Japan: One More Argument Against Nuclear Power?

By Sebastian Egerton-Read

The disaster with the recent tsunami hitting Japan has almost too shocking and horrific for words to describe. This was a tragic natural disaster and the damage, devastation and human cost probably won’t be fully understood for months to come. The fact that this amount of devastation was caused in one of the world’s richest countries should hammer home the fact that no matter how ‘developed’ we claim that we have become, we cannot defeat the power of nature.

More than anything, the message from Japan is that the power of nature will always be stronger than humanity, and it should be a powerful one for anyone concerned with the environment. The other large scale debate that has been invoked in the aftermath of this disaster is the environmental debate on nuclear power.

For those of you who do not know, the tsunami caused a lot of alarm as there were explosions and temperature problems at several nuclear power stations in the area. There have been on-going concerns about the possibility of food contamination, and the various other horrible effects of high levels of radiation. It is quite significant I think that this is not the first time that an environmental disaster has raised concerns in Japan. Rewind to July 2007 and you will find that the country’s largest nuclear power station was forced to close down after a 6.8 magnitude earthquake hit the country. At the time it was a major incident as nuclear power provided 30% of the country’s electricity, a figure that has continued to rise. Yesterday’s reports in the news today suggest that the danger was exaggerated and that many of the highest readings of radiation were inaccurate, the risk for the most part appears to have been reduced, though it cannot be eliminated and that was proven today as scientists discovered highly radioactive water outside of one of the reactors for the first time.

So, the conversation switches back and forth on the issue of nuclear power with each side of the debate attempting to use a massive natural disaster to further its cause. What must be remembered above all else is that this has been a horrific disaster, the effects are still not clear, except for the fact that the tsunami has clearly been devastating. The Japanese people have been inspirational in the way that they have dealt with the tragedy and looked to recover and re-build. The international support offered by millions of ordinary people worldwide serves as a reminder of everything that is good and decent about human nature.

The reality about the nuclear debate that has developed since this disaster is in fact that the debate hasn’t really changed. It has always been known that nuclear power stations can never be made perfectly safe and that when they go wrong they can cause tragedy, surely Chernobyl has not been forgotten so quickly? Surely another example of the dangers was not needed to confirm that nuclear power stations can go wrong and have horrible consequences? I for one certainly hope that we do not see the incident repeated in Japan. Of course, it is equally absurd to suggest that after the incident the use of nuclear power must be ceased altogether. For one, it is one of few energy sources that have actually made a dent against the fossil fuels. 79% of France’s energy output Is produced by nuclear, there are about 100 licensed nuclear plants in the USA. These sources are at least detracting in a small way from further use of fossil fuels. Secondly, even the tragedy of Chernobyl must be kept in perspective, the area has been horrifically damaged and over 50 people have died as a result, but how many people will die as a result of the burning of fossil fuels if it does not stop?

The reality is that it is foolish to base a debate on nuclear power on one simple incident. It is true that the choice of our energy future is not between just nuclear power and fossil fuels, there is in fact renewable energy as well. The dangers of radioactive waste are just one argument against nuclear energy. Here are some more:

1)     It would take a ridiculous number of nuclear reactors to provide any sort of significant cut in our carbon emissions.

2)      Nuclear reactors are hugely expensive, take ages to build and have somewhat of a limited lifespan. The costs over the long-term of nuclear power are far higher than even the expensive renewables.

3)      Nuclear power can only produce electricity; it cannot replace a huge amount of the gas/oil energy that we use such as on producing hot water, heating and transport. 86% of our oil/gas purposes are for things other than producing electricity.

4)      Renewable energies are getting better at such a fast pace that it would be foolish not to invest in them. They are also the (as far as we can tell) permanent solution to humanities energy problems

5)      Uranium the key to producing nuclear power is still finite, it is not unlimited and there is also the very serious problem of finding a way to store it.

Renewable energies are quite clearly the way forward for anyone who accepts the need for a real solution to the climate problem. These renewables are getting stronger and better today. 39.9% of Sweden’s energy comes from renewables, 70% of Iceland’s energy demand is met by renewable sources, and 73% of New Zealand’s energy resources are met by renewables. China has invested in a substantial solar programme; Germany has invested in solar power and intends to close down their nuclear stations in exchange for wind and solar power by 2020.

