Leadership | 2b Leadership and Diversity

A Time for Strategic Leadership to Defeat the Threat to World Peace

I watched Question Time this week as I always do on Thursday nights but it had more poignancy than usual because it was solely devoted to the issue of the French Terrorist attacks last week and the bigger issue surrounding the safety and security of World Peace. The panellists were Evgeny Lebedev, the Russian owner of The Independent, Medhi Hasan the journalist from Al Jazeera, Anna Soubry the Business Minister, Natalie Nougayrède the editor of Le Monde and one time editor of the Guardian and Max Hastings the respected journalist and war historian. This was a considerably high profile panel to produce some clear and succinct answers to the threat the world faces.

With exception of Anna Soubry, all panellists offered some tactical answers but none offered global strategic solutions to the problems we as humankind face. Unfortunately for Soubry she demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the nuances and subtleties of the interconnected issues we are facing and in a quite one-dimensional and non-intellectual way offered very simple solutions to a very complex problem. This, from a Minister, who sits, and has influence at the Cabinet table. Most worrying.

I suggest that this particular threat even more than the conventional inter- state problems faced by the world in the Second World War is very different and requires strong international alliances, which are unbreakable and determined.

My strategic solution initiated and sanctioned by the UN is fourfold: –

Defeat ISIS by use of conventional force.
A pan-European solution to the refugee egress.
Intelligence to defeat the instigators of Civil War
Deny Funding.

Defeat ISIS by conventional force.

I would advocate that through diplomacy we ensure a UN Security Council determination to facilitate a conventional military defeat of ISIS. The command and control should belong to those states most affected by the threat in the region but fully supported by hardware, materials and personnel by those nations most able to supply the necessary expertise in these areas.

The tactical application of military strategy to be determined by the conventional forces involved in the conflict.

So, should ISIS dissipate themselves into a non conventional guerrilla force which is most likely when confronted, the strategic response maybe formulated and assisted by others, but the tactical and operational application should be determined by the ground commanders. A sound post conflict response is probably the most important aspect of this part of the strategy and is too big to be dealt with here.

A pan-European solution to the refugee egress.

At a time of threat of this magnitude, it is important that Europe responds cohesively and this is almost certainly not a time to be questioning the bonds, which have kept European peace for over 70 years. We must be in Europe, not breaking a treaty, which has clearly stood the test of time. This is a European problem and all member states must fully shoulder the burden of responsibility and not leave the issue to a few guardian Border States.

Close the external European borders. All refugees presenting themselves at the borders must be given entry and then detained in order to be biometrically assessed. Then an assessment of their status to determine whether they are genuine asylum seekers under international law. If so all European countries must take a proportion of those refugees based on a pro-rata basis. This is the international law but nobody must expect only a few member states to shoulder a disproportionate burden irrespective of the internal political fallout.

All economic migrants should be denied entry post assessment and returned to the country of origin to apply to enter the country of their choice in the normal way.

Intelligence to defeat the instigators of Civil War.

The terrorist threat we face as individual states is in fact a Civil War. People who are of the country in which the acts are carried out perpetrate all of the terrorist acts. I recognise that this is often as result of training and hardening of attitudes in other countries but the radicalisation of people starts in the home countries and so I would define this as Civil War. To combat Civil War requires the gathering, analysis, dissemination and operational actions based on intelligence. It is a civil problem not a military one.

Combatting our own countrymen who would commit Civil War against us depends on our ability to act on the whole of the CONTEST strategy, which has to date been very effective, by community, the police and intelligence agencies and the rest of the public services. If not properly supported, it will inevitably fail. We will never have complete security and so the whole population needs to be educated as to the content of the threat.

I was on a train recently and spotted a bag lying between seats unattended. I was the only person who questioned why it was there and who it belonged to. This, only 2 days after Paris. Astounding.

The current government has a problem, aspiring to small state and low taxes. Now is the time to park some of those aspirations and keep us safe and secure. If that means raising taxes and increasing the size of the state, then so be it. Better to have our state that not!

Deny Funding.

It is clear that the people who would harm us whether internally or externally receive huge amounts of money to fund their infrastructure and subsequent actions. They are a sophisticated enemy who require a sophisticated response. This means unfettered neo-liberal markets provide the oxygen of both publicity and the means of making huge amounts of money. Money never has an intrinsic value only an instrumental value and allows the enemy to purchase expertise and ordnance. There must be a coordinated global response through the business world and real legal action must be taken against those who supply or assist the enemy in any way through materials both hard and soft.

