THE CASE FOR UN-MAKING THE MIDDLE EAST

Next week there will be a vote on whether or not the UK bombs Daesh in Syria - the vote will probably give David Cameron more than a few sleepless nights. The PM’s real problem is not the real possibility of Daesh atrocities on the streets of Britain along the lines of the appalling atrocities that took place recently in Bamako, Paris and Beirut.

There are deeper or perhaps shallower unspoken motivations, after the Labour (a case of miscalculation rather than design) and Conservative parties failed to get a mandate to bomb Syria (the then Assad controlled bits of it at least) in Westminster last time - Cameron found himself dangerously adrift from US interests and cozy photo opportunities on the White House lawn. If Mr C makes of mess of the forthcoming vote and fails to secure a mandate then he will move from being a partially useful US ally to being a downright liability, at least as far as the White House is concerned. 

Short-term political gain aside the appalling carnage in Lebanon, France and Mali is one grim aspect of an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe has been building for the last two decades. Where we are just now in the Middle East is the result of the end of the Cold War, a whole series of largely failed 'Western' generational interventions, the result of the failure of the Arab Spring and the weakening of the grip of some grim dictators.

If twenty years plus of war and bombing ended up producing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, we should be entirely unsurprised that the chaos unleashed in Iraq since 1991 had ended up producing Daesh (IS).  Despite occasional weasel-like verbose rhetoric to the contrary - the Brit and American elite probably quietly prefer working with their chosen tyrant(s) they know or in the case of the Brit elite literally went to school with some of them (although these days the despots spawn probably go to school in and around Washington DC) rather than dangerously unpredictable democracies who may end up delivering unpalatable electoral results (at least as far as the West is concerned). 

In relation to the current crisis David Cameron's indecision (he is a natural follower than a leader) is as irrelevant to solving the refugee problem, as is the UK's input in the Middle East. Historically Britain was an imperial power in the region, but, now in reality is a bit player, having squandered any real influence through its self-interested support for despotic regimes. When it comes to intervention, humanitarian or otherwise it can be said that you get what you put in. The UK spent around £326 million pounds bombing Libya (to get rid of Gaddafi) and around £25 million pounds on reconstruction - the end result of which is that the Libyan state ceased to exist.

An arc of instability stretches from North West Africa, through the Middle East and on through Pakistan, Afghanistan to the western fringes of the People's Republic of China. Some of this instability has been fed by local wars, local repressive dictatorships (historically supported by various sides in the Cold War) and a whole series of unresolved on-going political problems - some of which, but certainly not all relates to the failure to peacefully resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

A significant measure of responsibility lies with the West and it's history of inept irresponsible intervention and self serving foreign policy, some of which dates back to self interested decisions made during the First World War as the Ottoman Empire was dismembered by interested parties up until the emergence of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Refuge wise we have been here before, at the end of the First World War, waves of refugees from Armenia, Greece and what was about to become the Soviet Union fled to find safety and security. At least in the 1920’s the League of Nations managed to create an internationally recognised system of identity / travel documents, known as Nansen certificates for refuges.

A measure of responsibility also lies with the Arab states themselves, initially largely creations of the Imperial powers (Britain and France) - the Arab governments have almost entirely failed to integrate refuges from 1948 into society and choose to leave them to rot in refugee camps on the fringes of society. Repressive Arab governments of various persuasions conveniently raised the issue of the Palestinians and Israel to periodically distract their own oppressed citizens. Quite understandably the current refugees from Syria have no desire to find themselves in the same situation as the Palestinians.

Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan have all taken in large numbers of refuges - but it’s time for the Gulf States to fork out some cash to pay for significant no strings attached humanitarian aid in Turkey and Lebanon each of whom have taken in over two million refuges. The Turks are playing their own game, largely allowing the two way transit of people and oil into Turkey and out of the Daesh controlled fragments of Syria and Iraq - something that NATO is probably well aware of – and trying to lump the Kurds in with Daesh. Trying to recreate a unified Syria and a unified Iraq will have to involve a serious commitment of aid and probably ground troops for many years - after the costly failures in Iraq and costly partial successes in Afghanistan - this is probably not an option that can easily be sold to most of the electorates in the West. 