Now of course there are arguments and campaigns to be fought against those who wish to expand the use of nuclear power under some guise of reducing carbon emissions and the fight against climate change. However, focusing this issue on one incident is dangerous; the arguments against nuclear power are already established, strong and extremely convincing. Those arguments must be continued to be pressed forward as a block in the continued fight to prevent dramatic global warming.

In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers remain with the sufferers of tragedy in Japan, we can only hope that the effects are as limited as possible and can commend the resolution and be inspired by the people who have shown us all that it is often at the worst times that some of the better qualities of humanity show themselves.

The Weapon of De-Humanisation

By Sebastian Egerton-Read

The natural instinct of human beings is to feel compassion for other human beings. We can see evidence of this all over the world all the time, generally when people learn about other people with horrible situations or unfortunate circumstances, they give what they can or do what they can to help. Examples of this range from events like comic relief, specific relief efforts like those being carried out currently for Japan and in fact in everyday life. If we can accept this basic assertion that people generally act in a way that is friendly and good to one another (generally, not exclusively), then it is rather confusing to look at the world and see such disparity and such inequality. It should be noted that this human conscience is clearly an evolutionary feature of human beings. Its history can be traced back quite clearly to the growth of population and increased ability of human beings to destroy each other. The human conscience has been developed towards each other quite clearly to avoid a human self-destruction.

However, the picture is not quite as simple as that, or at least this conscience hasn’t worked perfectly. For example, look at the current agenda of our country’s government. They are cutting public services drastically and at an incredibly fast rate, they are attacking benefits and generally pulling all of the safety nets from under the poorer population’s feet. They are of course at the same cutting corporation tax, making London into a tax haven and continuing to leave the country’s richest relatively untouched. This is in response to an economic crisis that was sparked from the top and not from the people who are being made to suffer from it. These cuts will have a devastating social and personal impact on people’s lives. People are losing their jobs, their financial security, their opportunities in Education; so much is being taken away. Funds used to reduce teenage pregnancy and to deal with youth drug abuse are being slashed. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the quantity and rapidity of these cuts will devastate the lives of hundreds of thousands of people if not more.

So, how can there actually be people who perpetrate this devastation? I have often heard people say that it is in an absence of a conscience that allow the likes of David Cameron to do what he does. However, this must be too simplistic. Are we to believe that this key evolutionary feature simply goes missing in some people on certain political issues? No, something more complex is going on here. The first difficulty with human conscience is that it is extremely subjective. Another aspect of this is that I do not doubt that in some way, Cameron believes that is current policies will make this country more successful and more powerful. There is also the case that different people have different priorities and different emphasise.

Having said that there is a difficult and complex issue here, in the case of the current government, and in fact in all mainstream politics, there is a de-humanisation of the population. The government is only able to do these things if they don’t consider the human beings involved and effected. The notion of the welfare state was in many ways the ultimate expression of the latest development of human conscience, its slow break up has gone hand in hand with the continued detachment of politics from the population and effective de-humanisation of that population.  The narrative that we are told is completely discriminatory, people who ‘work hard’ and ‘do the right thing’ are rewarded and people who do not will not be supported. Regardless of the validity of those statements, which is pretty doubtful, they are subjective. How do you judge when someone is working hard? It seems the definition of it from the Conservative ideology is simply getting a rubbish mind-numbing job and finding a way of getting by, frankly that sounds like hard work rather than working hard. An expression that Cameron and co uses all too often is this idea of rewarding people for ‘doing the right thing’. What is the ‘right thing’? This is where the de-humanisation starts. It is accepted that human beings are completely unique and diverse and yet there is a government that prescribes a way to live, doesn’t offer alternatives and then punishes those that don’t accept that prescription. The government’s ‘lazy unemployed’ agenda is a prime example of this; unemployed people are packed together and described in abhorrent discriminatory ways.

This de-humanisation is so powerful, it wins people over. Rather than considering the possibility of a complex long set of individual circumstances that could lead to someone being unemployed. ‘The unemployed’ receive the tag of being lazy and as some sort of plague on the population. Once they have that tag, rather than supporting them, it actually makes more sense to follow the government’s logic from there. This can be applied to every section of the population that this government is attacking, from immigrants to the working class. Once they are robbed of their human identity, they can be targets.