That justice against perpetrators must be seen to be done and the International Court is the place for that to happen.

Conclusion.

Many more informed and influential thinkers have written many more words than I have on this subject, and I am not proposing this as the only set of solutions, but it seems to me that at the moment when we most need it, a strategy needs to be put in place that we can all recognise and act upon, at an international, national, community and individual level. It will require international co-operation not seen in our lifetime, but I believe that is what is required and it is now time for the International institutions to play a world role.

Posted November 21, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, general, Leadership | Leave a response

Nuclear Deterrence or not?

As a professional soldier for over two decades, soldiering through the Cold War of the sixties, seventies and eighties, I was briefed and learnt the principles of nuclear deterrence which I never really questioned as they seemed to make so much sense to me. Surely, it was sensible that if the enemy had nuclear weapons then so should we, in order to deter them from using them. It also seemed to work, Europe had over 70 years of relative peace and even though the political philosophies of East and Western Europe were completely at odds, it never manifested itself in all out European war and we enjoyed the most peaceful period across the continent since time began.

Business flourished as a result, borders became open and European countries drew ever closer to each other despite their differences. Then in 1989 the unthinkable happened and the Cold War ended with the symbolic destruction of the Berlin wall. What can be wrong with nuclear deterrence if it can achieve all that?

The primary principle of nuclear deterrence, I was taught, was based upon the theory of “Graduated Response”. This means that we never resort to the ultimate destructive nuclear weapons we possess but in fact gradually increase our response to the threat posed. So, in any conflict situation we respond initially with conventional weapons, and then escalate to tactical battlefield nuclear weapons and finally intercontinental nuclear weapons whilst constantly keeping all diplomatic channels open to resolve the political issues before the conflict is escalated. Deterrence is based on the fact that the enemy never knows or can guess our level of response and so by keeping them guessing we never enter into a nuclear response and peace is maintained. Ultimately, we always keep the option of any of these responses as a first strike option. I therefore ignored the CND marchers, passing them off as naïve do-gooders and never voted for Foot and the Labour party during this time of my militancy.

And then a funny thing happened. Corbyn got elected to lead the Labour party and he again espoused what I believed to be a dead dogma of nuclear disarmament once again and this got me thinking about the subject once more and my conclusions surprised me completely.

To replace Trident will cost upwards of £50Bn and we know from past experience how these costs can often spiral out of control and so the cost maybe a lot more than that. The current government is adamant we need this deterrence in light of how dangerous the world is at the moment with the threats posed by Putin (now also in Syria militarily and Ukraine) Islamic State and the threat that poses in the Middle East, the turmoil in the Levant, mostly caused by our illegal war in Iraq and the constant thorn in the side of peace in the region caused by the military autonomy of the Israelis and their persecution of the Palestinians with complete impunity and lack of action and in fact subliminal support by the West.

Whether any of these threats will ever require the ultimate nuclear response is very doubtful.

So the use of our nuclear weapons to be effective will either require a pre-emptive strike or a retaliatory strike. It is upon this basis that we maintain the peace. No state will contemplate the use of nuclear weapons because the opposition hold the ultimate response of complete destruction of our enemies either pre-emptively or retaliatory.

Let us then examine the pre-emptive strike option.

Can anybody ever imagine the circumstances in which we will use a pre-emptive strike against our enemies? Throughout all the wars, which have happened throughout the world since the end of the Second World War, no nuclear weapon has ever been deployed. I believe this is because the response would be so catastrophic to us that the benefit of deploying it to bring the enemy to heel would be lost in military, political and economic terms.

It would effectively be like shooting ourselves in the foot. When engaged in conflict with enemies who did not possess nuclear weapons, the end clearly did not justify the means, and so we have never used them, again for the reasons given.

A pre-emptive strike is a game changer bringing about Armageddon and no military benefits.

Let us now examine the retaliatory strike option.

The only circumstance in which this could happen would be in response to an incoming nuclear strike, but the same rules apply to our enemies as to us and so when would an enemy use the nuclear pre-emptive strike option when trying to exercise political will against us? That’s the first question. My next question is, even if they did use a nuclear strike against us what benefits do we achieve militarily by a retaliatory strike. If it means we then stop the conflict, that’s fine but we don’t know and never will know that.

So this leads me to the question, how effective is nuclear deterrence?

