Iranian Politics and Foreign Policy

Iran: An Enigma Wrapped in a Riddle?
Area: 1.468,000 square miles(17th largest country in world- one 5th size of USA)
Population: 57million
Ethnic Groups: Persian, 46%; Azerbaijani, 17%; Kurdish, 9%; Gilaki, 5%
Language: Farsi
Religion: Islam, 99%.
Borders: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey & Pakistan + Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.
Climate: arid or semi-arid with low temperatures in the north and higher rainfall in the west.
History:
Known as Persia until 1935, Iran has an ancient history going back 2000 years when the Aryan people first settled there. The first great king was Cyrus the Great more than 500 years BC but in 331 BC the Persian Empire fell to Alexander the Great- and then was restored in 224AD. Islam was introduced when Arabs took over the land in 641 after which Persia became the centre for Islamic art and architecture. The Seljuk Turks conquered in 11th century but- oh so inevitably- the Mongols swept them away in 1220.
The Safavid dynasty was founded in 1501 by Shah Ismail along with the Shi-ite form of Islam. Nadir Shah expelled the Afghans and was noted for his despotic rule (1736-47). The Qajar dynasty (1794-1925) saw the gradual decline of the of the empire in the face of challenges from Europe. The discovery of oil saw Russia and Britain dividing up the country in 1907 and in 1919 it effectively became a British protectorate.

In 1921 Reza Khan seized power via a military coup and established the Pahlavi dynasty; he was elected shah in 1925 and set about modernizing his country. In 1941 Britain and USSR invaded and occupied. Reza abdicated in favour of his son Muhammad Reza Pahlavi; he tried to introduce reforms after the war but the elections he set up were mostly crooked and government unstable. In 1951 the British owned oil industry in Iran was nationalized by the nationalist Mossadegh via the Abadan crisis and the shah fled; he returned in 1953 with US backing and restored western oil rights. The western consortium was allowed to extract and sell Iranian oil. The profits were to be shared 50-50 but the Iranians were not allowed to audit the books of the consortium or to have anyone sitting on the board of directors.

In the 60s the Shah was reformist, giving women the vote and reforming land ownership. However such reforms did not still discontent at ‘westernization’-rather they intensified religious objections- and growing economic inequality; the secret police-SAVAK- suppressed open dissent with some 13,000 believed to have died as a result. Ayatollah Khomeini-having been exiled in 1964- opposed secularization from the vantage of Turkey, Iraq and France. Iran was the largest military power in the region but internally the shah’s position was weakening. In 1979, after recurring street opposition, the shah fled and Khomeini established an Islamic Republic hostile to the west and of which he became Supreme Leader. In 1979 the oil industry was again nationalized.

Islamic Revolution
In 1979 militants seized control of the US Embassy and held 52 hostages for over a year. President Carter tried to free the hostages in April 1980 but the helicopter operation was a fiasco. In September 1980 Iraq invaded and the war with that country began; it was destined to last eight years, and claim half a million lives. The west mostly backed Saddam Hussein, the vicious Iraqi dictator, as the lesser evil compared with Islamic revolutionaries who had humiliated Washington and supplied him with arms, including ingredients for the chemical weapons which killed thousands of Iranian soldiers and civilians. Saddam was keen to exploit the weakness of the country after the revolution and make himself the dominant force in the region as well as possibly the controller of Iranian oil supplies.

Official U.S. policy sought to isolate Iran, and the U.S. and its allies supplied Iraq with weapons and technology to maintain a balance in the war. Iraq obtained most of its weaponry from the USSR, the Chinese, and the French. Members of Reagan’s government covertly sold anti-tank missiles and spare parts to Iran in what became known as the Iran –Contra Affiar. Iran finally agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 598 in 1988 to end the bloody war. Nonetheless, severe fighting continued into the 1990s as Kurds(nationalist and communist) forces fought the Iranian government. At times, large parts of the western parts of Iran were without government control.

Supreme Leader of Iran- currently Ayatollah Ali Khomenie
SLI responsible for the ‘general policies… of the Republic’. He is C in C of the armed forces, controls intelligence and has the power to declare war. He appoints heads of judiciary. Broadcasting, police and military commanders plus the 12 members of the Council of Guardians(GC). The Assembly of Experts is a congressional body of 86 ayatollahs which elects the SLI(for life) and supervises his activities. Members are elected for 8 year terms via direct public votes.

The Assembly requires all its members be experts in Islamic jurisprudence, thus enabling them to to judge the activities of the SLI, to make sure he does not break Islamic rules and is doing his his duty according to the constitution. This law is being challenged by the Reformists, and their 2006 election campaign includes changing this law to allow non-clerics into the assembly, and reversing the law that allows the GC to vet candidates. The candidates are subject to approval of the Guardian Council. Currently, the average age of its members is over 60 years, which results in many mid-term elections. The next election is due to take place December 15, 2006. The meetings and the meeting notes of the assembly are confidential.

The Executive
After the SLI the President is the most senior state authority- elected by universal suffrage for a period of four years. The GC has to approve candidates for the Presidency to ensure they hold views consistent with the Islamic Revolution. The president is responsible for the day to day running of the state subject to the judgement of the SLI. The president appoints and runs the Council of Ministers which is a bit like an extended Cabinet. He has 8 vice presidents under him and a cabinet of 21 ministers.


Legislature: This is tricameral in nature.
Council of Guardians: comprises 12 jurists six of whom are appointed by the SLI, the remainder being recommended by the head of the judiciary (who is also appointed by the SLI) and confirmed by parliament.
Expediency Council: has authority to mediate disputes between the GC and Parliament and is an advisory body to the SLI.
Assembly of Experts: is a congressional body of 86 ayatollahs which elects the SLI (for life) and supervises his activities. Members are elected for 8 year terms via direct public votes.
Parliament: The Majles comprises 290 members elected for four year terms. It drafts legislation, ratifies treaties and the national budget. All candiates must be approved by the GC.
Judiciary: SLI appoints the head who in turn appoints the Supreme Court and public prosecutor. There are public and revolutionary courts, the latter dealing with national security and for which there is no appeal procedures. There is also the Special Clerical Court for clerics, accountable only to the SLI.