The case for air strikes in Syria remains as yet un-made - there are still too many unanswered questions - as vile as Daesh is (these are the people who brought back enslavement, beheadings, and other appalling atrocities) the case for war has not been made. The PM's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian fighters on the ground ready to fight Daesh is dubious at best – a doubt shared by the Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee, amongst others. Simply dropping bombs from the air will not lead to the defeat of Daesh. Nor will it secure peace for the people of Syria and Iraq or bring stability to the wider region. What is needed is a UN agreed plan for a process of reconciliation and reconstruction something that can be quantified, measured and delivered.

All governments must redouble their efforts to secure a comprehensive peace deal for Syria and the wider region. World leaders cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of past Western military interventions in the Middle East and we need renewed commitments to support and aid civilians who are suffering as a result of the war, and real pressure on Saudi Arabia and others who are financing Daesh.

Above all there must be practical support for those currently defending themselves on the ground from Daesh such as the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and a commitment from Turkey to cease attacks upon the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Turkey. At present UK military action as currently proposed risks further escalation in Syria and runs the risk of making our own communities at home less secure and simply plays into the Daesh narrative.

UN AND REGION MUST RESPOND TO IRAQ CRISIS

Plaid Cymru – the Party of Wales has urged a region-led response to the crisis in Iraq, confirming that its MPs will not support the UK Westminster government’s intention to launch air strikes against ISIL. Hywel Williams MP, outlining the reasons behind his party’s intention to vote against the government motion put before the Commons today said:

"Human suffering in Iraq and Syria has prompted an overwhelming desire to "do something". However, Plaid Cymru does not believe that UK military action of itself will provide a full and lasting solution. That can only be achieved by a region-led response backed by UN-led international support.

"Last year, the UK government was proposing military action against the Syrian government. One of the opposition groups which would have benefited is ISIL.

"We believe that air strikes will almost certainly result in civilian deaths - as in the case of every other recent Western military intervention in the region and in Afghanistan - and radicalise the young and impressionable.

"It is disturbing that the Prime Minister has said that we must not allow "past mistakes" to become an excuse for inaction. The shadow of the Iraq war still looms large - surely we should be learning from history, not forgetting it.

"Plaid Cymru supports providing Iraqi and Kurdish government with humanitarian, technical and material assistance, when civilian lives are in immediate danger. This will enable them to protect their population and achieve a lasting solution.

"The UK's response to this crisis must focus on humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. We should concentrate on delivering aid, bringing moderate regional powers together, and offering to take refugees as the number fleeing their homes rises at a rapid rate."

THE BEDROOM TAX AND THE UN

Just to make Mr Cameron’s day, a leading United Nation’s officialis visiting the UK to examine the impact of the Government’s toxic ‘bedroomtax’ policy on the human rights of thousands of vulnerable people in the UK. However, the UN special rapporteur for housing, Raquel Rolnik, will be visiting every UK nation apart from Wales during her two-week tour of major cities.

One of the not unforeseen consequences of the Con Dem Government’s (Labour approved) Bedroom tax will be an increase in the number of people and families ending up homelessness. The early effects of the bedroom tax arealready beginning to show in official figures with a rise in the number of Landlord Possession claims and orders issued in the 3 months from April to June 2013.

This follows the introduction of the bedroom tax, statistics show that - compared to the same period last year – the number of claims had risen by 11% and the number of possession orders issued increased by 16%. The majority of these claims and orders was in the social housing sector which is the sector most affected by the bedroom tax. The statistics also show an increase of 6.5% in the number of warrants for eviction issued in the private rented sector, as families in Wales continue to struggle with the cost of living and other changes to the benefits system introduced in April.

As we all brace ourselves for the financial consequences of a potentially hard winter (increased heating and fuel bills) it will be less well off vulnerable poorer families who will be least able to face the prospect of larger and more expensive heating and energy bills. If their finances have already been squeezed by the costs of the bedroom tax then extra heating and energy costs could be the final straw resulting in many families potentially facing eviction by Christmas.