I now believe that there is no justification for spending huge amounts of public money on a tool, which will never be used and does nothing to keep us safe and secure. I now believe, like Corbyn and many other people over the years like him, who advocated using that public money, particularly in todays economic climate, to bolster public services and improve the capability of our Armed Services, where I believe our primary and ultimate deterrent lays.

I am not a pacifist and firmly believe in national self defence and that military action is the ultimate extrapolation of political policy. What I cannot believe is the huge cost, which this government tries to dupe us into believing is required to preserve our national safety, whilst ignoring the plight of the poor and underprivileged in our society during these very difficult economic times.

£50Bn would go a long long way.

Posted September 25, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

Benefit Entitlement or Charitable Patronage

This government has demonised benefit claimants and now reduces benefits on the back of a political mantra which portrays all benefits claimants as scroungers and feckless wasters. Much of the electorate have clearly swallowed this lie (even the previous Labour Party administration under Harriet Harman) and support government moves to cap benefits for all including working people by reducing working tax benefits whilst allowing employers to continue to exploit “hard working aspirational” people (the governments words) to work on zero hours contracts at a minimum wage, which it is recognised has fallen far below the level of a living wage, thus further increasing working and non- working poverty.

In any civilised society where a huge amount of wealth is created such as ours, (The 4th largest economy in the world) there is a recognition that not everybody can be financially successful as everybody else. This is due to the intrinsic difficulties in creating a fair society where the rich get richer through their elite networks and establishment power and the less advantaged have less access and opportunity. Therefore the government through taxation wishes to equalise this difference by creating a welfare system which prevents people going hungry, homeless, and without the opportunity to progress through education and training. It is not based on subjective factors but objectively assesses individual need and distributes on that basis. (There maybe a good case to means test therefore and eliminate universal benefits).

Cameron recently, in political terms, espoused a political philosophy called the “Big Society”, this was actually a wish to return to the Victorian era of philanthropy where business guilds and crafts would set up financial trusts which subjectively gave monies and help to people who applied for it and who they believed “deserved” their help. This was a value driven basis for giving and inevitably some applicants did not reach the required level of “acceptance” by the Boards dishing out the money. A great example is JB Priestley’s play – An Inspector Calls.

The Labour government in 1945 recognised that this was fundamentally wrong and that the state had a role to play in ensuring that citizens in need should be looked after by government and not the subjective wishes and values of well meaning but unenlightened interventionists. This fundamentally and still does oppose the Tory political philosophy of self determination and the fact that it is not the role of state to help individual citizens. Unfortunately with a Tory majority and a certain five years in government we can expect much more of the same. The rich will inevitably get richer and the poor will inevitably get poorer under this austere regime.

That does not detract from the fact that we have created a society where people do have entitlements and that includes the entitlement to benefits when needed and those should not be subject to the whims and vagaries of people imposing their values and beliefs on the recipients, which is ostensibly how this government is transforming the benefits system and encouraging people to believe that it is their money that they are giving away, to people who do not deserve it.

In the recent book The Great Tax Robbery by Richard Brooks, he demonstrates the lie perpetrated by this government by emphasising the facts. For every £1Bn of tax/benefit fraud there are 9000 prosecutions for benefit fraud and only 5 for tax evasion by the big companies and rich individuals, but only £1Bn represents benefit fraud whereas over £30Bn is represented by tax avoidance/evasion. Therefore, this incumbent government bring the full force of the law to bear on the poorest in society whilst ignoring the richest and their criminality.

To summarise, when a person says I am entitled to the benefits provided, then, they are and we should not be hankering for a return to where people stood in line to beg from rich benefactors who often would say No! based on prejudice and discrimination.

Posted September 15, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, general, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