Economy: This is a mix of state planning and ownership plus privately owned business and small scale agriculture. Infrastructure has been steadily improving over the last two decades. The service sector employs the most people followed by industry- mining and manufacturing- and agriculture. Nearly half of government revenues come from oil and gas revenues with a third from taxes. GDP was $2.5K per capita 2005 (compared to $25K in USA). The UN defines it as ‘semi-developed’. Iran is keen to encourage investment and has tried to reduce impediments to trade. Her major partners are China, Syria, India, Venezuela, Russia, Germany and Italy. Iran is OPEC’s largest oil producer exporting 3 m tons of oil a day and has 10% of the world’s confirmed reserves.

Iranian Domestic Politics: Reformists V Conservatives
Following the Islamic Revolution politics in Iran have been, unsurprisingly, dominated by religion. The constitution, giving huge power to clerics but also involving popular elections, seemed to have bedded in by the mid nineties but with the passage of time the authority of the SLI has reduced somewhat and the more pragmatic politicians running government have acquired more power. Overlying this formal power relationship has been a tension between the reformists-mostly now out of power- and the conservatives-mostly in power. Initially the moderate Rafsanjani became president 1989-1997; Khatami won the presidential election in 1997(he was re-elected in 2001) and his supporters won a majority in the Majles elections too.

He was opposed by the conservative SLI, Khamenie, together with many other conservatives embedded into the power structure. In debates before that election, Khatami sought to claim legitimacy for reforming views by relating them to Khomeini and a ‘continuation’ of the revolution though advancing democracy as the revolution always relied ‘on the opinions of the people’. The conservatives disagree and claim the reform advocates see a separation between politics and religion; they claim adherence to the principle of ‘the clerics rule’. Liberalism, by being more open will ‘serve the enemies of Islam’ by letting in hostile views. Khatami believed Iran should have good relations with all countries, including USA and denied any secret links between the reformists and America. Hashemi, on the other hand was opposed to ‘establishing relations with the US because of the suffering of the Iranian people at the hands of the USA for the last five decades.’

This gulf between the reformers and the conservatives continues but the former took a bit hit in June 2005 when the ultra-conservative former mayor of Teheran Mahmood Ahmadinejad (MA) beat Rafsanjami’s bid to be president for a third term. Commentators predicted an end to the social reforms made to date by his two predecesors and a hardening of attitudes regarding foreign policy and the subject of nuclear power. Of 13.3 million votes cast MA had garnered 61.6%. Turnout was 47%, well down on the 63% who voted in the first round. It seemed MA’s appeal lay in his modest lifestyle and pledges to tackle corruption. Poor people voted massively for the 48 year old conservative nationalist. Rafsanjami, aged 70, who wanted better relations with the west, accused the hard-line militia, Basij, of intimidating voters. AM said relations with Washington were unimportant; he is seen as extremist while the SLI, Khameini, is more pragmatic. Spokesman for International Crisis Group, Karim Sadjapd predicted a divided nation as both candidates were polarizing figures. Rafsanjani supporters said they feared a return of curbs on women wearing clothes judged to be too revealing or on couples being arrested for fraternizing in public.

The Guardian ran a story 20/11/06 that fundamentalists in Iran are demanding separate classes for men and women in a drive to impose Islamic values throughout the university system. This has happened as figures show women outnumbering men on campuses. The cleric heading the state body running higher education said universities were becoming too much like ‘fashion shows’ where ‘the moral situation is offensive’. Large numbers of lecturers have been forced to retire after the president demanded a purge of liberal and secular lecturers. Already Islamic laws require men and women to sit in separate rows in classes and lecture halls. One senior cleric warned that a ‘free environment’ could cause ‘wives leaving husbands to marry other men’.

Foreign Policy and the Nuclear Issue
Traditionally Iran was pro-west and USA but the swing to the religious right changed all that. Iran has no relations with USA or Israel and is skeptical on the Middle East Peace Process. Ahmadinjehad went on to cause great concern when he called for Israel to be ‘wiped off’ the face of the earth. Relations with the EU have been better; Khatami visited Italy, France and Germany in 2000 and Austria and Greece in 2002.

Royal Institute of International Affairs Report, August 2006
The RIIA report blamed strategic errors by Bush for the current dominance of Iran in the region. The removal of two rival centres of power in Kabul and Baghdad has left the field open for Iran to become the main centre of power in the area. ‘Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on Terror in the Middle East’ says the report. Even the militia activities in Iraq’s cities strengthen Iran through the contacts they have with them. The RIIA report sees Iran as a necessary force to ‘douse many fires currently alight’; maybe an optimistic hope with such a firebrand president.

Iran and Hezbollah
Hezbollah is a Shia Islamist militant organization in Lebanon which follows the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. It was founded in 1982 with the aims of: making Lebanon an Islamic state; overthrowing western capitalism ihn Lebanon; and overthrowing Israel. Given the difficulty of the first two aims Nasrallah has tried to make his movement more Lebanon friendly. Hezbollah has received arms, funding and training from Iran and other Arab states and has ‘operated with Syria’s blessing’. It now has seats in Lebanon’s parliament plus its own broadcasting arm. The west describe the movement as terrorist but many other counties do not and list it as a ‘resistance’ movement. Its summer war with Israel cost much in terms of life and Lebanese infrastructure but, despite the fact that Hezbullah initiated the conflict, and it involved heavy losses on both sides, it was perceived as a victory over the hated Israelis and celebrated throughout the Arab world. A leading Lebanon cleric, quoted in The Economist gave an insight as to how USA and its allies are perceived when he said: ‘This was an American war carried out by Israel to execute arrogant American plans to establish political, economic and military hegemony over the entire region’. An Iraqi poll revealed that 90% would not live next door to an American while two thirds believed US invaded Iraq to gain oil, build military bases and help Israel. Televised pictures of the US in Iraq looked ‘so much like Israelis stomping on Palestinians that many Arabs and Muslims grew simply to equate the occupations as twin assaults on their turf.’ Guatanamo and Abu Ghraib ‘merely silenced America’s remaining fans’. By offering people the option of being either ‘for us or against us’ Bush was pushing the fence sitters into the opposition camp.
Regional Policy
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy sums up Iranian regional foreign policy attitudes thus
"A strong sense of history pervades Iran. Many Iranians consider their natural sphere of influence to extend beyond Iran's present borders. After all, Iran was once much larger. Portuguese forces seized islands and ports in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the 19th century, the Russian Empire wrested from Tehran’s control what is today Armenia, Republic of Azerbaijan, and part of Georgia. Iranian elementary school texts teach about the Iranian roots not only of cities like Baku, but also cities further north like Derbent in southern Russia. The Shah lost much of his claim to western Afghanistan following the Anglo-Iranian war of 1856-1857. Only in 1970 did a UN sponsored consultation end Iranian claims to suzerainty over the Persian Gulf island nation of Bahrain. In centuries past, Iranian rule once stretched westward into modern Iraqand beyond. When the western world complains of Iranian interference beyond its borders, the Iranian government often convinced itself that it is merely exerting its influence in lands that were once its own. Simultaneously, Iran's losses at the hands of outside powers have contributed to a sense of grievance that continues to the present day."

