Yes to government aid for non-democratic states

Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe - should governments support the principle of giving aid to these countries, run by non-democratic regimes? Yes.

The argument for not giving aid often goes like this: by giving government aid, we grant an undeserved patina of legitimacy for the oppressive regime. We have a duty as a Western democratic government to exert political pressure on unjust governments. Pressures and condemnations from the international arena can unsettle regimes: we saw in this in South Africa under the apartheid and arguably, in Burma (who held their first, albeit rigged, elections since 1990 this month.) However, by giving aid we are effectively condoning their actions. In order to help their citizens in the long-term (for greater freedoms) we must make the sacrifice now.

This short-term pain, long-term gain argument does not stand. It lies on the assumption that democracy is somehow the only good form of government - all other systems are wrong. This is a typical elitist Western view. Other good forms of government do exist. Pakistan under Musharaff was undeniably more stable than it is now. Under military rule, their citizens were safer. Now, although democratic, they are plagued by insurgency. Authoritarian Communist rule in China has been good for its people - their economy is booming and the middle class are rising. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that a non-democratic state automatically equates to a system that is bad for its people.

Besides, even if we accept perhaps democracy is the ideal form of government, logic still dictates that we should give aid to non-democratic governments. There are three grounds for this.
First, by not giving aid we are only penalising the people we claim to support, not their oppressors. The citizens are the ones who will suffer as a result of our inaction. Surely we have a moral duty to meet their humanitarian needs as opposed to making a counter-productive political statement of condemnation. I say counter-productive for a reason: not giving aid only serves to strengthen the position of the dictator. As he has a monopoly over all forms of media, he will be able to turn his population against the West - the "foreign oppressors who do not help."
Second, giving aid will actually help the shift to democracy - which is the presumably, the aim of those who oppose giving aid to non-democratic governments in the first place. Aid helps to develop the country in terms of infrastructure. The population become richer and more educated. As a result, the people can no longer be ignored as they put more effective pressure on their governments. This has happened in China. As the middle class have risen, the Chinese government have increasingly become more liberal (although not perfect) towards its people. This is in stark contrast to places like North Korea, where the population can be easily oppressed because most are just peasant and hence - powerless. Thus, there is a link between giving long-term aid and the population developing. When the country develops, greater freedoms become inevitable.

Governments across the world must continue to give aid to non-democratic governments - it is the moral and practical way.

The Great Irony

The despot that is Sadaam Hussein was toppled in 2003. A new Iraq was born: based on the principles of freedom and democracy - something it had been denied in the past.

But this week Iraq stumbled. Along with five other nations (Russia, Khazakhstan, Cuba and Morocco), Iraq too declined their invitation to the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in December. China has asked nations to boycott this year's ceremony in Oslo because it has been awarded to a pro-democracy dissident, Liu Xiaobo, who is imprisoned in China. Presumably, Iraq followed this course of action so as not to harm trade relations with China.

By doing so, Iraq has betrayed its own values and succumbed to pressure from the Chinese.

Expansion of the UN Security Council?

The UN Security Council is often the subject of intense criticism - from accusations of unfair representation to ineffectiveness to slowness. Expansion of the UN Security will exacerbate this problem, not solve it.

The problem with the current UN Security Council stems from its structural problems - the power to veto. By expanding this to include more permanent members, it means more vetoes and more inaction. Therefore, we do not solve problems on the efficiency front.

Neither do we make it more representative. Presumably, nations like India, Brazil and Japan will be the first to be added the council. This manifests two problems. Firstly, nations will undoubtedly represent their own self-interests as opposed to their continent. Secondly, it will increase agitation and tensions on those countries who are not given permanent seats. Pakistan will be furious about India representing Asia on the council and the same can be said for Mexico and Argentina about Brazil. Thus, far from improving representation, we are harming it.

Besides, even if expansion were to improve representation, that does not enhance the security council. The purpose of the council is to maintain world peace. The reason why USA, China, Russia, UK and France hold permanent seats is because they possess unparalleled military might. If the UN had intervened in Georgia, Russia would have undoubtedly sparked a bitter war. But, the fact that they could veto the UN's involvement meant that the war happened in the boardroom - not the battlefield.

The veto is a necessary evil. Expansion of the UN security council would be, on the other hand, an unecessary evil; it will not become more representative nor efficient.

Despotism in Burma

After the Second World War, Burma was widely seen as the brightest economic prospect in South-East Asia. In 2010, we have an impoverished nation plagued by the actions of a brutal army. In 1990, multi-party elections were held largely as a result of popular pressure. The National League for Democracy (of which Ms Suu Kyi lead) won a landslide victory. Yet the result was annulled, Ms Suu Kyi placed under house arrest and no elections have been held since - that is, until last Sunday.

What has gone wrong? The international community, despite what it may think, are utterly powerless. The US have imposed sanctions on Burma since 1997. This is ineffective considering Burma are controlled by despots who could not care less for their people.

