On Georgia and the new Saakashvili

This article was published in French in the Swiss newspaper Le Temps

En Géorgie, le Saakashvili II est arrivé

22 May 2009

Denis MacShane, député travailliste britannique et ancien ministre des Affaires européennes, revient surpris de Géorgie où il a rencontré un président au nouveau visage, beaucoup plus modéré

Alors que le rythme des commémorations du 20e anniversaire de la fin de la domination russe en Europe orientale s’accélère, le Kremlin hisse de nouveau son drapeau et impose la présence de ses forces de police bien au-delà de ses frontières, sur le sol d’une autre nation européenne, la Géorgie.
Et pourtant, les Géorgiens semblent avoir confiance en leur capacité de freiner l’appétit de Moscou, de soutenir l’indépendance de leur pays ainsi que son positionnement en Europe.
Au cœur de ces questions s’impose la figure de Mikhail Saakashvili, le président qui a récemment revisité son style. Lorsqu’il est arrivé au pouvoir, les mains pleines des roses qu’il allait distribuer au parlement à Tbilissi, Saakashvili semblait faire exprès de présenter la Géorgie comme l’avant-poste d’une Amérique de la Guerre froide, dans la ligne de George W. Bush. En se vantant de rétablir l’ordre dans les régions séparatistes d’Ossétie du Sud et d’Abkhazie, il se dressait contre un Kremlin pourtant plus assuré et plus riche que jamais. En insistant sur une entrée rapide dans l’OTAN et l’Union européenne, il donnait l’impression de vouloir courir avant que la Géorgie, encore très appauvrie, corrompue et divisée politiquement, ne puisse marcher. Réprimant durement les manifestations et contrôlant les médias locaux, l’énergique dirigeant géorgien apparaissait plus autoritaire que tous ses prédécesseurs.
Aujourd’hui, Saakashvili II est arrivé. Il permet à ses adversaires politiques de monopoliser les chaînes de télévision. Il ne parle plus d’une entrée imminente dans l’OTAN. Son discours est centré sur l’Europe et l’Union européenne. Il m’a confié qu’il ne chercherait pas à se représenter à la fin de son mandat ou à modifier la Constitution afin de rester au pouvoir, à la façon d’un Poutine.
Le président géorgien écarte désormais l’hypothèse d’une nouvelle invasion russe et salue le rapprochement entre la Turquie et l’Arménie qui, s’il pouvait être étendu au point de dégeler le conflit entre l’Arménie et l’Azerbaïdjan, transformerait le Caucase du Sud en une zone très liée à l’Europe, apaisée et ouverte au développement économique.
Les Russes peuvent-ils l’accepter? Depuis le début de ce siècle, la Russie a cherché à faire de la mer Noire une zone de forts remous, en exerçant des pressions sur l’Ukraine, sur la Géorgie, et sur la Roumanie au sujet de la Moldavie. Partout où la Russie a un droit de parole et de vote, elle cherche à neutraliser les critiques qui dénonçent ses tentatives de mainmise sur la région. Mais la Russie ne peut ni dicter ses choix à l’OTAN, ni mettre fin aux exercices militaires de portée modeste et non belliqueuse qui se déroulent en Géorgie. Elle ne peut pas non plus empêcher que le programme de partenariat récemment mis en place avec l’Union européenne permette d’étendre, prudemment et à pas de crabe, les activités de l’Union dans la zone de la mer Noire et de la région du Caucase.
Saakashvili se comporte maintenant comme un démocrate tolérant. Ses opposants dénoncent une supercherie. Il reste que la vision d’une Géorgie comme colonie américaine servant à appâter l’ours russe a été mise de côté. Ceux qui critiquent la position adoptée par le président pendant la guerre d’août 2008 partagent avec lui l’ambition d’ancrer fermement la Géorgie dans la communauté euro-atlantique. Washington et Paris devraient prendre au sérieux ce nouveau ré alisme en Géorgie et envoyer des messages au peuple géorgien pour expliquer que, au-delà du drapeau russe qui flotte et de la police des frontières qui opère sur leur territoire, tant l’Europe que l’OTAN ne laisseront pas un nouvel empire russe se lever sur la mer Noire. Ce que les Européens de l’Est et les Etats baltes célèbrent en 2009 ne pourra pas être éternellement refusé à la Géorgie.