FEEDING OUR FUEL AND FOOD INSECURITIES

As UK householders brace themselves for increased energy bills, they are also going to take a hit from increased world food prices.  The UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)World food prices has revealed that world food prices rose 1.4% in September (in July food prices went up by 10%), driven up by higher meat, dairy and cereals prices. The rise follows two months of relative stability when food prices remained steady.

Here in the UK, we will end up paying higher prices for the food on the shelves. Elsewhere on the planet there are real concerns about possible food shortages as drought hit grain crops in the US Midwest, Brazil, Russia, Europe and central Asia. The UN has also forecast a decline in global cereal production this year.

The FAO is predicting that 2.286 billion tonnes of cereal are likely to be produced, this is slightly down from the 2.295 billion tonnes that had been estimated a month earlier. This forecast would mean a 2.6% fall in cereal production from 2011's yield, which was a record crop. This would result in a significant reduction in world cereal stocks by the end of 2013, yet there may be some light at the end of the tunnel as the early indicators for wheat crops in 2013 are said to be good.

The UN and the US Department of Agriculture says that  around one third of all food goes to waste and that consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa. To feed the worlds expanding population basically we will need to produce 70% more food by 2050 and this despite the fact that Global corn stocks (reserves) have basically halved since 1998.

More than 100 million more people across the world now suffer from hunger due to recent food price rises. Of all the humans on the planet, one in eight not have enough food. The situation is being made worse because we are turning food into fuel. The UN food agency (aback in August) called on the United States to suspend its production of biofuel ethanol.

US law requires that 40% of the US corn harvest be used to make biofuel, the UN says that this quota could contribute to a food crisis around the world. The harsh drought and heatwave across the US has made the situation worse by destroying much of the country's corn crop, and driving up prices. The US is not alone in relentlessly chasing biofuel, many countries are increasingly exploring the possibility of growing some of their fuel rather than importing it.

The FAO's Food Price Index rose 3 points to 216 in September, but this is still below the record 238 reached back in February 2011. Cereal prices rose 1% from August, wheat and rice offset a decline in maize. Meat prices were up 2.1%. Dairy prices rose 7%, the sharpest monthly increase since January 2011.

Sugar prices fell 4.2%, reflecting an improved sugarcane harvest in Brazil, the world's largest sugar exporter. Oil prices fell by 0.4% in September and the International Energy Agency is predicting a fall in oil and gas prices. This no doubt explains why the energy companies are going to charge us more for our energy over the winter – or perhaps not!

FOOD INSECURITY?

Grain Traders are looking East at Russia where a commission on food security been set up in response to dry weather that has halved grain yields in some areas. The worlds food markets are awash with talk that Russia may respond to the developing crisis by limiting or stopping exports (as it did some two years ago). The United States is already facing one of the worst droughts for 50 years, and the prices of many grains and food crops have soared on world commodity markets.

The recent rise in food prices will have a major impact on food security, it will affect all of us as individuals and whole countries in the developed and the developing world. Many of the world’s poorest peoples spend over half their income on food. So the recent price rises for cereals and other staple food stuffs will force them to cut back on the quantity or quality of their primary foodstuffs. This will result in food insecurity and malnutrition, with potentially tragic implications in the short and long term.

Undernourishment increases disease and mortality, lowers productivity and can have severe lifelong effects, particularly for children. Price spikes also hit poorer households when it comes to meeting important non-food expenses, e.g. education and health care. Global food price hikes affect low-income, food importing countries, and put pressure on their limited financial resources. High food prices have a very negative impact on food security when prices spike suddenly or reach extremely high levels.

Yet food security issues can affect both food producers and food purchasers - high prices send an important message to food producers. Half the world’s undernourished people, are small farmers, livestock producers and fishermen. For them, high prices are an opportunity and a threat. They can act as an incentive to produce more for the market and make more food available while improving access to richer foodstuffs, as poor farmers’ incomes rise.

That said, higher prices are also a threat, as many poor farmers are net food buyers e.g. they spend more on food than they make by selling their produce, Also many of them face serious obstacles when it comes to producing more food and getting more of their produce to the marketplace.

The World Bank stated that the 2010 to 2011 food price spike pushed approximately 44 million people into poverty. Yet for some 24 million food producers, rising food process have actually been a ticket out of poverty – admittedly potentially a relatively short-term one, as their numbers were swamped by the 68 million that have fallen below the extreme poverty line.