The “Great Trek” to Freedom

We now see huge swathes of humanity trekking across Europe to seek freedom. Freedom from oppression, freedom from persecution, freedom from totalitarianism and lastly freedom from lack of hope. The power of people to exercise their innate freedom is expressed in the determination of the “little trek” from Budapest’s Keleti rail station to the Austrian Border. People are fleeing the wars we in the West, either directly or indirectly started and then did not deal with in terms of the post conflict construction, both economic and political.
We then see the political leaders of Europe, with the exception of Angela Merkel (who will be the next recipient of the Nobel peace prize?) like rabbits in the headlights, as no longer are people just grainy images on our TV screens and people we can ignore whilst collecting money to salve our consciences to send to the refugee camps where they are incarcerated for years, but now sleeping on the streets of the great European cultural centres’ such as Vienna, Berlin, Budapest et al. Meanwhile, I am deeply ashamed at the xenophobic and selfish attitude of my own country. A country that I fought for and thought, believed in democracy, freedom, justice and social equality. I am deeply ashamed that we elect a Prime Minister who unlike Angela Merkel, washes his hands in public, much like Pontius Pilate did over 2000 years ago and says “This is not our problem”, purely for such transparent and narrow political interests.
Of course it is our problem, it is also the problem of the rest of Europe in which Germany is taking the lead. The world is no longer defined by national borders or narrow nationalistic interests. These things no longer define our world; it is defined by all of humanity irrespective of colour, religion, faith, gender and all those other characteristics, which define us as individuals.
People define it. People, who wish to be safe, work and be treated as equals, care for their family, get educated and make their way in this life, irrespective of their socio-economic background. People are curious, innovative, creative and determined and so no matter how much the European politicians rail against the sea of humanity seeking a better life, then they had better deal with them and not ignore them.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of a sophisticated and developed Western Europe to recognise that now is the time for leadership not prevarication and blame transference. Take responsibility and recognise that the problem is twofold.
Deal with the wars and unrest in the Arab region, this must include the Israeli-Palestinian problem and surely the answer is a two-state solution, and secondly, set up reception centres in Europe, process people as either Asylum seekers or economic migrants and then allocate to individual countries based on a system of land mass, GDP and familial association. There is also the thorny question of what is America’s role in this humanitarian crisis, which they are also in part responsible for. Obama appears to be very quiet on the whole issue and needs to lead the United Nations towards a pan global solution
This will not go away, the “Great Trek” has begun and once again the world is changing.

Posted September 5, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

Mrs Justice Pauffley and Rachel Dolezal- Opposite ends of the Spectrum

There is a clear link I believe between the recent case of the judge Mrs Justice Pauffley’s comments relating to the way she dismissed the case against an Indian man beating his 7-year-old son, in UK, in which she maintained that “ proper allowance must be made for what is, almost certainly a different cultural context” and the parallel case in the USA of the white woman Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black and leading the Spokane Washington branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured (Black) people, (NAACP) America’s oldest civil rights group. A black British female novelist being interviewed on the subject on Channel 4 News on Friday 13^th June said, “It should only be a black person leading a civil rights organisation”.

In the first case both white and black people are up in arms about Pauffley’s comments and yet in Dolezal’s case it is mainly black people who are not happy about her claim to a black identity. (Excepting of course the NAACP, who is still not sure how to deal with being hoodwinked by someone who has done such great work for the civil rights movement in USA).

So what is the link?

In the end it is down to our own individual worldview. If we agree that any discrimination is an exercise of power in some form or another then Racism is also a demonstration of power against another based on colour, race or nationality.

Let us take the case of Pauffley. When one examines the case it is clear that on the “Balance of Probabilities” she found the man not guilty of using a belt to chastise his son. Therefore he used reasonable punishment, which is legal.

She also found that the man had abused his wife violently, but this was never reported in the popular media.

It is however her world view which brings into question her judgement as a High Court Judge.

She has used her power and not a legal basis on which to make mitigation in favour of the Indian accused. If she had not mentioned the man’s ethnicity and only a made a judgement based on the facts, the findings would have been seen to be just and fair, irrespective if people had disagreed with her findings. What came first, her worldview and then her findings or her findings and then her worldview?

By adding the comments she made she may have effectively ‘positively discriminated’ in favour of the accused, therefore using her power inappropriately.

Let us take the second case. Rachel Dolezal has undoubtedly been a great advocate of Civil Rights as the President of the Spokane branch of NAACP in Washington. (I am personally not in favour of the use of the word ‘Coloured” when referring to Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people), however, her excellent work in this arena goes without saying. She may have broken the law in declaring her ethnicity as African American in any application for work. It is also true that she has been dishonest in stating she is black when clearly she is not. That is not the issue, the issue is her mind set at the time of entering the world of civil rights and wishing to do good work in that field and maybe feeling, look if I am not black will I be accepted? and clearly listening to the backlash from the black community on this subject she may well have been right. Is it racist to exclude somebody on the basis of the colour of his or her skin? Of course it is.

Any exercise of power to exclude people based on the factor of colour is wrong.

The link is that racism is much more nuanced, subtle and multi-faceted and layered than ever before and we all need to look at it differently, both from the law and our own individual worldview.

There is racism between white and black, and within the black community.