Call for a constitutional reform

The following article was published on the Guardian website (Comment is Free section)

We need reform now, an election later
A clean-up of our parliamentary system is long overdue – but it is not beyond repair

26 May 2009

Should there be an early election? The clamour grows. On The World at One last Monday, discussing the crisis over the Speaker, my fellow Labour MP, Rob ­Marris, argued for a general election as the only way to resolve the crisis over MPs' expenses.
I tested his thesis this weekend against the view of a senior Tory MP, a former minister, who remains diligent and hard-working in opposition. He gives the lie to the notion that all MPs are in it for the money. His thoughtful constructive work on a select committee and in other areas of parliamentary work are a full-time job. He is a true blue Tory and has made life very uncomfortable for ministers in his area of expertise.
So I asked this top Tory if he thought an early election was a good idea or ­necessary. "Yes, please," he smiled. "You would be mad to have one, as you would lose overwhelmingly. But we would be very grateful indeed."
Out of the mouths of older men come much wisdom. The cant about an early general election advanced by every high-volume columnist on the Telegraph and Mail is a Tory ramp and should be seen as such.
And what will the election be fought on? Parliament is being cleaned up. The Speaker's resignation overshadowed the important announcement on new rules that will do away with all the practices currently exposed. David Cameron claims £700 to prune his wisteria. He is safe. Sir Peter Viggers is refused a claim for twice that amount to give his ducks a home. He is thrown overboard. A young leader laying down the lives of his old veterans to save his own is not a pretty sight.
Labour's ranks are also thinning as Brown the PM and Brown the chief whip act ruthlessly. But an election must be fought on policy, not on who is the tougher centurion at decimating the ranks. Cameron has to keep playing the man, as his policy ball is threadbare. He wants the English people (as there is little Tory presence in Scotland or Wales, this is an election fought on England's political battlegrounds) to buy a Tory government sight unseen. It is eBay politics, in which you pay your money and hope you get what you like.
But Labour also needs a forward offer, and a clean-up of the way we do our politics is long overdue. Lots of ideas are around. Some, like PR, will be a gift to the BNP, as every country with a PR system invites racist extremists into its parliament. Should we move to democracy by plebiscite in the Swiss mode? Referendums hand power to offshore media owners like Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay Brothers. In Switzerland, the participation in electoral politics is the lowest of any European nation as referendums replace representative democracy. Calls for a referendum make a good column – ask William Hague, who wants one every five minutes on Europe. But they hand power from elected and accountable representatives to the secret wire-pullers with offshore wealth to spend.
A written constitution would be welcome, but the infinitely worse political and parliamentary corruption in countries such as Greece, Italy, Germany, France and Ireland all take place under a written constitution. The House of Commons meets longer than any other parliament in the world. It could meet 50 weeks a year – but to what end?
Of course we need devolved government. That was in Labour's 1997 and 2001 manifesto. But a referendum sabotaged the efforts to set up devolved government in the north-east. Vox populi is not always vox dei, and when Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage tell us to listen to the people, we know what they mean.
So representative parliamentary democracy still remains worth defending. What can we do to make parliament come back to life? For the last three parliaments there has been a big Labour majority. If the next government has a majority of five or 10, the Commons will come back to life. Whether it is healthy for one or two MPs to hold a government to ransom I am not sure. One rightwing Labour MP connected to big business stopped steel nationalisation in 1964, despite it being agreed party policy. A hero for the Daily Telegraph, but the people had narrowly elected a Labour government on the basis of a different policy.
But parliament can operate very differently. Start with making parliament a fixed term. It could be four years, as in America or Germany. Move election days to the weekend and make the ­middle weekend of May the time when we all know there will be an election. Of course, if the government loses a vote of confidence, an early election is needed, but in general a fixed-term parliament would be a ­welcome reform.
Stipulate that no prime minister or ­minister would serve more than two terms. Being an MP, a parliamentarian and not just a minister would change our politics. Ex-ministers on select committees know how government works and the tricks the civil service get up to push through their policies. More rotation between red boxes and back benches would refresh parliament.
Yes, of course, to an elected House of Lords. I still remember flying back with Tony Blair and Jack Straw from a summit in France to vote on the House of Lords reform proposals put forward by Robin Cook. Charles Clarke and I made clear that we would vote for an elected Lords. Blair and Straw made clear it would better if we left the plane without a parachute.
Ten per cent of all parliamentary ­legislation should be reserved for private members' bills. The Friday morning sessions devoted to private members' bills should be midweek, around PM questions, so that MPs, not the government machine, have more control over what laws Parliament passes.
These are five modest proposals (fixed term parliaments, no PM to serve more than two terms, an elected House of Lords, MPs not Whitehall to initiate legislation, rotation between ministries and backbenches) which are not as grand as the great chattering-class constitutionalists want, but each would make a difference. Labour should come up with a package now and make clear that if it is re-elected in 2010, there will be major reform of how parliament does business.

