seen as collateral damage and nobody will step in to stop Israelis and Palestinians from tearing each other apart. Is it so ridiculous to suggest that all innocent deaths should be a crime against humanity?

Tall is beautiful

Tower Hamlets council has just approved a rather attractive new tower for the Isle of Dogs.

Inevitably the objections came rolling in, as they always do, from residents and the Canary Wharf group and City Airport (this may have been fair enough: towers in flightpaths tend to cause problems). The undertone to the objections is always basically anti-tower and this is sad.

It took London a ridiculously long time to realise what New York has known for a century: that big cities need big buildings. Hence we have a vast sprawling city where someone in Kensington thinks it would be more practical to get to the moon than Greenwich, and they would be right. The development on the Isle of Dogs in the past four years has been remarkable: the island will soon have everything anyone could possible want within a very small space, it combines futuristic offices, shops and bars with wide open spaces and an abundance of wildlife . So why is there always someone complaining about further development?

Since 9/11 we have come to think of terrorism whenever we look at a tower and this is exacerbated in Canary Wharf where planes flying to and from City Airport make some hairy turns as they use the development to get their bearings. But despite that tragic attack, a tower actually isn't a shining beacon, beckoning to the crazies to steer its way. Your hijacked plane would find it just as simple to crash into the Houses of Parliament if it felt so inclined. Tubes could be targets, so could Leicester Square. You don't beat terrorism by avoiding fearfully high buildings.

The petty objections to towers in London mask a real prejudice: we in Britain feel that towers represent arrogance. For those that thought 9/11 was something America had been asking for and forget the fact that people actually died that day, the twin towers were a symbol of overblown capitalism, ridiculous architectural showing off that was bound to end in tears. The stalinist Senate House in Bloomsbury was London's highest building until the 1980s, which is pathetic when you look at New York's Flatiron and Chrysler buildings. Skyscrapers can be awe-inspiring. In the Isle of Dogs, where the glass reflects the water of the docks around them, they can be beautiful. The first tower of the Canary Wharf estate is infinitely more interesting now it has been joined by tall buddies, making up a proper skyline from vantage points like Greenwich Park and not just looking like a random tooth sticking up out of the wasteland of an old tramp's mouth (good simile? discuss).

High-rise development on the Isle of Dogs will create an inspiring and compact centre for London and in ten years time the place could be amazing. But the council must ensure that the high profits made in the area improve conditions for the island's low-paid residents: the builders, cleaners, security staff (and journalists) that keep the place ticking along. Large swathes of affordable and social housing amongst new swanky developments will eliminate the rich-poor divide that presently carves up the south side of the island. The council and Ken have been good at addressing this, and must not be scared to squeeze as much as possible from the wealthy companies that are coming London's way: it will benefit them too.

Bring on the crash!

The government is going to lend teachers up to 100,000 to buy houses. Well, thanks very much Labour.

Some questions:
- by doing this you, the government, are giving people with houses £100,000 and putting teachers £100,000 in debt. How does that equalise our society?
- What does this do to slow down the overpriced housing market, which has frozen young first time buyers out of the market? Except, now, teachers and presumably the other key workers that you choose to give big debts to.
- *If* the housing market crashes, because of the lack of first-time-non-key-worker-buyers, leaving these teachers with large debts in negative equity, will you bail them out?
- How many actual houses could you build with 100,000, which you could then ‘lend’ to teachers? More than one house?

Modern philosophy

A conversation over coffee
I don’t understand why Jack Straw’s having a go at Israel for killing the leader of Hamas
Ah.. because it was illegal. And stupid.
But why was it illegal? He’s a military target. He’s the leader of Hamas.
No he’s not. It’s not a war.
And he was in a wheelchair.
It’s not a war? What? It sure has looked like one for thirty years!
No.. it’s not a war. It’s a conflict within a nation.
But.. but.. isn’t it better to kill the leader of Hamas, who have been blowing themselves up in Israeli cafes, than the little children? And the Tom Hurndalls? They always say they’re going after Hamas when they bulldoze houses, so why does everyone go mad when they actually get someone from Hamas?
They should have arrested him.
They couldn’t have arrested him, he was surrounded by guards; everyone would have ended up getting shot anyway, so why not go at him with a rocket launcher? It’s what he wanted.
Ah, yes that’s the point though, isn’t it? Now he’s a martyr.
Euch.
And lots more Hamas leaders will come along.
So what if they go after all the Hamas leaders – what if they destroy Hamas?
They won’t destroy Hamas. Because they’ll always recruit more people. And now there’s going to be all the revenge attacks in Israel. So you see it was stupid to kill him. And America have been crap.
So there’ll be loads more attacks and so Israel will have more justification to go in and do what they do.
Yes.
And then they’ll be more suicide bombings.
That’s right.
And it’s not a war.
Nope.

Later, with someone else.
It’s simple isn’t it. They just build the fence in the right place and bring in international forces to keep them apart.
Oh.. but I hate the idea of separating people. I’m ideologically against it.
But. they. can’t. live. together.
No. There is that.
*Sigh*

An autobiographical note

Who the hell writes this thing?

My name is Clare. I live in London, on the Isle of Dogs, which is where the taxi drivers live.
My writing name is Clare-Marie White. I have wanted to be a journalist ever since I wanted to be a vet (I was too scared of the needles. And no good at science.) Despite this, I have made a recent decision not to sacrifice my life to journalism, not to do anything I feel really uncomfortable with (like knocking on the doors on murder victim's families or inventing stories about the asylums seeker who ate all the swans) and not to get paid nothing unless it's for a good reason.
These are deeply unfashionable views amongst those who run the media but then the media ain't the fabulous, smoky, seething den of intrigue that I expected anyway. So sod 'em. But I like writing and I would like to be rich. If the two combine one day all will be well. And if people manage to spell my name right that will be even better.
I work for the Quakers, who are great. That doesn't make me religious, but I do think about religion now. I think about many other things since starting this job: I grapple with pacifism, though haven't quite got my head round it yet; I'm learning about Africa and other places that I didn't think much about before. In the sense of being political if you get passionate and angry about things and want to change them, I am political. Pretty much left wing (but don't try selling Socialist Worker to me, I don't want it), keen on capitalism done fairly - if that's possible.
I like music a lot: all music; I rarely know who I'm listening to, but I like it.
We'll no doubt talk about all these things in much more detail, readers. So that's all you need to know for now. And how kind it has been for you to listen.
Enough first person, on with the writing!

White Llama is coming...

What White Llama wants to be when it's grown up:
- a series of comment pieces by me, Clare
- carefully written and possibly even edited
- resplendent with colour coded headings to differentiate between topics that we will call 'comment' (black), 'rant' (red) and 'mememe' (majenta!). Anyone out there know how to do that?
- opinionated, and very welcoming of other people's views

What White Llama will not be:
- my addiction to world-wide-web-time-wasting revealed