I have personally experienced the racism in the Caribbean of racism between Africans and Indians; I have observed the racism within tribes in Africa, and also in the Middle East between Arabic sects. I have also observed the racism between these groups in our own society. We need to stop looking at colour and start looking at behaviour and the reasons for that behaviour, so that people cannot hide behind the old adage of “I’m not racist but”!

Actions or lack of action determines racism and all other forms of discrimination together with, not just colour, race, nationality, gender, gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation, faith and religion.

This is a monumental shift in view, which society and the politicians need to understand. It is not just good enough to reflect society because we immediately get drawn into a numbers game of this amount of these people and this amount of those people. Big picture thinking means we create opportunity for everyone through education, training, a level playing field in terms of advancement in the workplace, pay, contracts of work and the access to the law, housing and safety and security for all. Only in that way will we create a society capable of true integration. A society where actually it’s OK for someone who is white to be accepted enough to lead a civil rights group and where an Indian boy who is beaten by his father receives the justice he deserves.

Posted June 15, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

Why Wage War?

War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means.

Carl von Clausewitz

I believe we face some of the most dangerous times globally for all mankind in the world today.

We have fought the wars we should never have fought and we are not fighting the wars we should be fighting.

Blair and Bush as I have previously written, by their stupidity and misplaced ideology based on revenge and religious hatred have waged wars using lies and mendaciousness, even against the will of the vast majority of the electorate who put them in power. Certainly in UK the demonstrations against the Iraq war were large and the voices vociferous. Most people when asked do not know why we were in Afghanistan for over 10 years with very little result. Both countries continue to be in political turmoil and in the midst of continuing sectarian bloodshed directly as a result of the actions of these two men.

In any other context they would be tried at the Hague.

Mission not Accomplished!!

We now find ourselves with the most dire circumstances of any Commander – —— A war on two fronts! —– Ukraine and Syria/Iraq

So what is to be done?

If we do nothing rest, assured Putin will continue to expand his borders, as we have seen all dictators traditionally do from earliest times right up to the last World War.

ISIS will continue to expand their ideology of a Caliphate and the ramifications for the extended period of world peace will be devastating.

I personally do not want to live in a world dominated by a fundamental interpretation of a religion of peace on the one hand and a Communist autocracy, that stultifies, individual creativity, freedom, business and the right to live with respect and dignity for all.

These are wars we need now to fight in concert with other like minded countries including the Eastern European countries who are most threatened by Russia and the Arab countries who are most threatened by ISIS.

If the world bands together against these twin evils we can and will win, because the alternative is too hard to bear for our children and future generations.

Do we have the will to fight; if we do not then we cannot complain at the brutality of these twin regimes as they have given us ample evidence of their intent over us.

We must for our own safety rise to arms.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Sun Tzu

Somewhere between these wise sayings from Von Clausewitz and Sun Tsu we must find an answer.

The art of war is many and varied and we must use all means at our disposal to protect our way of life, but if war is the only political extrapolation left to us we must not shirk from the unpleasantness of defending ourselves.

Posted March 8, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

Labour or Tory – This General Election?

Once you cut through all the fog and smoke produced by both parties, I believe there is a clear choice to be made by the voters.

Labour

Reduce the deficit more slowly.

Raise taxes

Maintain public spending.

Remain in Europe

Tory

Reduce the deficit as quickly as possible.

Reduce taxes

Reduce Public Spending significantly

Get out of Europe.

Create a Neo Liberal business culture.

So Labour appears to be moving left in line with Socialist principles and away from Blair’s Neo Liberal fudge when he tried to appear to be all things to all people in a naked pursuit of power.

The Tories are advocating a return to the right wing principles of Thatcher.

This all against a world which is more dangerous now than ever, increasing sectarian divisions becoming more apparent in our society and the need for a government of all the people and not just the few. A government that looks outward and not inwards, a government that supports the Rule of Law and good governance, a government that leads ethically and with integrity both individually and as a group.

The other parties are nothing more than a sideshow, which the voters take great delight in taunting the major parties of Labour and Tory into some response guided by nothing more than narrow societal interests such as immigration and fear of other.

They are not relevant to the major issues facing a future government.

How then to vote?

If you seek more equality, fairness and consistency in Health, Education, Local Government, Business and Foreign policy across the whole of society, then I suggest Labour will do that more significantly.

If you are happy to have less equality, fairness and consistency across those things, which are key to our entire well being, where those in the minority who have, either increase what they have or remain with what they have, then the Tories are for you.

