Cull on
Foot and mouth disease is not harmful to human health. It does not kill the animals. But it does significantly effect livestock and dairy productivity. That is why a slaughter policy makes sense. Any country which wishes to maintain a modern efficient agricultural industry producing cheap food cannot afford endemic foot and mouth, and any country which loses its disease free status will lose its export markets.
Those objecting to the concentration of agri-business are encouraging the false belief that small farmers can be kept on as the rural equivalent of an industrial museum. Already hard-pressed small farmers have experienced still greater difficulties due to the movement restrictions imposed by MAFF; the compensation for culled animals provides an exit strategy for them. In the long term the effect can only be to reduce the excessive levels of agricultural subsidy to inefficient producers in Europe.
Limited vaccination as a temporary measure to slow spread or protect special breeds may have some justification, but otherwise the campaign for vaccination is sentimental. It is not as if the cull represent any loss for the animals concerned; they were never going to get to enjoy their retirement.
Race ought to be an election issue
When the Commission for Racial Equality asked MPs to sign the pledge to 'keep racism out of the election', Tory MPs started crying free speech. This tells us first that five weeks before an election, the unconfident Tories wish that people wouldn't ask them anything political. More importantly, however, Labour MPs have been queuing up to say they support the CRE's demand, which was first raised by the National Assembly Against Racism's demonstration in March.
Contemptuous of the electorate, the anti-racists seek to suppress discussion, rather than confront the issues of asylum with the voters. Instead of putting pressure on the government over its appalling record in office, the anti-racists and the CRE are effectively silencing criticism of Labour's immigration policies. As a result they have allowed New Labour to take the moral high ground on race. On one of the few occasions that Barbara Roche and her friends could be made to account for their policies of forced movement, detention and near- starvation for asylum seekers and migrant workers, the radical 'anti- racists' prefer to keep everyone quiet.
European Unction
Within hours of the Israeli invasion of Palestinian-controlled areas of the Gaza Strip US Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the tanks out again. There has been much hand-wringing in Europe about how the election of Ariel Sharon as Israeli prime minister endangers the future of peace in the Middle East. But Powell usefully reminded the world that it is the US government, not the Israelis, which, when it chooses to, calls the shots in the Middle East.
European leaders welcomed the American intervention and called for more to revive the peace process. They would like to imagine themselves as equal partners in such a process. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana responded to Powell's actions by hyping up Europe's contribution to peace, pointing out that the EU is the largest foreign donor to the Palestinian Authority. The implication is that since the EU is helping to deliver the struggling Palestinians to the negotiating table, the Americans should put some serious pressure on their militaristic Israeli allies.
But while the US does have immense leverage over Israel, European claims to be a real influence for peace in the Middle East are little more than a cruel deception of the Palestinians. Last summer after the Clinton- sponsored Camp David negotiations collapsed over the issue of Jerusalem, French president Jacques Chirac on behalf of the EU, encouraged Arab demands that East Jerusalem be handed over by the Israelis. By September the impasse over Jerusalem had triggered the current hostilities in Palestine and European leaders have continued to encourage Palestinian hopes that Europe might provide some counterweight to US backing for Israel.
But while Europe is happy to incite Palestinian dreams of a just settlement to try to create some political role for itself, the EU's practical backing for the Palestinians is laughable. The EU claims that since 1995 it has directly contributed about $200 million a year to projects within Palestinian territory, most of that going to support Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (europa.eu.int/comm/external_relat ions/med_mideast/mideast_peace_process). By comparison between 1990 and 2000 official US aid to Israel averaged well over $4 billion a year with a further $2 billion a year in loan guarantees (R Clyde, 'Israel: US Foreign Assistance', Congressional Research Service, 11 May 2000).
The difference between $200 million and $4 billion is a graphic comparison of the USA's and the EU's relative influence. But even these figures exaggerate Europe's role. While the US government is forbidden by law from giving money to the Palestinian Authority, through intermediary NGOs it has indirectly been providing at least as much as the EU to Palestinian projects (Washington Post, 1 December 1998). Even the Israelis provide tens of millions of dollars to the PA every year by raising taxes for it.
It was the weakness of the Arab nations in the wake of the Gulf War which made the whole humiliating peace process a possibility for Israel and the USA. Now the EU is exploiting the Palestinian people's desperation in the service of its pretensions to great power status. Now that the US proxy Israel is slaughtering Palestinians, the EU's objections amount to little more than a polite cough in the corner.
-- James Heartfield