Call to free political prisoners in Burma

MacShane urges freedom for political prisoners in Burma

19 May 2009

Denis MacShane MP has called for the release of all political prisoners in Burma and urged concerned citizens in Rotherham to write to the Burmese Embassy in London in support of pro-democracy campaigners in Burma. "More than 2000 political prisoners wake up in Burma’s jails. They survive in appalling conditions, many have been tortured, are kept isolated in small cells, and allowed out for just one hour a day, if at all. When they are sick, they are denied medical treatment", said MacShane.
"These prisoners are wanted these freedom and democracy. They include the monks we saw marching on the streets in September 2007, and the journalists who took the pictures we saw on TV and in newspapers. Many have been jailed for 65 years", he said
"The United Nations has already ruled that the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and four other prisoners is illegal under international law. The United Nations Security Council has called for the release of all prisoners. But no practical action is being taken to secure their release. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon appears happy to wait and see what happens after elections in Burma next year. But these elections will not be free and fair, and even if they were, it would not matter, because they would bring in a new constitution that keeps Burma’s generals in power.
"Not only does the military get 25% of the seats in Parliament, they also have effective veto power over decisions made by the Parliament, and the head of state must come from the military. No repressive laws will be repealed, no prisoners freed, there will be no freedom of speech", MacShane declared.
"I urge all the Rotherham citizens to write to the Burmese Embassy (Embassy of the Union of Myanmar, London 19A, Charles St, London, W1J 5DX) asking for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyu and all the political prisoners in Burma".