Within Iran itself globalisation and the beakup of the USSR has encouraged some separatist sentiment. Following an unflattering cartoon’s appearance in the newspaper Iran, Azeris- quite a big portion of the population- demonstrated all over the country, with many eventually being arrested and imprisoned. Eventually the paper’s editor had to apologize but the Azeris’ demand that the SLI do the same was not met. The eadership attributed the events to western interfence and indeed some neocons have been enthusiastic about making contacts and assisting ethnic minorities.

The Nuclear Issue
In 2003 the EU built on its better relations with Iran when France, Germany and the UK persuaded Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and not to proceed with enriched uranium. However, as conditions in the area went from bad to worse and as Iran’s politics swung towards the Islamic right, things deteriorated. In August 2006 the IAEA reported doubts about Iran’s claims that it was only interested in peaceful uses of nuclear power; inspectors had been unable to confirm ‘the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme’.
The Security Council pronounced Iran had to comply with its rulings but it was ignored. MA has refused to be ‘bullied’ by the west and says his country needs nuclear power and will not convert to weapons. The UN is trying to offer inducements like membership of the WTO and threatens economic sanctions. Blair and Bush have threatened ‘isolation’ if Iran does not comply but maybe it is these two beleaguered leaders who are already isolated from the rest of the world.

Anatole Kaletsky in Times 16/11/06
This Times columnist saw a parallel in the current situation with Nixon’s breakthrough with China in 1970. ‘Could James Baker be the Kissinger for President Bush?’ To effect this Bush would have to eat humble pie and accept he is the supplicant, ‘just as Nixon did when he went to China’. It would need the end of the ‘axis of evil’ approach, the end of ‘regime change’, lifting economic sanctions and a ‘formal guarantee of non-aggression.’ It would also be necessary to make concessions on nuclear side, maybe even accepting Iran as part of the nuclear club.
Such a move would split the theocratic world, strengthening the shias against the sunnis of Saudi Arabia who have supplied most of the terror personnel. Iran has an educated population which would integrate well in the west. Israel would lose out though and have to make concessions to the Palestinians; maybe making Jerusalem a jointly run multi-faith city.

Henry Kissinger Sunday Times 19/11/06
His article addresses the question of the nuclear issue in the current political situation. He points to the offer made by the Security Council ‘six’ to Iran but sees Iran gaining prestige in the region from resisting the west. US has not taken part in the talks but Rice has offered to as long as Iran suspends uranium enrichment. Iran has found this defiant attitude popular at home and reinforces of ‘shaky domestic support.’ HK thinks military action ‘extremely improbable during the final two years of a presidency facing a hostile Congress. But Tehran cannot ignore the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike.’ However, in the meantime, Iran sees itself as leading the Shi-ite belt of power in the Middle East; maybe this explained his attitude of ‘Don’t talk to me about your world order, whose rules we did not participate in making and which we disdain. From now on, jihad define will the rules.’

Iran may help US withdraw in the short-term but only in order to turn it into a ‘long term rout.’ Iran might be influenced by a structure in the region which makes imperialist policies unattractive or the worry that USA might yet strike. HK suggests Iran might be satisfied with a respected regional place of power and welcome concessions in the Palestinian dispute. ‘Iran needs to be encouraged to act like a nation, not a cause.’ He advises US to redeploy but not so that exit seems imminent as this will hasten a collapse.

Iranian Initiative 20th November 2006
James Baker is expected to recommend, in the report of his Iraq Study Group, that Syria and Iraq be involved in regional diplomatic discussions to seek and end to the Iraq instability. Maybe it was both to pre-empt this expected outcome and advance its own role as the regional strongman that Ahmadinejad has suggested trilateral talks with Iraq, Syria and themselves this coming weekend. All three countries have had delicate relations in the past: Iran at war with Iraq; Syria taking Iran’s side in that war; and Syria being criticized by Iraq for allowing up to a 100 insurgents through their borders every month. VP Cheney is now isolated as the only big player in the White House who favours ‘staying the course’ and even using force against Iran but such have the travails been with the invasion that neither option now seems viable.

Bush Biffed by Voters

Mid-Term Election Results Analysed and their Significance Considered

The Results Analysed
The Democratic victory in the mid-terms should not be regarded as all that astonishing as after six years in power most presidents manage to alienate/ annoy/bore a fair number of US voters. Nevertheless winning both houses of Congress is still an unusual feat and, given Bush’s so called ‘political genius’ Karl Rove’s dream of making America a one party state for a generation, this ranks as a major defeat for George Bush.

Senate: 2004Republicans-55 2006-49
2004 Democrats- 44 2006-499plus 2 Independents
House of Representatives
2004 Republicans-232 2006 203
2004 Democrats 202 2006-232
Gender
Democrats
Men 2004-44% 2006-52%
Republicans
2004-55% 2006-45%
Democrats
Women 2004-51 2006-57%
Republicans
2004-48% 2006-42%

Whites
Democrats 2004-41% 2006-49%
Republicans 2004-58% 2006-50%

Race: African American –Democrats 2004-88% 2006-88%; Republican 2004-11% 2006-12%

Hispanic: Democrats 004-53% 2006-72%; Republicans2004-44% 2006-27%

Religion:WhiteEvangelical Christian:Democrats2004-21% 2006-29%;Republicans2004-78% 2006-70%

Regions (2006): West: Democrats-54% Republicans-43%; Midwest Democrats-52% Republicans-47%; South Democrats-45% Republicans-53% North East Democrats- 63%
Republicans-35%.