This is clearly demonstrated today in Cameron’s speech to the Chambers of Commerce where he asked them to raise peoples wages which in the following interviews were roundly rejected by all those attending, saying leave wages to business and they expressed surprise that a Tory leader would even comment on wages to the business community.

Where the HSBC scandal rolls on and on (this one has more legs than most) and government chose to do nothing once they were told. Naturally the Tories deny they were told. Perhaps they should have asked, as everyone else knew about the industrial tax evasion by the UK rich. Government has denied a conspiracy of course, but how can we believe anything else when all those who have been involved in this criminal behavior are not prosecuted or even investigated, ostensibly it seems because they are rich, powerful and well known, vis a vis Savile, LIBOR etc.

This country is crying out for a leadership style which is open, honest, lacking in discrimination and providing good health services, education and opportunities to all our citizens irrespective of class, colour, creed or social background.

It seems to me that Labour although they get it wrong at times provide that, whereas the Tories blatantly only appeal to a minority of the electorate which the first past the post system is complicit in facilitating their grab of executive power.

We cannot afford to get it wrong, as the next 5 years are crucial to the national well being of everyone not just the chosen.

Posted February 10, 2015 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

The Blair-Bush Leadership Legacy

As a baby boomer and now of the third age, I look back fondly on the certainties that the world presented in terms of employment, peace and security for nations and the certainty that this would all go on forever due to a capitalist system which was clearly defined and able to assure me of my place in the world and others like me and that we could rest assured that growth would continue and our children and grandchildren could be certain of a good and productive life in the future.

I served for much of my time in the Army maintaining this status quo in West Germany, as it was at the time, defending a way of life that others had fought for in two World Wars and letting the Soviet bloc know in no uncertain terms that should they wish to force their political belief on us in the West, there would be consequences which may destroy us all, but we were willing to do this, rather than be placed under the yoke of a political system which was alien and completely unacceptable to all we had fought and died for previously.

These were dangerous, but in a way the most productive and peaceful times for many generations.

Fast forward to our world today and the threat of a terrorist group masquerading under the banner of a peaceful religion and using literalism to set up a state or caliphate of hate and terror, a politically reinvigorated Russia, threatening a sovereign state of Ukraine with clear intentions to expand Russian borders into the previously dominant and malevolent Soviet bloc, the world unable or unwilling to confront a deadly Ebola virus which threatens large swathes of the continent of Africa. Israel’s hateful persecution of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and a failed 10-year military campaign in Afghanistan. Surely we are in the most dangerous times for several generations and the world’s leaders seem immobile and frozen into inaction, staring into an abyss and stunned into inaction by the enormity of the dangers confronting them.

Why has this come about?

I believe the state of the world today can be laid squarely at the feet of Blair and Bush. They created the circumstances which, in a war torn Iraq, permitted the rise of various competing factions smashing the country apart because of the complete lack of a post operational plan to bring a political solution to a country manufactured by the British and the French decades ago. These groups then metamorphosed and coalesced, changing and spreading so quickly across the region that the West ended up chasing shadows when determining who they were dealing with and whether they were elsewhere in the world or frighteningly in our own back yard.

Meanwhile Putin seized his chance and sensing the hesitancy of the West’s political elite and public’s tiredness of war emphasised by the lack of action in Syria (irrespective of whether it would have been right or wrong at the time) manufactured a political incident, which is an age-old ruse to expand a country’s borders to “rescue” and invade the Ukraine.

So the West is now confronted by every military persons’ nightmare, a war on two fronts which historically has been the nemesis for many expansionist leaders including most notably, Hitler and Napoleon.

What are we to do?

It is clear to me that this situation is not the sole responsibility of individual nation states, we are past nationalist self interest and even though Britain and America bear a huge responsibility for what has happened, these are problems, which at last may bring the world together whatever the boundaries of religion, faith, ethnicity or nationhood. This is a time for co-operation both politically and militarily if necessary to destroy a terrorist infant state and rein in the egotistical megalomania of a dangerous rogue leader.

Every leader in the world must lay aside personal interest and recognise the ethics of acting cohesively as a unit to bring to heel the biggest threat to mankind since 1939, if that threat ever really went away.

It is now time for the United Nations to accept a world role, remove the veto from the Security Council permanent members and deal globally on a democratic basis with the dangers confronting the world today, whether that is security, health, or any of the other destabilising influences that confront us in the future.

