Cameron of the Arctic

Could the Arctic wander prove to be David Cameron's Notting Hill Carnival moment? Okay, so it’s probably not likely. When William Hague donned his baseball cap at the annual street party back in 1998, he was already struggling, having inherited a cracked and open sore of a party that was utterly without direction and fighting amongst itself over how, exactly, things had gone so wrong. The cap summed up his awkwardness. Whereas Hague was already a leader whose own MPs were disdainful of his chances of winning an election, Cameron has succeeded in at least making his party a little more interesting, for the time being.

His much-invoked ‘green’ credentials were the reason behind this photo-op, one that would have been hard for any politician to pull off with aplomb, let alone Cameron with his rubicund, fleshy face and upper-teethed smile. To give him his due, he didn’t come across as wholly ridiculous, mainly because he at least has form when it comes to self-ridicule in the name of the environment; his much-mocked bicycling image has now been lampooned by Labour, which – if anything – means that is likely to be the most firmly entrenched icon of the new Conservative leader.

But how much of his nature-loving ways is legitimate? As the man who crafted the Tory party’s 2005 manifesto, it is interesting to note how that document contained merely token references to climate change. This weekend’s Guardian contained an essay by Robert MacFarlane which examines how what Cameron says he wants to do is likely to bump heads, eventually, with traditional Conservative shibboleths of “free enterprise, consumer choice and market liberty”. It is likely that much of Cameron’s posturing is just that; presenting himself early in his reign as to the left of his party – much in the way that Blair did in his first year – before, gradually, tacking back to the right, something that many expected (in reverse) of Blair but which never truly materialised. While a cursory visit to the Conservative web site urges constituents to “Vote blue, go green!”, it is highly unlikely that most Party members are entirely happy with what this would in reality mean.

The Green party highlighted that Mr. Cameron’s trip to Norway resulted in some 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere; which, replied Conservative central office proudly announced, had been offset by contributing to a climate care initiative. These types of organisations, such as Climate Care, are really nothing more than salves to the conscience, comforters that offer the same hassle-free environment-friendly kudos as recycling; it may be a good thing in the particular, but it doesn’t address the reality of the problem, namely that the meteoric rise in airline travel over the past thirty years is one of the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions. Predictably Mr. Cameron’s party, just like Labour, has nothing to say about this; presumably their silence on such matters as the proposed fifth runway at Heathrow and the expansion of Stansted signifies their concurrence.

A recent New Statesman article discussed the implications of a significant surcharge – or even an outright ban – on flights for leisure purposes; while a measure like this would address the problem, the fact that it would be political suicide for whomever suggested it means that more realistic measures need to be taken. Only when politicians such as Cameron start addressing these kinds of pressing issues can they be said to be truly concerned about the environment.

Crackdown in Syria

A disturbing report from this week's New York Time suggests that, rather than the beginnings of an 'Arab Spring', as many commentators declared just over a year ago following the uprising in Lebanon against Syrian hegemony, the current regime in Damascus is putting more and more pressure on the country's fledgling opposition. The long-defunct neoconservative aim to remould the Middle East along democratic lines may not get aired much in these days, where cutting and running appears to be the "coaltion"'s defacto aim, but nonetheless this is a troubling report.

Just months ago, under intense international pressure to ease its stranglehold on neighboring Lebanon, the Syrian government was talking about ending the ruling Baath Party's grip on Syrian power and paving the way for a multiparty system.But things have moved in the opposite direction. Syrian officials are aggressively silencing domestic political opposition while accommodating religious conservatives to shore up support across the country.

Security forces have detained human rights workers and political leaders, and in some cases their family members as well. They have barred travel abroad for political conferences and shut down a human rights center financed by the European Union. And the government has delivered a stern message to the national news media demanding that they promote — not challenge — the official agenda.

The leadership's actions were described in interviews with top officials as well as dissidents and human rights activists. They reflect at least in part a growing sense of confidence because of shifts in the Middle East in recent months, especially the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections, political paralysis in Lebanon and the intense difficulties facing the United States in trying to stabilize Iraq and stymie Iran's drive toward nuclear power.

The report also notes the effect of increasing levels of Islamist political representation across the region - most recently in the Hamas victory - is having on secular, authoritarian regimes like that of Bashar al-Assad:

The government has also sought to fortify its position with a nod to a reality sweeping not just Syria, but the region: a surge in religious identification and a growing desire to empower religious political movements like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter group recently won 88 seats in the Egyptian Parliament in spite of government efforts to block its supporters from voting.