In just about every category Bush’s party received the ‘thumping’ he ruefully mentioned in his comments after the results came through. Only African Americans showed an increase d confidence in him –up from 11 to 12%; and only the South as a region gave him a decent majority vote. Religious support still indicated a majority for Bush but the numbers were significantly down. Maybe the biggest transformation was in the women’s vote where the democrats won by 57% to 42%- quite astonishing. The House of Representatives’ strength has reversed its majority from 232 for the Republicans to the same number now for the Democrats. The damage in the Senate was limited to an equal tally of 49 seats but: two independents are to vote with the Democrats and the Republicans, astonishingly, lost the solidly ‘red’ cowboy state of Montana and the key state of Virginia where the once presidential hopeful George Allen was defeated by former Republican national office holder, Jim Webb. This contest, recall was characterized by Allen attempting to smear Webb by quoting sections of his novels and claiming they indicated he was in favour of rape and incest. Allen had sustained a self inflicted wound early on in the campaign by describing Webb’s dark skinned aide as a ‘macacca’, a racist term from North Africa where Allen grew up.

Results in Historical Context.
Democrats gained more seats than in any elections since the mid-terms after Watergate in 1974. Only three times-1932, 1952 and 1994 has either party taken both houses at a single election. Only one of those- Republicans in 1994, were in the mid-terms. To cap it all Democrats did not lose a single seat of their own, in either house or in governor elections. They now enjoy a bigger majority in the House than the Republicans have ever had in 12 years in control. This was indeed a watershed election like 1958 when Ike lost so many seats and ushered in a period of democratic dominance; 1966 during the Vietnam war when the Republicans began their recovery; 1974 the Watergate election; and most recently in 1994.

Bush and His father Fixation
Clearly among the key issues in the election were: most importantly Iraq; corruption, the economy, immigration and the issue of Bush’s leadership itself. Andrew Sullivan wrote a perceptive article in the Sunday Times 12th November suggesting that Bush’s motivations can only be understood in terms of his love for and yet rivalry with his father, George Bush senior. He reveres his father-giving up the drink when he felt he might be shaming his father- yet seeks to prove himself by outdoing him. So we see him invading Iraq to ‘avenge’ his father’s failure to remove Saddam yet appointing Rumsfeld, a man his father thought, according to Bob Woodward’s excellent State of Denial, ‘arrogant, self important and Machiavellian’. The irony is that his father was wholly opposed to W’s Iraq war but kept out of this and other issues as he did not think it his place to interfere. Another irony is the W has now begun to appoint his father’s close associates to positions of power: James Baker to find a way out of the Iraq mess and Robert Gates to implement it.

How the Democrats did it
Karl Rove’s aura of invincibility has been shattered by the recent defeat and it was two Democrat strategists who attracted the plaudits
Rahm Emanuel, representing a Chicago seat Congress since 2003, has been credited with a huge role in the Democrat victory. A doctor’s son and former ballet dancer, he worked as a Clinton aide before entering politics himself. He masterminded the raising of £108m, equaling the Republican war-chest and carefully supervised candidate selection to ensure they were likely to have a chance in a US political culture which has shifted rightwards in recent years.

Charles Shumer, is the fellow new York Senator with Hillary Clinton. He did something similar to Emanuel, for the Senate races, introducing a ’24 hour’ rule whereby any attack from the Republicans was immediately rebutted.

Blue Dog Coalition
This was set up in the Democratic Party in 1994 comprising social conservatives-typically anti-gay marriage, abortion and gun control- in order to represent such views in the their party. In the 2004 elections Blue Dog candidates were quite successful and a raft of them were offered in2006, 27 getting elected, winning the soubriquet ‘Blue Pups’. The fact is that America has swung to the right in terms of political culture in recent years and the Democrats have been forced to tack to the right to stand any chance against the party of Bush and his religious evangelical supporters.
The Times 9th November sees this Blue Dog tactic as a means of Democrats approaching mid-west and southern contests in the 2008 presidential election. Jim Tester, for example, who won in Montana, is anti-abortion, pro-gun, three generation farmer who does not like Hillary Clinton. Others are firmly protectionist economically also to garner support in area of falling employment. As for Bush he will find a possible torrent of criticism from republicans who had held their tongues before the vote but will now take him to task. It will be a tough two years for him.

Nancy Pelosi and Bush
The Congresswoman for San Francisco is likely to be the most leftist Speaker of the House of Representatives there has ever been as well as being the first woman. A chastened George Bush, in the wake of the results, spoke of the need to seek out the ‘common ground’. Pelosi replied in conciliatory terms of the need for a ‘bipartisan’ approach and a new ‘civility’ in US politics; she looked forward to a ‘partnership to end the war in Iraq’. Harry Reid, the new Democratic Senate majority leader said similar things.
Within an hour of Pelosi saying new civilian leadership was needed in the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was sacked. Some Democrats have spoken of wanting to impeach Bush but Nancy has squashed that idea. Inquiries are another matter and Iraq will not be excluded e.g. $20bn allocated to reconstruct Iraq has just disappeared and many wish to find out what has happened to it.
Nancy Pelosi has attracted much flak from the right as an elitist Californian liberal who wears designer clothes and who will raise taxes, threaten national security and had her eyes on the White House. But she has proved a strong Congressional leader who has avoided unnecessary fights and, leading from the centre, brought unity to the divisive party in Congress.

Democrat Agenda
1. Iraq: press for an exit timetable; Bush ‘open to ideas’ and will welcome Baker’s ISG report.
2. Inquiries: likely into faulty intelligence and corruption in Iraq.
3. Climate Change: Democrats favour comprehensive policy while Republicans argue for ‘energy efficiency’.
4. Immigration: Bush will seek Democratic agreement on guest worker programme and on border patrols.
5. Minimum wage: Bush agreed to raise it to $5.15.
6. Stem cell research: Democrats want federal funding while Bush opposes.
7. Democrats can initiate bills in Congress and Bush can always veto them but to get his own legislation through he will need to compromise and take a much more bipartisan line.
8. The new chairmen of the key foreign affairs committees are both committed to a multilateral approach to foreign affairs so a new approach is likely.
9. Backing up this point, Democrats are likely to throw out any further attempt to ratify John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN, a body which he has suggested should be disbanded.

Implications for Presidential Race in 2008
The elections have had quite an impact on the presidential plans of both big parties. Hilary Clinton has built up a formidable warchest and shown by her relentless campaign- winning by 2-1- that she is the person to beat for the Democratic nomination.
Barack Obama: the Chicago Senator has revealed his own talent plus his charisma and is clearly a potential competitor for Hillary. But he is young as yet and maybe it is too soon for a black US president.
John Edwards- who fought with John Kerry in 2004 did himself no harm with a spirited campaign, and he is from the south, but he is perhaps too associated with past failure to win the nomination. The same can be said of Kerry who some say wants to run again.