On Gordon Brown

This article was published in the Independent on Sunday

3 May 2009

Battered Brown, bashing on and on, is not ready to quit

Is it over-and-out time for Gordon Brown? The signs are bad. Endless ex-ministers queue up to bash the PM. One compares him to John Major even though the whole point of Sir John is that he won a fourth-term election everyone expected him to lose. Another gets front-page treatment by protesting about a temporary tax rise which means citizens on £3,000 a week have to pay a little more tax.
When the gods want to destroy a political party they first allow ex-ministers to open their mouths. I have my views on Mr Brown, and when minister for Europe I knew what it was like to be briefed against. The venom against MPs as fiddling thieving crooks is awesome. David Cameron and Nick Clegg could smell the coffee of public hate against MPs. But the Tory and Lib Dem leaders are part of the problem and have proposed no solution.
I spent last week at the Council of Europe with Conservative and Lib Dem MPs. Their comments about the grandstanding of their leaders do not bear reprinting. While the Tory leader has fabulous personal wealth and his new all-male front row consists of the richest politicians outside the Kremlin, many Tory MPs have only their MPs' salary. They see GPs, town hall executives, police officers whose highest qualification was an O-level or the mandarins of the BBC trousering six-figure salaries and wonder why David Cameron is so keen to keep his MPs on the lowest rungs of the public-sector pay ladder.
And where does this leave Gordon Brown? I am a secret fan of Sylvester Stallone and surely today's Prime Minister is Rocky. Battered, beaten, brooding, bruised to bits and at times unable to communicate with the public-school fluency of a Cameron or Clegg but still there bashing on and on and on.
A myth is about that Britain's economic mess is uniquely Brown's fault. Never mind that the German GDP is sinking far faster; unemployment in Spain is now at 17 per cent and rising; there are huge street demonstrations in France as the French reject President Sarkozy, elected with such fanfare just two years ago, let alone the ever-increasing bankruptcies in America despite a new charmer in the White House.
Today's crisis finds Britain in the same company as every other nation in the world. There is no national solution. Only a European and supranational way out can make sense. At the level of UK choice there are two policies on offer. A Keynesian one from Labour and a neo-Thatcherite one from the Conservatives. Both have downsides. Endless borrowing does serious damage to public finances if growth does not return.
But equally, the Tory offer of cuts in spending will destroy scores of thousands of small firms that now deliver public services from house-building to training as well as putting out of work all the consultants and agencies set up to spend public money.
But whichever road is taken by voters, there will be no national solutions to the crisis. Hence Brown's almost obsessive and utterly exhausting touring of the world and suffering being patronised by obscure east European politicians or a president of Pakistan whose relationship with money is best kept unmentioned.
Like Rocky, Gordon Brown lurches from one side of the ring to the other taking a terrible beating. But in the end? Well, we know what happened to Rocky. And voters will soon have the chance to be the referee. But the match is not over and those counting Brown out should wait a while.

Speech in the Council of Europe about the crisis with Russia

Speech in the Council of Europe, Strasbourg
29 April 2009

Russia Should Honour Obligations on Georgia

One of the problems with our debates is that we do not listen to each other; instead, we read out speeches that have been prepared for us. I am all for inviting people to come to address the Council of Europe, but all the arguments that we have just heard could in past years equally have been applied to Chechnya or to the Kurdish people’s demand for a separate state within Turkey. We have to acknowledge a sad fact: one of the central ideas of parliamentary democracy is that a parliament is a place where people can speak and disagree and where business is conducted without recourse to violence, but we are not hearing any disagreement from any Russian spokesmen. There will be divisions between the delegates of every other country represented here even if their country is involved in conflict or has difficulties –and perhaps even between members of the same party – but that is not the case with the Russian delegates; the Kremlin has spoken and others must follow suit.
There is, indeed, a new Russian peace policy: "We will hold on to any piece of land that we want, if we can get our soldiers in there." It is disturbing that colleagues from the Baltic states have spoken out so passionately; the Finnish Socialist Party has done so. Countries that are geographically close to Russia are terrified; they are worried that that new Putin or Medvedev peace policy doctrine will now be enshrined. We must face up to that. This is not a problem for Russia; this is not a debate between Russia and Georgia. It is a debate between the values of the Council of Europe – the values of Europe – and a country that will not abide by them.
Last September, Mr Medvedev signed, with Mr Sarkozy, a peace agreement – not quite a treaty – that included the promise to withdraw troops, but that has not happened. There was a promise to allow OSCE observers to continue their work; that has been defied. It has also been said that the recognition of the two breakaway provinces as states would not enter into international law, but every Russian parliamentarian raised his hand to recognise them, just as every German parliamentarian in the Reichstag in 1939 raised his hand to recognise Sudetenland as part of Germany. We are in a deep, serious and enduring crisis. Let me make an appeal, not to Russian colleagues here, but through them to their colleagues back home in the Duma: surely there must be one man or one woman who will raise their voice and say that what Russia did was grievously wrong? If we are to have peace in this region, and if the values and culture of Europe are to be upheld, someone in Russia must start telling the truth.