Rather than the relgious repression of old, the Syrian government is now seeking to wrap itself in the flag of Islam, and convince the population of its legitimacy within Islam.

Newsnight falls for Chavismo

Newsnight is this week devoting its programming to Latin America, and what it repeatedly describes as the “world’s most underreported story” – namely, the electoral changes that have seen the continent move away from the Washington consensus of the 1990s to left and centre-left governments.

Newsnight’s angle is clear: they are reading the entire continental drift as a sop in the face of George W. Bush, reducing the political will of hundreds of millions of people into an anti-American tirade that is insulting, demeaning and largely meaningless. If the first programme is anything to go by, the entire week will simply serve a foregone conclusion: that Hugo Chavez is a hero who opposes the USA’s demonic hegemon and is carving out a path of equality and self-sufficiency for the global south, inspiring and funding left-leaning candidates and turning Latin America firmly towards a neo-socialist bent.

The attitude was summed up by the gloating of Newsnight present Gavin Esler, who has clearly bought into the whole Western attitude towards Latin America – what might be called “Guevarism”, after Che Guevara, the hero of the Cuban revolution whose poster lives on in the dorm rooms of youthful idealists. The romanticised notion that Latin America represents the cradle of political opposition, a breeding ground for socialist revolutionaries and popular movements, of Sandinistas and Zapateros and the heroic Tupac Amaru, is a convenient myth for armchair guerrillas who wouldn’t care to see the same occur on their own turf. Esler bungled an interview with Otto Reich so badly that the deeply unpleasant former Venezuelan ambassador – responsible in part for the funding of the Contras in Nicaragua during the violent Central American 1980s, and author of a recent National Review article that described Castro and Chavez as the new “axis of evil” – came across as the victim of a hatchet job. Every single comment was prefaced with wallowing claims, such as “Washington has lost Latin America”, and variations thereon. Reich’s laughable claim that America has always supported democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere were met with a limp accusation of long-standing interference – although to be honest, Esler seemed to lack even the basic knowledge of the subject at hand. His interview with Peruvian presidential hopeful, Ollanta Humala, tried the same tricks – encouraging Humala to attack George Bush, throwing him questions about the relationship his government would potentially have with the US… at no point did Esler actually ask what his domestic policies would be.

Earlier in the show, a hagiographic interview with Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, by Greg Palast was predictably biased and blinkered in the manner that Palast is notorious for. His fawning over Chavez, and softball questioning put to the president via a translator (hasn’t he spent enough time there by now to learn the language?), was reminiscent of a George Bush press conference, and put the lie to Palast’s puffed-up “investigative journalist” angle. The BBC’s big claims surrounding this interview – that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world – proved to be a bust; economically, this would be true if (as Chavez wishes) the price of oil were set at $50 a barrel, but this is highly unlikely. Yet the piece made no mention of this.

Whilst turning a blind eye to the increasing stories of human rights abuses in Venezuela, and Chavez’ desire his reign as long as possible – never mind the effect on democracy – the report did, however, trump a curious statistic: that under Chavez poverty in Venezuela is down by one third. This has traditionally been where Chavez’ power resides – in the hands of the poor, who see him as a saviour, an indigenous hero who after years of neglect has finally given the majority in the country a voice. It is true that the country’s oil wealth has allowed the introduction of Cuban doctors and health facilities to places that once had none; a massive, country-wide programme has seen literacy levels rise dramatically, while free schools and universities have brought education to millions. Yet whether or not poverty has actually increased is a cause of much furious debate. Some reports ay it has decreased; others news channels, such as vcrisis.com, quote the government’s own statistics which indicate that in Chavez’s first four years in office rose from 43% to 54% of the population.

Evidently both of these sources have certain biases, but it is far from certain that poverty is on the decline. Quite where Mr. Palast came up with his figure of a third is a mystery, and he cited no official statistics to back it up. It was yet another glaring example in a factually-shy report that treated Chavez as some kind of Messiah sent down from the heavens to tackle George Bush and wield the honourable sword of socialismo.

Hopefully the rest of the week’s editions will present a more nuanced account of the complex situation in Latin America, but it seems there is little chance. The BBC seems to have fallen for the kind of post-colonialism that often afflicts reporting from Africa – treating the entire continent as a homogenous mass, and fixing facts and figures around the conveniently romantic story. Perhaps an account of Chile – who, despite its socialist President, Michele Bachelet, is taking a far more sober and balanced approach to its dealings with the outside world – will redress the balance. Yet on this first programme, there is little hope that this will happen.