These sanctions have not only been futile but actually counter-productive. Firstly, when all information is heavily censored by the state, they have undoubtedly been able to foster an 'anti-foreign' feeling in the country against the 'foreign oppressors' who impose sanctions on its people. Secondly, sanctions hurt the very people they are meant to help; the poor, impoverished citizens. Thus, sanctions are nothing more than a form of tokenism.

Instead,the most we can do is exert international pressure through the mass media. Although this is not claimed to solve our problems, it can be effective. Iran did not stone to death Ms Astiani for adultery because of the incredible amounts of negative press coverage around the world. Clearly, these brutal governments do care about international opinion. This is the way forward.

Currency Wars

The G20 meet today in Seoul - at the top of the agenda will be no doubt about global imbalances. A multilateral approach is need to prevent countries retreating into competitive devaluations.

As a result, the USA has a huge current account deficit while others, like oil exporters and China have large surpluses. There will be pressure on China to revalue its currency. This would make China's exports more expensive in the market and Chinese consumers would import more goods and services. This will support growth in the USA and Europe.

However, we must achieve this end, not by threatening China, but through agreement. Punitive protectionist measures against China will only force them to retaliate.

Stalemate in Zimbabwe

Nearly two years ago, the MDC party undeniably won the general election yet was forced into a power-sharing government with Zanu-PF.

As if that is not outrageous enough, Mugabe has refused to keep his side of the pact signed with Morgan Tsvangirai in 2008. Human rights and the rule of law are being systematically violated - including the invasion of white-owned farms. For the next election, which could be as early as next June or as late as 2013, Zanu-PF leaders have made it clear that they will not make the same mistake as in 2008. Namely, they will use violent intimidation as early as possible before an election.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC), especially South Africa's Jacob Zuma, need to be more forceful. This will have much more impact on Zimbabwe than condemnations from the Western world. The SADC and AU (African Union) need to send in peacekeeping forces a full sixth months before the election.

The EU also have a role. As Zuma has called for, the EU should lift its sanctions against Mugabe and his comrades (which ban them visiting the EU) in return for peaceful election monitored by international observers.

A politicisation of British justice

When the then Israel Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livini, accepted to speak in London last December, the British magistrates issued an arrest warrant against her for war crimes. She duly cancelled her trip. A similar situation has occurred with Israel's Deputy Prime Minister last month.

This is the result of pressure groups applying to the British courts whenever an high-level Israeli official wants to visit the UK. In theory, they have every right to do so. A legal principle known as universal jurisdiction, allows courts to try suspects in cases of crimes against humanity, even if they are a foreign national who committed the alleged crime in a foreign country. This principle does have its merit: it allows courts to try those who would not otherwise be tried - because the concerned country have a shoddy legal system. This is why Radovan Karadzic, accused of the genocide at Srebrenica and Charles Taylor, the former tyrant of Liberia is on trial at the Hague.

However, the situation with Israel is a mere politicisation of justice by pressure groups. It is, to say the least, unhelpful to our diplomatic relations. Israel have all but suspended high-level contacts with Britain. By preventing official coming to the UK, we are in no way advancing the cause of creating a two-state territorial settlement.

Why we are not heading for a double dip recession...

The economy is recovering faster than expected - up 0.8% rather than the lowly 0.4% predicted by City analysts. The encouraging part is that this is largely driven by the private sector. Construction, which did not fare well in the recession, expanded by 4%.

The cuts in government spending will, cetribus paribus, lead to a double-dip recession. However, this is not the case - other factors in the economy are improving.

The pound has depreciated by approximately a quarter in two years. A weaker pound gives the UK a competitive advantage when exporting. This continued depreciation will give the confidence to firms to invest.

Coporation tax is being reduced from 28% to 24% over a four year period. This will reduce the amount firms lose from profit and hence, provide a greater incentive for firms to expand.

Further, interest rates are at an all time low - the base rate is 0.5%. This reduces the incentive to save and more importantly, makes it more economically possible for firms to finance their investments. It reduces the opportunity cost of investment as returns do not have to be as high to make a profit - less is paid on interest.

Thus, we can see, that other components of aggregate demand - namely, private investment and net exports will make up for the decrease in government expenditure. A double-dip recession is not inevitable.

Zoning in Nigeria

First, we must congratulate Nigeria. In 1999, after year of military rule, it returned to a democracy. It has had three civilian presidents in a row - and not thrown out by the army.

However, the democracy was set up on the notion of "zoning": a rota where candidates for many public positions are alternated between the Muslim north and the Christian south. This includes the presidency.

Although this sytem was intended to quell Christian fears that they were being shut out politically, it is nevertheless flawed. Candidates, are chosen more on their place of birth than their competency. Nigeria could do with a fully meritocratically chosen president - life expectancy lies at a meagre 49 years and most oil revenues end up in the wrong hands.

Equally important is that zoning accentuates the rift between north and south. In the long term, it does not unite Nigeria - it merely emphasises the difference. This is not the way forward. Policy debates are more likely to be seen through the prism of region and religion.