Now food security or food insecurity is not new, back in 1996, the World Food Summit defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has acknowledge that the concept of food security is defined as including both physical and economic access to food that meets people's dietary needs as well as their food preferences. All very fine and dandy you may say, but, what does that have to do with us?

Well, a quite a lot , the UK produces 73% of ‘indigenous-type foods’, and is around 60% self-sufficient when exports and local consumption are set against production. UK consumers spend an average of £420 per household on food each year and then throw away some 4.1M tonnes of food nationally (2011). Each day we bin some 4.4 Million apples, 5.1 Million potatoes, 2.8 Million tomatoes and 1.6 Million bananas. Back in 2009 Wrap data suggested some £12 Billion pounds worth of food was binned every year in the UK, or around £680 for the average family when drinks and liquid food is included.

At the end of the day, rising food prices will bring little real benefit to our own or more distant food producers when they are being short changed by the Supermarkets (and some of their suppliers). Food producers are important and they need a fair deal and so do we (the food consumers) which is something to think about as we are confronted by the increased cost of our basic foodstuffs on the supermarket shelves.

NOT RULING ANYTHING OUT...

William Hague (the UK Foreign Secretary) has said that he is not ruling anything out in relation the situation in Syria - anything save any action to protect the Syrian people - that is. The whole situation reminds me in many ways of the early months of Bosnia in the 1990's - where the West made many pious pronouncements about Human rights, arms embargo's etc, yet did little. If you are the ones being shelled by the a government that has been stockpiling arms for the best part of forty years then Hague's words will bring scant comfort.

The UN and the Arab League are failing to halt the killing, the UN is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as both Russia and China will veto any moves to actually act to save lives. The days are gone when Russia and China will step back from supporting and protecting their somewhat bloodstained Allies at the UN.

How many more Houla style massacres will we see before anything is done? Back in February, the European Parliament backed a resolution calling on Russia to stop arms sales to Syria and allow the UN Security Council to take the lead in resolving the crisis and has actively condemned the "brutal massacre" in Houla , and repeated calls for the Syrian government to implement the UN peace plan. Yet still the bodies pile up.

In many ways it is entirely natural for the few remaining Communist dictatorships like Cuba and the Peoples Republic of China (itself a brutal repressive dictatorship) to side with the Syrian Government. Cuban repression is well documented and the PRC's behaviour towards dissidents and ethnic minorities (and the peoples of Tibet and East Turkestan to name but two) within its own border is a matter of record. China has other concerns and anxieties, spreading democracy definitely is not among them, and stability at any price may be a key factor here along with arms sales.

Yet Syria also has some fair weather friends who should know better, including Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Brazil and India (who have abstained on Syria related UN resolutions) who remain silent along with the old traditional ‘left’. There is some irony here in that some of the states supporting the Syrian dictatorship were themselves involved in liberation struggles, they might once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty or perhaps they are stuck in the vice like grip of the past or merely enjoying the trappings of power.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

Thursday is International Women's Day, which was first celebrated in 1911 in Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland – were one million men and women attended rallies to demand amongst other things voting rights and equal pay. On our planet women perform around 66% of the work, are responsible for the production of 50% of our planets food yet take home around 10% of overall income and own around 1% of the worlds property. When it comes to elected representation worldwide barely 19% of the world's parliamentary seats are held by women, around 16% of the world's elected political leaders are women.

Other statistics are grimmer - more women (between the age of 15 and 44) die as result of violence against them, than die of cancer, malaria, road accidents and war. One in five women will become victim of rape, attempted rape and one in four will experience domestic violence. Clearly a great deal needs to be done before women can enjoy the fruits of their labour, have personal security, and collect their long overdue financial and political rewards.

The United Nations theme for International Women's Day 2012 is "Empower Rural Women — End Hunger and Poverty." Even where political liberation is taking place and dictatorships are falling, women's rights are not necessarily secure, as this BBC Newsnight Report on the Egyptian revolution clearly shows:



In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai, who is preparing the ground to negotiate with the Taliban has commissioned the Ulema Council (Afghanistan's top religious council) to produce a statement which outlines the rights and duties of women under Islam. The council has said that women should not mix with men in school, work or other aspects of daily life and has also said that women should not travel without a male relative.