De-humanisation manifests itself in all sorts of parts of human life. I recently encountered it on campus myself. A group of Israeli students came to campus this week as part of Israeli Awareness Week. They were polite, well-mannered, clearly well-educated and actually quite nice to talk to. However, when talking to them about the Israel/Palestine issue they talked about the Palestinian people as violent, savage and uncontrollable. Now if that is true, or a person believes that to be true, then it is perfectly logical to attack that violence and savagery and to exterminate it, which is in many ways what Israel has been doing slowly over the last sixty years. However, describing 11 million Palestinian people as savage and violent is simply not true. The Palestinian people are people, individuals who have lost their homes, family members and in so many case, their sense of worth. The reality is that those Israeli students could not defend the policies of their country if considering the Palestinian people in those terms. I re-iterate, these students were perfectly nice and reasonable to talk to, but the success of their government in de-humanises a population of people allowed them to have these completely indefensible views on 11 million people.

Examples of de-humanisation can be found throughout history. The age of European imperialism is one of the most obvious examples; genocides are virtually always accompanied by de-humanising groups of people. De-humanisation is undoubtedly the greatest weapon of oppression on every level, and it is something that must be fought at all costs. 

Guild Council March 2011

By Kelly Rogers

5 hours ago I left Guild Council Chambers disgusted and angry. As a constituent, I felt entirely misrepresented by my elected Guild Officer Team who led a Council epitomised by an infringement of democracy, Guild cliques, favouritism and a partial Chairperson (Rob Sassoon). Such failures has led me to send an email to the Guild Council Team outlining the reasons for my discontent, which I shall explain here.

First of all, I would like to discuss the occurrence of a motion being voted on without an opposition speech being put forward or debated. The Chair claimed that this was ‘democratic’ because it was voted through. However this meant any opposition was denied any platform to speak, aside from proposing amendments, which clearly runs counter to the democratic values the Guild represents. I would question why the Chair deemed it appropriate to accept the proposal to skip straight to a vote in the first place. It is the Chair’s job, after all, to ensure the Council runs according to Guild procedure, but also in a just manner; something evident considering the Chair’s insistence on intervening in many other matters by vetoing amendments claiming that they propose ‘too substantive a change to the motion’.

This brings me to my second point, the Chair’s clear partiality. The point was brought up by a present Sabbatical Officer that there was a ‘perceived conflict of interest’ and that he wished the Chair to step down for that particular motion. I agreed completely with this call because I saw a Chair repeatedly veto amendments to topics which posed ‘too substantive a change to the motion’, not putting it out to vote but using his ultimate authority to override often fair amendments. Moreover, these challenges were aimed at solely those in favour of challenging or dropping the EUMC definition or retaining the ability to condemn human rights abuses – a seemingly anti-Palestinian approach considering the groups largely making up the parties proposing and opposing the ammendments (Friends of Palestine and Joseph Moses and co. of JSoc respectively). In contrast, when a highly contentious decision to completely eliminate an opposition speaker on the ‘no-policy policy’, the Chair had no qualms at all. In my mind, this shows favouritism. Furthermore, if a Chair is removed from his position because of a ‘perceived conflict of interest’, does it not seem prudent for the Chair to remain removed from this position until the entire motion has been debated and voted upon? This was not the case, and the Chairperson was quickly reinstated.

Thirdly, it was also mentioned by an attendee at the Council that the Chair often gave preference to people he was ‘on first name terms with’, namely sabbatical and non-sabbatical officers. Suggestions that ‘Guild cliques’ exist are not unheard of, and as an observer I also felt greater preference was given to certain people in the Council; although this may of course have been accidental.

While the style of Guild Council itself was detestable in itself, nothing quite matched the policies passed through towards the end of the session. A clear contradiction in two motions passed through Guild Council arose. First, in the Council in question the ‘No-policy policy’ passed claiming the Guild can have no stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including  (as ascertained by the refusal to accept an amendment saying as such) a refusal to assert that both Palestinian and Israeli people have the ‘right to exist’ and to a nation state. If considered in context with the motion passed in the Council held April 2010, ‘EUMC Definition of Anti-Semitism’, and the subsequent use of the definition as a ‘guide’ by the Guild this makes no sense. The EUMC definition includes the statement,

‘Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor’.