Rudolph Guliani: Former Mayor of New York who was a hero during 9-11 and brought crime down dramatically but his personal life has been perhaps a little too colourful and he is pro-choice on abortion.
John McCain: Former Vietnam war hero of well known liberal leanings but favours more troops for Iraq and is quite old at 70 for the top job.
Mitt Romney: Governor of Massachusetts and popular with rightwing conservatives but is a Mormon.

Limits of the Victory
1. Over the last century, in the mid-terms, the president’s party has lost on average 32 seats in the House and six in the Senate; precisely the case this year.
2. Clinton lost disastrously in 1994 but went on to win in 1996.
3. The polls suggest this was not really a ‘paradigm shift’ election. It was a protest against Bush in Iraq and the scandalous behaviour of his party in Congress. But Bush will not fight another election and republicans are now in opposition.
4. Gerard Baker in The Times (9/11/06), points out that the Republicans have some promising candidates for President in 2008 but: i) they have lost their dominance on national security; ii) Democrats are now fielding less leftwing candidates; iii) Democrats did well in areas where population is shifting and expanding.
5. Former Bush speech writer, David Frum, writing in the Sunday Times 13/11/06, said:
6. a) ‘America remains a very, very conservative country’. In a blizzard of bad news the GOP lost only half the seats the Democrats lost in 1994 and the senate only just went the challengers’ way.
b) And the new boys are much less liberal than previous influxes in 1974 and 1986.
c) Gun control was scarcely mentioned and gay marriage opposed by all but the safest democrat incumbents.
d) polls still show nearly half respondents favouring a military strike on Iran.
e) rather as in the Korean War, which did not change anti-communism, Iraq has not reduced opposition to Islamic extremism.
7. The Economist (11/11/06) points out that a hobbled USA is not necessarily such an advantage in that:

‘The radical Islamists and rogue states who wish America harm are no more benevolent when it comes to the rest of the civilized world’.

8. Writing in The Guardian, 13/11/06, Economics editor Larry Elliot cautioned against excessive optimism regarding the Democrat victory presaging much movement on climate change or a world trade system which is fairer to poor countries. He points out that a world which cannot organize clean water to prevent the annual deaths of 5000 children, is scarcely well placed to introduce an international system of greenhouse gas emission controls. He also warns that the Democrats are likely to support protectionist measures which will not do the developing world much good either.

‘For the time being the Democrat message is likely to be ‘troops out’ and ‘import tariffs’ than Doha and climate change’

Global Warming and the Stern Report

Human Activity, Causation and Global Warming…and the Stern Report

‘The problem is that we are intoxicated with the idea of individual freedom. But this understanding of freedom is so impoverished that it amounts to little more than a greedy egotism of dong whatever you want whenever. We understand freedom largely in terms of shopping and mobility- we’re restless and like travel of all kinds. …I don’t blame politicians so much as all of our collective madness.’
Adapted from Madeleine Bunting, Guardian 6/11/06

The 579 page Stern Report, published Tuesday 31st October 2006, was commissioned by the UK Treasury; in other words by Gordon Brown. Immediately some skepticism was expressed by the perennial group of climate change nay-sayers. Nobody disputes any longer that the world is warming up but there is still argument over the causation, whether the basic premise of the argument- that human activity is causing rising temperatures (Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW).

The Scientific Argument on ‘Greenhouse’ Gases
It is an obvious fact that the earth receives its warmth from the sun. However, certain gases within the earth’s atmosphere-CO2, methane, ozone - have been crucial in helping retain the sun’s heat over the billions of years life has been evolving. Some of the sun’s heat is reflected back into space but the retention of a portion of this heat, absorbed by the gases, has enabled the earth to achieve a temperature ideal for supporting life. Indeed, without such gases the average temperature of the world would have been -15 C instead of 18C.
The first person to make the link between climate and greenhouse gases was the Swedish scientist Svante Arrherius in 1898. He calculated that a doubling of CO2 would increase world temperatures by 5-6C. Other scientists observed that volcanic eruptions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, causes a degree of cooling. Some have attributed global warming to the lack of volcanic activity in the 20th century. In 1988 the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).

Human Activity has Caused Global Warming
The IPCC’s latest estimate is of a warming of between 1.4 and 5.8C by 2010 depending on what is done to curb gas emissions. As well as the IPCC the thesis of manmade global warming-AGW- is supported by the national academies of all the G8 countries plus those of Brazil, India and China. The US government refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and remains ambiguous on the role of human economic activity but the causation argument is accepted by the:
a) US Academy of Sciences in its 2002 report to Bush and subsequently.
b) American Meteorological Society
c) American Geophysical Union
d) American Association of Advancement of Science
e) Several states on eastern seaboard plus California where Arnold Swarzenegger accepts the argument without cavil.

Evidence Adduced in Support of AGW

1. Gas bubbles trapped in ice provide a record of temperature back almost a million years. This shows that CO2 and temperature rise and fall tightly together.
2. Recent rises of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than any during this period and is human caused as the origin of CO2 is clearly derived from fossil fuels.
3. Climate change attribution studies find that warming over last 50 years is caused by human activity; solar change alone cannot explain the increases.
4. Experiments using climate models only reproduce this trend when greenhouse gases are included.
5. There is a massive scientific consensus on the above.
6. There is too much risk not to take precautions- if we get it wrong the result could be the end of life on earth.
7. If warming continues much more it will release into the atmosphere much of the CO2 and methane stored in perma-frosted land in Siberia and the Far East.
8. Emitting 33 trillion tons of CO2 each year into the atmosphere must have a big effect on delicate ecosystems
9. There is much about the atmosphere and biosphere about which we are ignorant; it is quite possible the interaction of such manmade changes might make matters much worse in the future.

Evidence Adduced by Opponents
1. Climate change models do not take account of our ignorance of cloud physics.
Just because temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Revolution does not mean that this event has caused temperature increases.
However some scientists attribute warming to ‘urban heat islands’- cities which have increased temperature compared to ambient areas.
2.Consensus may be caused by scientists being frightened to state their views; there is a group of scientists who benefit from propagating the theory, hence their enthusiasm for it.
Solar and Volcanic activity cannot be predicted so neither can warming.
3, Sunspot activity has a major effect on warming and we cannot influence that.
4. Warming result of low altitude cloud cover, say opponents, resulting from decreased ‘galactic cosmic rays’ comprised of materials entering the outer atmosphere from far away in space.
5. Global warming theories are similar to the global cooling theories in the 1970s and are equally alarmist.