In summary, as long as nation states have no higher authority to answer to, they will continue to pursue their own political ends at the expense of other nation states.

The UN could, given the authority, legislate against the Caliphate, Russian expansionist actions, coalesce world health authorities to deal with the Ebola outbreak and provide a genuine forum to arbitrate on international disputes and grievances, let’s give it a try before it’s too late.

Posted September 7, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

The Israeli and Palestinian Question

Once again this has resulted in conflict and once again the world wrings it’s hands and does very little except become entrenched in one camp or the other. This is manifested in statements such as “ The Israelis have a right to defend themselves against rocket attacks from within Gaza” and the counter statement of “ The Israelis must end the blockade of Gaza” and there appears to be no common ground between either of those statements and they are both right when viewed in isolation.

The Israelis very cleverly will not speak about anything other than: –

Rocket attacks
Tunnels

Accepting no responsibility for turning Gaza into a large concentration camp and when pressed cite the reasoning for this stance as the Holocaust, which did happen and was horrendously inhuman. Genocide is inhuman and that includes all groups who suffer it and in whatever numbers. Any decent human being would agree with that statement I am sure. The Israelis must recognise the consequences of their actions.

The Huffington Post has exacerbated this situation just by defining their current on line discussion as:-

Pro – Israeli or Pro – Palestinian

The whole tone of those words is unhelpful and inciting. However they are not alone and it allows both sides to determine the righteousness of their cause.

The historic significance of the UK in creating this problem is well known and there is no point in reminding everyone of the previous duplicity of the British government to both Israelis and Palestinians after the Second World War. Unfortunately the UK government is no position to right this wrong at this late stage, lacking the power or credibility internationally to play any effective role in a resolution. It also begs the question who ever appointed Blair to preside over the Middle East peace initiative when I suggest that he was one of the biggest players to have a hand in causing these problems. Yet he continues to expound the righteousness of his actions years after the immense and continuing loss of life in the region. Unbelievable!

But let us explore the current situation.

Any sovereign nation may fight a “Just War” and the common principles of the justice of war are universally known as “Jus ad Bellum” and are held to be:-

Having just cause.
Being declared by a proper authority
Possessing the right intention.
Having a reasonable chance of success.
The end being proportional to the means.

By adhering to these principles, a sovereign nation’s right to wage a “Just War” will always be upheld. Where the Israelis compromise this right is by prosecuting a “Just War” in an Unjust way. Unlimited and Absolute war is counter-productive to the end result sought in a “Just War” and should moral conditions not be present this will and is resulting as we have seen historically in this conflict, an endless war of retribution and revenge over generations.

Clearly the 2 State solution is the only long-term resolution to this intractable problem, which will require the Israelis to take a leap of faith in not using their own people to secure and buffer their borders through the use of settlements on the West Bank or enclosing a whole region such as Gaza in a virtual prison, from where the inhabitants are so helpless that they are willing to die to achieve any dignified Human Rights at all. If the Israelis continue to create hopelessness in the minds of the Palestinians in Gaza, then they cannot complain if they are attacked. There is no other course of action for the imprisoned people and the continuous war will create more and more warriors to the cause of Palestinian freedom not just in Gaza.

This then leads me onto the turn of events at home in UK where Baroness Warsi has resigned from the cabinet over the “indefensible position of the Government over Gaza”. Irrespective of her reasons, which I believe are admirable, she has now realised the paucity of power that people in this country from a BME heritage have, even at the level of government, which she currently enjoys. She was patronised into believing that she was accepted into the inner coterie of the Private school, Oxbridge educated elite who dominate all aspects of our society today and a dawn of realisation that, “Yes! I really am brown, a woman from the working class and Muslim and that no matter how bright, gifted and humane I am, in reality the doors of power are closed to me.”

That is the reality of being a BME person in UK today. This is clearly evidenced in all the statistics, which are available in both the Public Services and Business today.

If she was really principled “crossbenching” is the only political solution for her, because it is clear that the Tory party will never really take BME people to it’s heart.

The reality of politics today is the power of business to drive government policy, hence the government stated policy on Gaza from our Prime Minister’s own mouth is “The right of the Israelis to defend themselves against rocket attacks” whilst behind the scenes the lucrative business deals with the Israeli government and companies proliferate and more and more donors from a UK Pro Israeli business lobby throw money at the Tories to achieve their ends. Once again, of course the Lib Dems throw their “considerable” political weight behind the Palestinian cause once they believe the opportunity is right, thus losing all credibility in the eyes of the public and showing themselves once again to be the most disingenuous politicians of the whole phalanx of our representatives in “The Mother of all Parliaments” by their excruciating timing and lack of guts to have done so before.