So, our Guild advocates having no stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, or accepting either’s right to self-determination (because of the contentiousness of the issue and, as the proposition of today’s ‘no-policy policy’ put it, ‘the Guild is not the place for such a debate’), except for when it comes to Jewish people’s right to self-determination. This is a clear contradiction in policy.

Moreover, the 'No-policy policy' itself is an absolute atrocity. The proposition of this motion argued that the Israel-Palestine conflict was a controversial issue that had 'no place in Guild Council' because it did not directly effect students as issues such as cuts to education by the Coalition government might. As three Muslim students sitting behind me asserted, such a claim is ridiculous. To the people that associate themselves with either country involved in the conflict, this very much effects them at a very deep level. For the Union representing them to adamently refuse to acknowledge human rights abuses if and when they occur is a massive failure to represent these constituents. It is this argument which I was forming when waiting for the chance for questions, following the opposition speech - an opportunity that never came. 

The motion titled 'It doesn't matter if you're black or white' argued for a greater weight to be given to existing values adopted by the Guild, concerning racism, homophobia, sexism and most pointedly, anti-semitism. This involved the EUMC 'working definition' of antisemitism, which is currently used as a 'guide' by the Guild when assessing external speakers and the actions of societies. The proposition wanted to avoid the 'hurt' that can be inflicted by speakers which actively 'victimise' minority groups and the societies that 'applaud' such actions; not so subtely implying the Mike Prysner incident regarding Friends of Palestine, and complaints coming from JSocs direction. The main issue I have with the passing of this motion, amongst many, is exactly what the proposition denied - that societies will not be threatened or risk unfair punishment when it comes to speakers expressing offensive opinions. However, as the opposition stated; many respected academics would contravene the EUMC definition; Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Edward Said and even Albert Einstein. Furthermore, this denial came with the caveat that the society actively denounced the views, removed the speaker and apologised for any offence - as if stopping a event mid-way, asking a respected speaker (previously accepted by Guild speaker-request procedure) to leave and apologising to potentially hundreds of attendees who had come and paid to enjoy said speaker was normal behaviour. Finally, as a (somewhat casual I'm afraid to say) member of Friends of Palestine and participant in their online forum, I understood that a great deal of their membership felt threatened with derecognition of the society. As newly-elected Chair of Birmingham Student Broad Left, it worries me that societies might face such punishment for potentially 'controversial' speakers when this is what a society like ours encourages in order to promote debate, eduacation and a widening of our perceptions of the world. This is a sad day for free speech at the University of Birmingham. Intellectual progress is not possible without controversy, and it seems controversy is no longer welcome here.

I shall finish on a brighter note. Whilst I left angry and disappointed on the whole from Guild Council, the success of the day should not be forgotten. It is no small thing that the Guild has committed itself to support the UCU strike next week, on the behalf of our students. As the proposition eloquently argued, the UCU has supported us through our struggles when it came to fighting cuts to education and EMA, this is our opportunity to reciprocate. In the face of a University management who recently gave themselves a 11% rise to their already inflated pay, amounting to sum equal to that saved from axeing UoB's sociology department, and who are now cutting jobs, real wages and prospects of our valuable university staff this is a priceless success. Every cloud...

Guild Elections 2011

By Sebastian Egerton-Read

After two weeks of campaigning the Guild officer elections are finally over. I think that most people, regardless of whether they had a negative or positive experience, are glad that it is over. The seven sabbatical positions, along with the non-sabbaticals have all been selected and the Students Union of the University of Birmingham must now move forward into what is arguably the most tumultuous time in the history of British universities. Of course it wasn't that long ago that the tuition fees were raised to £3000 and the "consumerism" of education has been growing as part of a long process. However, it is fair to say that the challenges faced by student unions dealing with a massive tripling of tuition fees are unprecedented and unseen before. Economics has always played some role in university politics, but now it will take an even greater priority as how much the university charges, the value for that money and the way in which the university spends its money will come under increased scrutiny.