Opponents also argue that:
a) Future scientific advances will counter the effects of warming;
b) A small amount of warming will be beneficial as more CO2 will benefit plant life.
c) Increases in GDP correlate positively with those in greenhouse gases so diminishing might cause decreases. This argument is used in USA by those who claim global warming is a European ruse to hold back the US economy.

Some Scientists who Oppose Consensus
Richard Lindzen, MIT, who says:
"We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago… [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future..." [1]. He has also said "Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.”
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate change.
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it."
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

Monbiot’s Critique
On 9th September, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that ExxonMobil, the world's most profitable corporation, funds a number of agencies avidly seeding and reinforcing the doubt we are possibly so keen to be justified in feeling. He also reveals that the PR firm-ACPO- hired to fight global warming scientists was the same one used by Philip Morris to rebut US Government concerns about passive smoking. ACPO set up a fake 'grass-roots' body The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which has extended its remit to include global warming. Monbiot shows how the tactics used to deny the harmful effects of passive smoking were applied identically to the denial of global warming; how anything which supported the thesis of harm was labelled 'junk science'(with an influential website in support) and anything which rebutted it declared 'sound science'. Environmentalists, meanwhile, are equated with 'nazis, communists and terrorists'
Maybe one should not be so surprised at the success of the lobbyists who have sought to spike the guns of those urging action. After all, the latter are seeking to wean the world off things to which we/they have become addicted: cheap comfortable car and air travel and a general uncaring prodigality about consumption. All the former have to do is to sow the seed of doubt in the minds of a jury which is very keen to stay out. They hope they can acquit themselves of complicity in the destruction of the world in which their children and children's children must try to make lives for themselves. It's rather like saying to a hopeless alcoholic that they are not addicted and do not need treatment: they yearn desperately to believe such sophistries.

Finite Resources of the World
Sceptics seem so determined to be thick they would probably find reasons to deny the other major reason for cutting emissions and generally reining back economic activity. Back in 2002 the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) produced a report detailing the excessively high consumption of raw materials from the earth caused by the voracious appetites of modern day living. The report warned that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life. In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.
Naturally, western countries consume more and deal out more damage to the environment than developing nations. America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

Conclusion
It seems clear that the weight of scientific opinion lies on the side of the AGW argument but a small vociferous minority continue to argue that the case is not proven. However, the ‘precautionary principle’ plus the need anyway to husband diminishing resources, make a change of lifestyle both inevitable and essential.

Stern Report
Source of greenhouse Gases (GHG)
The report listed how the use of fossil fuels for energy produce the biggest source of GHGs (24%); transport (14%); buildings(8%) and agriculture(14%); plus chopping down forests(18%).

Chief Emitters of GHGs(Mill tons)
USA- 6.9; UK-654; Germany-1K; Brazil 851; China-4.9; Russia-1.9; Japan1.3;Australia-491;India-1.9.; Indonesia 503.

Impact on Planet
a. ‘Warming may induce sudden shifts in regional weather patterns such as the monsoon rains in South Asia or the El Nino.’
b. Dry areas will become dryer while wet areas will get wetter.
c. Glaciers will shrink or disappear.
d. Initially crop yields will increase but after 3-4 C will begin to fall when large parts of the world would see falls of 15-35%.
e. Extra CO2 dissolving in seas will make them more acidic and prevent sea animals from forming shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate.
f. Seas will rise by 20-80cm if warming is 3-4C increasing risks of flooding and storm surges. Extreme weather will become more frequent as seas get hotter eg more typhoons and of greater intensity.
g. Many species will be unable to adapt or move to better conditions eg polar bears and seals in Arctic.
h. 2C rise would threaten 15-40% of land mammals threatened; half the tundra and a quarter of conifer forests would disappear. 3C would threaten 20-50% of land species.

Impact on People
a) Population growth plus 2C+ would cause 1-4 billion to be desperately short of water.
b) Most of these problems would hit Africa, Middle East, South America first.
c) Melting glaciers will threaten water supplies to 1 billion people.
d) 2-3C+ will cause hunger to up to half a billion people; WHO claims warming has already claimed lives of 150K since 1970s.
e) Heat waves more dangerous in cities with more pollution.
f) Sea level rises would make 200 million people displaced. Cities like Cairo, London and New York might disappear.

Impact on Economy
1. If nothing is done about climate change there will be a global reduction in per capita consumption of 5%, representing a fall double that of the worst year since 1945. The cost however could be much higher and the US economy could reduce by 25% as during the depression in the thirties. Allowing for all this and other factors the impact on individual per capita GDP could be as high as 20%.
2. Every ton of carbon emitted is calculated to cost in terms of economic damage, $85.
3. India might find GDP reduced by some 10% by 2010 with maybe an additional quarter of a billion people forced to live on less than $2 per day.
4. If temperatures continued to rise up to 3C there would be 3 million dying of malnutrition and 40% of species facing extinction.
5. 4C and half of Arctic tundra disappear.
6. If 5C Glaciers in the Himalaya disappear; London, New York and Tokyo disappear and mega problems caused by mass migration.

Carbon Trading Scheme
Stern argues that there needs to be an appropriate price for carbon. This could be done via taxation, tougher regulation or by carbon trading; a mechanism whereby companies or nations would pay for the tight to pollute. As the Guardian comments:
‘Once people were faced with the full social cost of their actions, they would switch from high-carbon goods and services to low carbon alternatives.’

As Will Hutton in the Observer 29th October observed:
If it becomes clear that the risk of climate change is overstated, the price of carbon will sink, but if it is as bad as some fear, the price will rocket. Markets will signal the risks.'
The idea of an international market is that each country would have a number of permits for sectors such as energy generation, metal production, cement, bricks, pulp and paper etc. Rich countries would then be able to buy up the permits of poor countries thus enabling them to invest in low carbon energy sources. Stern was especially concerned about aviation:

‘The level of the carbon price fixed for aviation should reflect the full contribution of emissions from aviation to climate change. The impact of aviation is two to four times bigger than the impact of the CO2 alone.’