The only solution to not just the Israeli v Palestinian problem but also the rest of the Middle East is Secular and Humanist. Therefore all negotiations will have the most chance of success if:-

There is no reference to religion or faith.
There is no reference to history as it cannot be changed.
Accept the autonomous State solution.

Build consensus around the following principles:-

Safety and Security- applying this principle to all aspects of the negotiations means asking in response to any question. “How can we do this and provide safety and security for all our people?
Human Rights- “How can we provide these to all our people in these circumstances?
Autonomy- How can we provide autonomous government, trade and international representation to all people willing to negotiate a solution?

Lastly, be strong enough as an international community to punish those who transgress the rule of international law through all lawful means.

Posted August 12, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, Leadership, Politics | Leave a response

So what, is all this furore about Diversity anyway?

Equality Legislation has been with us now for over 40 years and was born on the back of racial riots and civil unrest unseen on that scale before. It stemmed from large-scale visible immigration and the fears of an indigenous population about jobs, housing and access to public services. Sound familiar? Not only 40 years ago but happening now in our country, fuelled once again by xenophobia and the fear of “other”. Whoever and whatever “other” may be.

A quick snapshot of the newspapers over the last couple of weeks has seen evidence or scaremongering, depending on your point of view, of epic proportions.

Sol Campbell an eminent footballer drawing a conclusion that because he is black he never attained the highest footballing position in the land of his birth, team captain for his country. Easy to dispute if one is of a mind to deconstruct his footballing ability perhaps and ignore his colour.

The Army is currently managing up to 200 alleged sex crimes including the high profile coroners verdict of the bullying of an RMP female Corporal who alleged rape and was subsequently hounded to her death by her own hands by her comrades in arms.

Female Ministers in government, being allocated smaller offices than their male counterparts. Insignificant it may seem, unless of course you are one of those women.

Unequal pay for women, stifling the productivity of our business world currently emerging from deep recession.

Mr Farage of UKIP insisting that our communities are unrecognisable and are not the sorts of places fit to be handed on to our children and grandchildren.

Dominic Grieve the Attorney General stating openly in print and on the ITV that people of Pakistani heritage in politics are endemically corrupt (He later apologised when taken to task by the media and other commentators)

Finally the poster campaign in racially sensitive areas of London encouraging people to go home if they have overstayed on their visas.

Looking further afield, Anti-Gay legislation in Russia and Uganda demonising people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.

When did it recently become so acceptable 40 years after the legislation spanning National, European and International boundaries to treat everyone with respect and dignity, to now generate fear and loathing of others based only their difference from others, even at the highest levels of our society, with such impunity.

When did Diversity become such a dirty word that diminishes its importance in business and public service with the terms “ political correctness gone mad”, “What about my Human Rights” or “it’s that lot again”!

The Diversity training industry has a lot to answer for in this respect, having in the past provided transactional training, which made people fearful of what to say and do and without encouraging an emotionally intelligent approach to the subject of managing difference.

We are all different and it is no more acceptable to use any language or behaviour, which may offend or cause hurt to others based only their difference, by anyone.

There is a real business case for Diversity in all parts of society and these benefits have been well researched and documented. Difference is not just about the legislative “protected characteristics” but also education, socio-economic background and all the other factors that make us who we are. It is time to explore them in a transformational way in all walks of life and this I would like to do in these articles. This is not about telling people how they should behave or what to say but it is about understanding, accepting others for the skills and qualities that they bring to society and eradicating inequality and injustice. People from Minority Groups almost certainly did not ask to belong to those groups but they do ask for respect, dignity and to be treated fairly by the society in which they live.

That is a Leadership imperative, not only a question of difference and I believe that the sooner we mainstream diversity into the leadership paradigm the sooner we as individuals, in our teams and organisations’ will genuinely embrace difference and begin to fully recognise the benefits that different people can bring.

Society is changing, sometimes at a pace we find difficult to fathom but to ignore it, is to atrophy as a society. Leading in change management principles is no different whatever the change or rate of it. So to formulate a more rounded debate and to create a greater awareness of the subject, maybe that is where the issue of Diversity should be firmly placed.

Posted March 27, 2014 Posted in Current Affairs, Equality and Inclusion, general, Leadership | Leave a response

Blog

Categories

Previous Posts