Such circumstances might lead one to expect that there would be a heavy focus on policies and solutions in this year's election. However, quite amazingly the speeches from the winning candidates were almost completely bereft of any policy discussion or the challenges facing them. Now of course, there is nothing wrong with offering commiserations to the losing candidates or saying thank you to key people who helped in the campaign, but for the winning candidates to completely exclude mention of their policies is still quite striking. One possible explanation for this is that very few candidates run on policies. This election was dominated by the incredible amounts of cardboard spread around campus and once again of course by gimmicks. Please don't mis-understand me, I actually love the gimmicks. I enjoyed watching those two orange men run around and seeing Dumbledore on campus as much as anybody, unfortunately though a student union has a lot of influence over a lot of important things, and those important things stretch beyond cuts. Most of the winning candidates (with a couple of notable exceptions) couldn't talk about these things because they didn't have a firm grip of a well thought through set of policies, they also couldn't bring their orange men or wands up with them, so it isn't that surprising that all they had to say were commiserations and thank you. Rather than a clear vision of what the new guild would be like and how it would represent the 28,000 students at this university, attendees of the results night got to see an excited group of young people celebrating an opportunity to enjoy a great experience and enhance their CVs. Does this not strike people as somewhat ridiculous?

A strong example of this is our new President. He ran on what was frankly a superb gimmick with the Harry Potter theme and had excellent visibility on campus including what was a wonderful piece of craftsmanship in the Hogwarts train. But what were his three main policy points?
1) A loyalty card in Joe's (cheaper drinks)
2) Longer library opening hours and improved facilities like link-up points
3) 'A Guild that works for you'

So, we have one policy in trying to make a bar that already runs on a loss cheaper. Everyone in the guild knows that is impossible and like every other candidate who has run on a cheaper drinks policy, he will have to let his constituents down on this one. One policy that has just happened, the library opening hours have been extended and it is to under-go refurbishment in the summer, it is hard to see that happening two years running. Finally we are left with an ambiguous statement that could match any of the best ones that our politicians come up with. I am not even sure that a statement like that can really even be technically described as a policy.

This is not to attack our new President. He may indeed be very good. That is actually the whole point. We have had two weeks of campaigning and even those actually involved in the Guild don't really know what to expect from their new Guild officer team. Of course they may have their opinions based on the affiliations of winning candidates to the various cliques in the Guild, but that is no substitute for actual policies or even a vague vision.

It should be noted that the 27% voter turnout is no mean achievement for the Guild and to a certain degree they should be commended for it. However, that is still 73% of the student population that is failing to exercise  its basic democratic right. How can we question that decision when we, the people involved with the Guild, have just elected an officer group without a clear vision or any clear set of achievable policies. How can we question that when students are welcomed to campus during campaign week by a barrage of cardboard boxes and various characters dressed up in silly outfits or with bizarre gimmicks? How can this be considered as anything other than disengagement of students from the Guild? People take part in democracy when they feel it matters, when we reflect back on how these elections have panned out over the last two weeks, can we really blame students for not taking it seriously, or not being it to be valuable?

Changing Societies or Changing Universities?

By Nerijus Cerniauskas

Currently there is a student movement within University of Birmingham which believes that the University is not preparing graduates to meet the demands existent in the labour market.  There is a belief that University is not doing enough to enhance employability and that businesses constantly complain that students possess either irrelevant or out-dated skills and techniques. These statements are more relevant in the social sciences, where courses are largely theory based. The question is, are the students right to complain? But first we need to answer why so many students are getting further education.

Paul Mason in a lecture on the 3^rd of March showed that a new class: a large population with bachelor’s degrees is being created, and their futures are uncertain. To an extent, he is right. Table 1 shows how the percentage of UK residents acquiring further education which is clearly increasing since early 20^th century. Historically, academia was not consumed in such large quantities and there are two main causes for change: economical and sociological.

Number of students enrolled in full-time tertiary education (FTTE) versus total UK population in selective years (in thousands)

	1900/10[1]	1925/35	1962/63	1972/73	1997/98	2009/10
FTTE	25	50	216	453	1.200	1.632
Population	3.570	3.910	5.350	5.610	5.840	6.180
Percent	0,70%	1,28%	4,04%	8,07%	20,55%	26,41%

Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency since 2001, National Statistics

As the majority of the population was poor, only relatively few could afford the luxury of getting a higher education. As the standard of living rose, however, people were able to set some income aside and invest into further education. Most states also saw education as a positive good (both to the individual and to the public at large) and created many incentives to lure people into further education. What is interesting is that while the number of students rose, education was still heavily subsidised by the British state and student s continued to come.

