The Neighbours' Business?

I see in the Economist that Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the UN, has stated that “southern Africa’s leaders must do more to resolve the impasse” in Zimbabwe. This idea appears never to be questioned in fora of public debate, yet to me it seems a little curious. Without any particular knowledge of public international law or diplomacy, I do not know the basis of the principle that a failure to respect the results of an election in a given country gives rise to responsibility on the part of neighbouring countries to remedy the situation. In fact there appear to be counter-examples. The recently-resolved crisis in Belgium was in some ways diametrically opposed to that in Zimbabwe, in that the crisis was not caused by the refusal of a losing government to stand down but the difficulty in identifying a replacement one. Nonetheless, during the ten-month interregnum there was never any suggestion that France or Germany should take a hand. Similarly the disputed Florida vote count which might have led to Al Gore’s winning the 2000 Presidential election was left to the American machinery of government to resolve: no-one proposed that the Canadians or Mexicans should step in.

Any statements about Zimbabwe from a First World government probably risk being characterised as neo-colonialism. Also, it may well be fair to consider that Zimbabwe’s immediate neighbours bear the brunt of its exodus of refugees, which in itself should give them some sort of right to express an opinion. If I keep my house badly enough, at some point it becomes the neighbours’ business.

Hope springs eternal

T.S. Eliot famously described April as the cruellest month, but a new cricket season is surely always grounds for hope. Derbyshire opened the County Championship campaign at Bristol with a team showing significant changes from last year: there were I think four debutants against Gloucestershire. Derbyshire followers could nontheless be forgiven a sense of weary resignation on scanning the scorecard for the first innings of the match; a score of 124 all out suggests that the long-standing batting problems have not been entirely dissipated. The four debutants managed a combined total of 13 if I have counted correctly. The 124 was put into perspective by the Gloucestershire total of 314, and if the order of the innings had been reversed Rikki Clarke would probably have been asked to bat again in his first match as captain. The second innings was more encouraging however with 114 from Chris Rogers, who is apparently to feature prominently this season as Jayarwardene will not play at all.

To be optimistic, there is a long tradition of Derbyshire’s batsmen getting the side into trouble and the bowlers getting them out of it. Even in this match victory was not entirely out of the question: the hosts, 27 for 1 when rain had the final word, needed another 145 with nine wickets in hand.

Doctor Who is not an economist

I noticed an interesting little exchange of dialogue on Doctor Who this evening. The Doctor and Donna had just found out that a race called the Ood were in fact the slaves of humans in the 42nd (I think) century. When Donna expressed shock the Doctor suggested it was not so different an arrangement from that of our own times, asking Donna who made her clothes.

The writer probably intended to be outrageous, but I think that equating the manufacture of clothes in (for example) East Asia with slavery is really so empty-headed that it is worth hoisting a flag of protest. Is it really necessary to point out that people are not in general forced to work in clothes manufacturing: they do so because even though the work may be uncongenial and require long hours in insalubrious settings, the alternatives open to them, such as working the land, are worse? Is it really necessary to point out that multinationals obviously source from such countries partly because labour costs are lower than elsewhere, but that they would be unable to find staff except by offering pay and conditions which are at least as good and probably better than the local alternatives? Is it really necessary to point out that even if the people who make clothes are poorer than the people who buy them, both parties are better off than if the transaction had never taken place at all?

Proportionality

I was not very surprised to see a report in Friday’s Telegraph that Poole Borough Council had used powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to establish whether parents of a three-year-old child who had applied to an oversubscribed school had given a false address. The article states “The Act was pushed through by the Government in 2000 to allow police and other security agencies to carry out surveillance on serious organised crime and terrorists.” I doubt that this was the only motive. Section 29(3) of RIPA[1] provides for authorisations on no fewer than seven grounds, national security being only one:

“ (3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; or
(g) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.”

Moreover, sub-section (b) refers to crime only, not for example to crimes punishable by any particular sentence. So on the face of the wording of the Act, any crime could potentially justify RIPA surveillance. However, the Explanatory Notes[2] to RIPA indicate:
“194. Section 28 and 29 provide that authorisations cannot be granted unless specific criteria are satisfied, namely, that the person granting the authorisation believes that:
the authorisation is necessary on specific grounds; and
the authorised activity is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it.”

The mention of proportionality is a reference to Section 28(2)(b). The pressure group Liberty has according to the article described the operation as disproportionate. However proportionality is a difficult concept here. The council is reported as having claimed that lying on a school application amounted to fraud. Perhaps the safeguard in Section 28(2)(b) only means that the activity must not be disproportionate with respect to the operation carried out, and offers no yardstick for judging the purpose of the operation itself? At any event, it is certainly a bad thing if people lie to get their children into any school. That fact does not to my mind mean that one can look with satisfaction on the use of covert surveillance for this purpose. Would it be impertinent to suggest that Poole Borough Council’s resources and energies would be more usefully employed in raising standards in its less popular schools rather than in policing the barriers to entry for its more popular ones?

[1] Crown Copyright 2000: source http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_1
[2] Crown Copyright 2000: source http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/en/ukpgaen_20000023_en_1.htm

A Roundabout Route

The Telegraph is reporting that “The Olympic torch has arrived at the O2 Arena after chaotic scenes during its tour of London as more than 35 protesters were arrested.” The public debate is about whether those individuals, several of whom are notable sportsmen and women, should have boycotted the relay taking the Olympic flame through London. The question of whether it is preferable, in the light of the recent oppression of protests in Tibet, to boycott the events surrounding the Olympiad or to engage with the Chinese authorities is not one I propose to answer here. However, I recall that even at the time the games were awarded to Beijing it was suggested that the need to make a success of them would be a powerful incentive for the Chinese government to adapt its internal policies in the direction favoured by world opinion. That particular argument cannot, I think, be very convincingly sustained now.

What I find difficult to understand is why the utility of a relay taking the Olympic torch so far out of its way is universally accepted. If one accepts that it is necessary to kindle the flame at Olympia in Greece, why cannot it make its way to China as directly as possible? The flame ceremony itself was, I believe, originated for the Berlin Olympiad of 1936, which hardly seems an auspicious origin. I cannot remember if much was made of the relay taking it to the host city before the Los Angeles Olympiad of 1984, when the distinction of carrying the torch for portions of the relay was for the first time sold off to generate income. I am sure that nothing so crass is happening here: it’s hard to imagine that Steve Redgrave or Tim Henham paid for the privilege of carrying the torch. However, there’s little doubt in my mind that the reason for all this to-ing and fro-ing with the Olympic flame is to stretch out media coverage in advance of the games themselves as much as possible. Even this little platform is to some extent part of that, I suppose.