Outside observers and Afghan women's rights campaigners believe that the release of this statement is no co-incidence, merely part of the president's efforts to cut a deal with the Taliban. Clearly we have come long way from the days when Laura Bush spoke out against the Taliban's oppression of Afghan women, and for Afghan women we may be going nowhere good.

THE HUMAN COST OF A UN VETO

The people of Homs (and the rest of Syria) continue to pay the price for the Peoples Republic of China and Russia giving the green light to Syria's rulers to slaughter its opponents. Russia and China have now twice vetoed UN action on Syria. President Assad and his government used the veto as an effective licence to kill those Syrian people who oppose them. Human rights groups and activists say more than 7,000 people have been killed by Syrian security forces since the uprising began last March.

The UN actually stopped estimating the death toll in Syria after it passed 5,400 in January, saying it was too difficult to confirm the figures. Syrian Government forces have been battering the rebel stronghold of Homs since last week. It has been estimated at least 95 people died in the city last Monday alone. The Syrian government has publicly vowed to pursue the offensive until "order" is restored and state television has denied that there had been any bombardment.



Russia may persist in maintaining its relationship with the Syrian dictatorship; sue to a combination of arms sales, strategic desire for a warm water port and a lingering resentment in the corridors of the Kremlin to having lost the Cold War. It has been estimated that some 10% of Russia's global arms sales go to Syria, with current contracts being possibly worth as much as $1.5 billion (£950 million). Aside from ammunition, recent sales have included military training aircraft, air defence systems and anti-tank weapons. The icing on the cake though is the fact that the Assad regime provides the Russian navy with a navy base at the port of Tartus (which is Russia's last base outside of the former Soviet Union).

It's entirely natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. The PRC’s behaviour towards ethnic minorities (and the peoples of Tibet and Xinxiang / East Turkestan to name but two) within its own border is a matter of record. China has other concerns and anxieties, spreading democracy definitely is not among them, stability at any price may be a key factor here as well as potential arms sales.

Syria's slightly more fair weather friends Venezuela, South Africa, Brazil and India, abstained on previous UN resolutions have been pretty quiet of late (as has the old traditional ‘left’). Its a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty or perhaps they are stuck in the vice like grip of the past or enjoying the trappings of power.

However, you spin this, its yet another pretty blatant diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signalling a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. Perhaps all of this signals the end of the new era of intrusive diplomacy brought about by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March, overwhelmed by Russia and China's self-interest.

It is entirely naive to think that that President Bashar al-Assad will go peacefully or any time soon. A brutal leader can kill as many of his people as he likes when there are no real consequences for him or his regime over the short time and stay in power. Assad's brutal murderous regime continues to rocket and shell its own citizens and to bring buildings crashing down on top of women and children in Homs.

The West and the Arab League invested a great deal of time and effort in putting together the UN Security Council resolution – which if not vetoed would have condemned the violence and called for a transition to democracy. Such a resolution would have sent a powerful signal not only to Assad but also to those around him that the world had taken note and a potential coalition forming against him. Although the wording of the resolution was weak, making no reference to sanctions or even the specific removal of Assad – both Russia and China quickly used their veto to kill it stone dead.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS...

A report by Human Rights Watch has called on the Arab League to suspend Syria, saying the abuses against civilians in Homs are crimes against humanity. The US-based group's report makes grim reading documenting arbitrary detention, deaths in custody, torture, enforced disappearances, and systematic unlawful killing of civilians in the city of Homs (and elsewhere in Syria) by Syrian Government forces. Homs is the focus for anti-government demonstrations and the effective capital of the revolt against the brutal and repressive Syrian dictatorship. Some forty people were killed there on Thursday.

The UN says at least 3,500 people have been killed in Syria in protests against President Bashar al-Assad. Syria continues to benefit from China and Russia's veto on the UN Security Council, where a resolution which condemned the crackdown in Syria (back in October) was a serious blow to attempts to develop an international consensus on how to grapple with President Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime. Western diplomats tweaked the resolutions wording (which had been proposed by Britain, France, Germany and Portugal, in co-operation with the USA) to try to take account of Chinese and Russian concerns.