The sociological aspect is that a university degree has historically been seen as evidence of achievement that is superior to any simple job an 18 year old could get. Three years of University were valued higher than three years of customer service in a local shop, for example. There are two reasons for this also.

The first is that University added value to an individual’s self-development. An individual was able to work on his own, find information, critically analyse information, read widely, and create a network of like-minded individuals. The second is that a University merely gives a piece of paper which shows that a student has passed a course and this paper on its own is a sign to the worker that a student is an exceptional one.

The shop assistant, on the other hand, was not able to advance himself in such a broad way, but was more stuck with day to day duties. Unless the shop was famous in the area, it was unlikely to be recognized by other employers either.

Now, however, employers have increased in size and technologies have changed. It has become much easier to verify the quality of an individual based on an interview (phone, internet), face-to-face meetings, taking short training courses or try-outs. Thus in theory, the second aspect which Universities had in the past should not be as important as the first.

As before, there are two ways to do this: the academia way which is broad, theory based progression, or the shop way, which are more hands on, direct, specific techniques. What is certain is that both can learn a bit from the other. What is not certain, is if a University can do both as effectively. There are also two clear reasons for this.

Firstly, for academia to progress, questions need to be constantly asked, issues raised, data analysed, and solutions formulated. In business, an individual is more likely to first follow orders: put that there, calculate this and unlikely to question much the orders given. Second, in business the work hours are very clearly defined and all rules are very strict: work starts at 8 and finishes at 17, customers must be respected above all else. University, on the other hand, is more lenient. This way, University gives a chance to experiment, to learn time management, to advance one’s self in his/her own manner. In this sense, University is as much a transition from school, where all answers are given, to a world where a person has to do most of the work on his own. Funnily enough, this “liberty” is not what people seem to want.

Second, each business has its unique formula to peruse a given agenda. Even companies of similar types use different software, organizational techniques, have different budgets, and use different technologies and so on. Because of this, if a concrete skill is learned in a university, it is unlikely to be effectively adapted to any given business. A person is then left between two choices: either memorize or acquaint one’s self with all the techniques (think of reading a 1000 page book of quantities methods and having an exam on it) or learning some general ideas, which could then be adapted to meet the needs of large employers.

Another aspect is to see what student enrolled in tertiary education on the whole want: to advance academically or enter the job market without further studies and degrees. Table 2 indicates the proportion of those enrolled in tertiary education who aims for further academic versus those who seek immediate employment. The vast majority seem to want a more academic approach prior to getting employed. If this statistic is accurate, most tertiary studies are aimed at academic improvement, which seems to fit with the demands of the population.

Percent of those enrolled in Tertiary education who seek further academic progress versus those, seeking to enter the job market

Column1	2008	2003	1998
Academic	77%	66%	69%
Occupation	23%	34%	31%

Source: Eurostat

On one hand, it must be remembered that University is already trying to merge the two to a degree: industrial placements, a large choice of modules, long vacations (which can be used for short term, hands on projects).  On the other, it is questionable whether too much specific training is a job of a university. Of course, any business would want the University to do most of the training for them, so they could happily reduce their costs. But the reality is, that academia is not a simple training camp, which only seeks high graduate – hiring ratio.

What is more interesting, then, is whether a new market will be forming for people who finish school, but will understand that academia is not necessarily the way to go. If an individual want mainly get a quality job and skip that abstract self-development, flexibility nonsense, a person should then be able to start at a small shop but after a bit longer, perhaps 4-5 years, be able to get a similar job to that of a university graduate. Also, maybe courses which focus very heavily on job specific roles will become more available. Furthermore, there is no reason why one cannot turn to academia at a later time.

Either way, as yet there is no evidence that future prospects are negative for those with degrees as proposed by Paul Mason. Nor is it very likely that Universities will become training grounds for jobs. However, the strength of Universities lies in its flexibility, freedom, a large potential source of self-development. If one can already do this or believes that he does not need this, why go to a university?

References:

Jefferies J. (2005) ‘The UK population: past, present and future’ in National Statistics Online Focus on People and Migration: 2005 Available on www.statistics.gov.uk . Accessed on March 6, 2011

Databases:

UK National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk)

Higher Education Statistics Agency (www.hesa.ac.uk)

---

[1] Only estimates are available for the first two periods.