Policies Supporting Low Carbon High –Efficiency Technology
It will be necessary to develop such technology to nurture the market in low carbon emitting alternatives. He calls for $20bn annually worldwide p.a. to effect this.

Together with other actions Stern calculates that expenditure of 1% world GDP now would prevent the shrinkage of production which would result from doing nothing.

UK Plans: Blair and Brown both feel strongly on this and hope to persuade the G8 countries to act by 2008 to achieve: a global scheme for stabilizing CO2 emissions, a global scheme for carbon trading, a global investment scheme for new technology and action to stop deforestation. The idea is to include the three Kyoto non involvers: USA, India and China. Stern says essentially, ‘it’s now or never’.

Public Opinion: a poll in The Guardian 6/11/06 suggests the public is very receptive to the green message. It reveals public feel that ‘concern for the environment’ should be the chief priority of business over ‘next few years’; feel ‘more information about ethics would influence what I buy’; and feel strongly that companies should have a responsibility to be aware of the social impact side of their business activities. Surprisingly, perhaps 77% said they had recycled items in the past year. The big question is whether this sympathy with the cause can be translated into willingness to act when such acts deny pleasures we have become used to and on which we rely eg cheap holiday flights abroad.

Economist, 4th November 2006
As so often this excellent journal manages to sum up the problem rather well:

‘Just as people spend a small slice of their incomes on buying insurance on the off-chance that their house might burn down, and nations use a slice of taxpayers money to pay for standing armies just in case a rival power might try to invade them, so the world should invest a small proportion of its resources in trying to avert the risk of boiling the planet. The costs are not huge. The dangers are.’

US Mid-Term Elections 2006 in Prospect

‘I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I’m not satisfied either. And that’s why we’re taking new steps to help secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting tactics across the country to meet the changing threat.’ George Bush, 25th October 2006.

“In America when faced with difficulties, they tend to say ‘the situation is serious but not hopeless’ while we tend to say, ‘the situation is hopeless but not serious’”. Ian Hislop, BBC, Radio 4, 28th October, 2006.

On Saturday morning, 28th October, the former ambassador to USA, Sir Christopher Meyer, presented a radio 4 programme based on the West Wing, asking why such a reverential and optimistic series would be unlikely to be made in UK; just as Yes Prime Minister and The Thick of It could not realistically be made in the US. Ian Hislop made a shrewd point when he said that USA is a country created by idealists a few centuries ago while we are an older, much more cynical system, hardened to the realities of politics and politicians. He did think we are the more realistic though.

Hislop sees Americans- who would never accept the aggressive style of a Paxman- clinging on to a (misplaced) ideal of their public life- the kind of ideals on which West Wing was based- through long periods of hope and respect for their presidents and then having their hopes shattered disastrously. We can see that with Nixon and with Clinton; once their fallibility was exposed a strong negative reaction set in. But maybe, now, we are seeing something similar happening with the administration of George W Bush. We’ll soon find out.

On 7th November American voters turn out to elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives 33 Senate seats plus 36 state governorships.
House of RepresentativesCurrently there are 230 Republicans, 201 Democrats and 1 Independent voting with Democrats. The republicans have commanded a majority since 1995. The Democrats need to win 15 seats to win control. The Cook Political Report, an independent, non-partisan election analysis newsletter, has listed 85 seats - 66 currently held by Republicans and 19 by Democrats - as being potentially in play.
SenateSenators are elected for six year terms with one third retiring every second year. Those elected in 2000 will be reetiring or seeking re-election on 7th November. The Republican have held a majority since 2003, with 55 seats; the Democrats have 44 and there is one Independent voting with the Democrats. To win control the democrats require to win 6 seats. The Republicans can survive with 50 as the Vice President can vote to break any impasse.

Why Republicans are Facing defeat in the Mid-Terms
Pollster Stan Greenberg predicts an ‘earthquake’ in the coming elections. There are many reasons why Bush is in retreat but they can be summed upp under three simple headings: Iraq, money and sex.
Iraq: The last month has seeb a big turnaround in attitudes towards the war. Prior to that many Americans were prepared to believe that the death toll was justified as long as progress was being made towsards a peaceful and democratic country. However, the recent attempt by US troops to quell the warring militias has been seen to be failure and the death toll among US troops has continued to rise. In addition two reports made that vision unsupportable.
1. Senator David Warner, chair of the armed saervices committee, retuned from a visit to the conflict insisting that there had to be a ‘change of course.’
2. James Baker, republican grandee and family friend and fixer for the Bushes, headed up a Congressional Iraq Study Group the trerms of which were pretty much based on Warner’s above conclusion.
3. Bob Woodward’s account of how decisions are made in the White House-State of Denial- has been hitting the best seller heights, reinforcing the image of a national C in C who wilfully ignored what he did not want to see.
Playing the security card –‘trust Bush to beat terrorism’- no longer seems to work now that a majority feel Iraq is getting worse and that going in was a mistake in the first place. On top of this is the fact that Bush’s foreign policy seems to lie in tatters in other respects: he pledged that North Korea would not ba allowed to develpp nuclear weapons- they have- and the best US can respond is that China should do something about it. The additional worry is that that other part of the ‘axis of evil’, Iran, will see the case of Kim Jong-il as a precedent it can safely follow. Americans can scarcely be blamed for feeling that trillions of dollars spent on military hardware and its usage not to mention the blood of America’s young men has all been for nought.
But the disengagement with Iraq will be done with subtlety to avoid too much blame being loaded onto the Republicans.
‘It’s a polite rebellion by moderates and miltary minded Republicans. Any walkaway from the Bush line is going to be covered with a lot of cosmetics to make sure it’s not really a big change.’ Steve Clemons, Washington Political Analyst.
Sex: The Republicans have always tried to be the ‘moral’ party, as opposed to the decadent goings on of the Democrats. In 2004 Karl Rove, Bush’s personal Machiavelli, carefully cultivated the religious right and won huge tranches of new votes by exploiting and radicalising the broad group of US regular churchgoers. Surprisingly perhaps, support was found not just among traditional protestant voters but among Catholics and Jews who felt that as the country was in a state of moral decline, at least the Republicans would introduce the fear of God into White House decision-making. So moral probity, opposition to abortion and stem cell research not to mention gays and the suggestion they should be allowed to marry became the emblems of the Republican appeal to the religious right.
Religious enthusiasts for Bush did much to bring the vote out in the last three days of the campaign back in 2004 but the likelihood of that happening on 7th November has been lessened by the Mark Foley scandal. This is a Congressman, married with children, who proved to be gay and with a predatory attitude towards the young ‘pages’ who carry messages on capital Hill. His revealing email messages to a page who informed his father, were made shamingly public as the attempt of an older gay man to ‘groom’ a young boy. All this was bad enough but even worse was the well founded accusation that the Republican high command in Congress failed to act on the complaint and did its best to hush it up.
The party’s image as God fearingly devout was not helped by Lyn Westmoreland, running for re-election in Georgia, whose sole legislative initiative has been to preess for a bill that the Ten Commandments be displayed in the Capital Hill buildings. However, when asked he could not name them all-in fact he could only name three.