The clear diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signals a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. This move has only heightened divisions on the Security Council, where Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon quietly abstained; this suggests that any idea of a new era of intrusive diplomacy which was brought in by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March is effectively over, perhaps overwhelmed by self-interest.

It's natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. Russia has other concerns, spreading democracy not being among them, so an anxiety about a potential lack of future arms sales may be a driving concern. It’s a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty.

A WIND OF CHANGE?

Small stones can start large avalanches, opposition to Muammar Gaddafi and his murderous repressive regime is not new, it has a long history both inside and outside of Libya. Not that former PM Tony Blair and other Western Leaders who were busy snuggling up the repressive leader and his spawn would have noticed, but courageous Libyans defying the repressive Gaddafi regime took to the streets not a month ago, but more than two years ago. They risked torture and death sentences and their protest largely passed unnoticed by most of the world, a small group of families began to hold weekly demonstrations in Benghazi, the city that has become the epicenter of the uprising that swept across Libya.

In less than three months Gaddafi has gone from being the West's best mate to billy no mates. The UN Security Council has twice in three weeks done the right thing, initially by referring Libya to the International Criminal Court, then, by authorizing military force to protect civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi's crazed wrath. Qaddafi is in many ways the perfect stage villain complete with an iffy dress sense, madness and way over-the-top threats to "show no mercy" to the people of Benghazi, along with his regional meddling and megalomaniac ideas, left him few friends or defenders.

Now What's even more amazing aside from the fact that China and Russia decided not to vote or even to abstain in the UN, is the fact that the Arab League (which has long promised much and delivered little for the Arab peoples) has also played an key role by abandoning its usual position of opposition to Security Council action against some of it's more repressive members. Previously the league has watched silently as Sudan's Omar al-Bashir committed crimes against humanity in Darfur, somewhat less recently, Saddam Hussein (Iraq) massacred Shia and Kurds, and Syria's Hafez al-Asad destroyed the town of Hama.

Now the question are the winds of change wafting through the Middle East and North Africa or is the ground literally crumbling beneath the feet of a whole host of iffy and repressive regimes - with popular dissent and demonstrations in Algeria, Syria, Yemen and Bharain - where next people may well wonder? What's embarrassing for Western leaders in particular is that they now find that many of the despots they have feted because they brought 'security and stability' to the region (and also lucratively armed to the teeth) are now busy repressing their own people in what appears to be a series of increasingly bloody and brutal (and hopefully futile) attempts to stay in power.

Gaddafi and friend (AFP / Getty)

Western leaders are 'discovering' that 'their boys' are a pretty grim and repressive bunch of (hopefully) no hopers. I suppose that we should all be grateful in that at least we have been spared the embarrassing suggestion that they did not no what they were like or what they were doing. Certainly the former New Labour Government and no doubt the Con Dem's spent plenty of time being nice to Gaddafi regime (the sight of Peter Hain (Labour MP for Neath) defending a long line of arms sales to Libya recently on BBC Question time comes to mind). Now the people are taking to the streets throughout the region, risking their lives for freedom, democracy and human rights against autocratic leaders that have long denied them for so long.

Here's hoping what we are seeing is the wind of change and here's hoping that Gaddafi (and his ilk) and the rest of the repressive bunch end up in Court and after due process spend a seriously long time in goal answering for their crimes. When Saddam went far too much was swept under the carpet (the Kurds amongst many others never did get their day in court) and we never did find out which Western Governments (and the rest) and which companies had been quietly breaking the sanctions because after all he was 'our boy'.

And while we are at it lets have a long hard look at just who's been profitably tooling up the forces of repression around the globe and shine some light on the UK's foreign policy and exactly what decisions have been and are being made on our name? Now this wave of revolution has been fuelled by the courage of ordinary people who are prepared to stand up and be counted, aided and abetted by Facebook - the blocking of which by repressive regimes is a key sign of unrest and dissent- incidentally I wonder if Facebook is blocked in Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbarbwe and Iran all of whom have expressed their support for Gaddafi?