Money

Deficits

a) Overseas Debt. America has become the world’s biggest debtor with $10.5bn owed or 25% of GDP. As Rawnsley points out: ‘The richest and most powerful country on the planet is now in the strange and dangerous place of being hugely indebted to the rest of the world.’
b) Fiscal deficit. From a 2.5% of GDP surplus in 2000 Bush’s budget deficit slumped to minus 4% in 2004, thus wiping out all the gains of the late nineties and putting a number of expenditure prgrammes at risk.; spending on Medicare and Social Security is bound to increase as the US ages. Far from achieving a shrinking of government-the traditional Republican aim- Bush has presided over a bigger increase in spending than any previous Democrat administration.
c) American are also worried at petrol prices of over $3 a gallon and the threat that the housing market might collapse.

Corruption

A number of financial scandals have hit the Republicans.
i) Enron: this was a mega scandal of one of the biggest corporations in the world deliberately falsifying accounts to disguise economic failure. Kenneth Lay, former chief executive, who died before he could be sentenced for his part in the affair was a close friend of George Bush and some of the odium of the scandal was associated with the president.
ii)Tom De-Lay. This was the former Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, known as ‘The Hammer’ fro his ruthless expertise in delivering majority votes in Congress. In 2005 he was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury for violations of campaign finance laws. Early in 2006 he resigned his position and did not seek re-election.
iii) Bill Frist. Former Senate Majority Leader and often spoken of as a potential presidential hipoeful. After he was accused of being deeply involved in campaign improrities, he also decided not to contest future elections.
iv) Trent Lott. Another senate Majority leader, who bnlotted his copy book badly on the occasion of veteran Congressman Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Since Thurmond had explicitly supported racial segregation in the presidential campaign to which Lott referred, this statement was widely interpreted to mean that Lott also supported racial segregation.
v) Jack Abramoff. This high level lobbyist was very close to Republican senior counsels with an unrivalled network of contacts. It turned out that he was using financial inducements to achieve political ends- bribery in any other language- as well as being involved with straightforward fraudulent fleecing of indian tribes in the midwest. In March 2006 he was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and ordered to repay $21m. Time magazine ran a story under his cover picture entitled ‘The Man Who Bought Washington’.
Other Issues in the elections include:

Immigration: illegal immigration has become a key issue in some states with possibly over 2 million illegals lost in the 300 million US citizens. Bush has been moderate on this and has suggested a halfway house whereby illegals can become legal but others favour much stricter control of the border with Mexico including a 700 mile wall.

National Security: Republicans seek to portray the democrats as soft on terror but this issue has somewhat backfired as the war in Iraq has gone pearshaped. Most Americans now think USA is less safe from terrorist attacks.

Health care: during Bush’s period in power the number of people without medical insurance has increased from 40m to 46m.
Katrina: the tardy almost careless response of the white House to the Hurricane whichn hit New Orleans underpinned the fact that the USA is deeply divided in terms of race and poverty. The episode will not help Bush win votes from African Americans.

Republicans hit Rock Bottom: As a result of all these factors a mood of change has entered US political culture which could sweep away Bush’s control of Congress and leave him a lame duck president. Bush’s ratings have slumped into the low thirties and his disapproval ratings hover in the high fifties. So bad has his position become that fellow republicans fighting for their seats are actively disuading the president from speaking in their support. This situation mirrors the problem Blair experienced in 2005. Iraq is the biggest issue in the election with 35% saying the war is going badly for USA and 58% saying it was a mistake to go in in the first place.

Of independent-non commited- voters Democrats are currently favoured by a ratio of 2-
1. Over the USA as a whole democrats lead republicans by some 15-20% but this varies enormously from state to state. But the Republicans campaigning skills should not be underestimated; they know how to come from behind.

The Final Lap of the Campaign: Reports suggest that 90% of republican funding- more generous than the Democrats- is going on attack ads in the last few days, orchestrated by Karl Rove. Studies show that negative ads have far more effect than positive ones- though perhaps British culture is less open to such approaches viz- the Tory ‘demon eyes’ campaign attack on Blair in 1997 which found no purchase. In USA Republicans have been swamping the airwaves with any smear they have been able to find like quoting sections from one candidates’ novels to suggest he is in favour of incest. Democrats have also dirtied their hands in this way but it seems that the final stages of US elections, when getting hthe vote out is so crucial, this is just par for the course.

Key Contests
House: 40 Republican seats are thought vulnerable, compared with nine Democrat. Battle grounds are in east: Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Inbdiana, New York and Florida.
Senate: Of the 33 up for re-election, 15 are republican held and 17 Democrat. There are eight vulnerable republiucans in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia Tennessee and arizona. The democrats themselves are struggling in New Jersey.
Governors: the Republicans have 28 governorships and the democrats 22; the former face defeat in New York, Ohio, Arkansa, Colorado and Massachusetts.
Democrats: They will surely expect a famous victory on 7th November but the resilience and resource of the Republicans has already been noted. Moreover, the party of FDR, Kennedy and Clinton has not yet appeared to be a coherent and organized force. America seems to be saying it does not want Bush and his party but it is not yet saying it wants the other major party either. As there is no official opposition, Democrats lack discipline to speak in a united voice and the funds to be comparable with th battery of attack ads waiting to be unleashed by Bush, Rove and company which now are believed to swing so many contests. It would be easier if they had a leader- in- waiting instead of the likely starting line-up of Hilary Clinton, John Kerry(again), John Edwards and, the most interesting newcomer, the charismatic and very able black Senator, Obama Barak.
Bill Jones 30/10/06