All Eyes On Libya

By Sebastian Egerton-Read

                 Coverage of the protests in North Africa and West Asia has become completely focused on Libya, and so the world waits to see what will happen in the next phase of the saga in Libya and beyond. Of course, the rest of the region hasn’t frozen in time while Muammar Gaddafi has been trying to cling onto power. Large protests have continued in Tunisia and Egypt where they continue to try and get reforms pushed through at a faster pace and continue to force the remnants of the previous regimes out. The leaders in Yemen and Bahrain continue to be put under heavy pressure, while large protests have also been held in Algeria, Morocco, Iran and Iraq. Arguably the least democratic and most extreme of them all in Saudi Arabia has made concessions in the form of directly giving every family money and potentially finally granting women the right to vote. However, rightly or wrongly, it feels like the fate of these popular uprising rests in Libya.

                In Tunisia and Egypt, the institutions turned on their leaders when they realised that the number of angry ordinary people was too great, and ultimately, it was these institutions that ensured such remarkable results as the ending of Hosni Mubarek’s three decade reign. In Libya, Gaddafi had been vigorous in ensuring that there were no institutions. There were no formally organised opposition groups, even groups like the Muslim Brotherhood had not been allowed to operate, and the army had been kept deliberately small to avoid a military coup.

                The situation in Libya is increasingly reaching a head. Gaddafi has shown no scruples in using his air force to bomb rebel held Eastern towns, though with limited effectiveness. There is a growing humanitarian crisis on the country’s borders as thousands of people try to evacuate. Gaddafi’s troops launched attacks on the towns of Brega and Adjabiya, but were beaten back with surprisingly low casualties sustained. Mass detentions of young people in the countries capital of Tripoli have been confirmed as Gaddafi continues to try and hold onto his power.

                A full on civil war almost appears inevitable now although the nature of such a war is extremely hard to predict. In theory Gaddafi should have the weaponry and forces to crush the rebels, but it seems likely that morale is low in the dictator’s camp and it really isn’t clear just how many of his resources that Gaddafi really controls. If Gaddafi’s forces were as strong as suggested then it is strange to think that they have not yet been victorious. Meanwhile, remarkable news continues to come in from Eastern Libya, where hospitals, systems of administration, schools and all infrastructures are being instated. Organisation of a fighting force is also in full swing as they continue to train and arm themselves to protect the towns that they currently control, and potentially to launch their own offensive. Reports of protests and unrest in Tripoli also continue to grow, possibly aided by momentum won by the successes in the East.

                It isn’t clear how it will play out in Libya. We can only hope that the bloodshed is limited and that the result is change for the Libyan people. What is clear is that just as in Tunisia and Egypt, the people of Libya are determined. They have not been put off by the prospect of a civil war with Gaddafi’s forces, they have no resigned themselves to consolidating their gains, and the relentlessness of this revolution is perhaps its most remarkable feature. The frustrations and anger of decades of oppressive rule in this region are coming out, and the men who have presided over those times are finding that despite all of their power, it is extremely difficult to fight the will of masses of empowered ordinary people. Gaddafi claims that he intends to go down in flames and die as a martyr, certainly his rhetoric is even stronger than Mubarek before him, but the message is the same, he believes that he can continue to control his country. However, just as Mubarek discovered, it is not his country. The country of Libya is made up of roughly 6 million people, and a huge number of those are fed up and angry with Gaddafi. Interviews with people who have been a part of these uprisings clearly show that these people do not see anything to go back to; they are completely unconditional in their demand for basic rights. As this situation drags on, the rebels will get stronger and more organised and dissent in Gaddafi’s camp will have a chance to grow. If revolution can succeed in Libya, it will be a victory not just for Libyans, but for freedom and democracy. It will be a victory that sends shudders around the world’s dictatorships, and it will be a testament to the power of ordinary people, even when they are stripped of rights that we in the West take for granted.

                The international reaction has been somewhat mixed. Economic sanctions have been quickly imposed, a strategy that has been tried and tested and proven not to work if your intention is to support ordinary people. Military intervention is dangerously possible as US forces in particular assemble at various places around the region. The rebels themselves have vehemently demanded that international intervention does not happen, and that wish must be understood and respected. A no-fly zone is perhaps the least offensive of the international measures possible at this stage, assuming that its only role would be in protecting rebel cities from bombing. Of course the rhetoric attacking Gaddafi’s actions is somewhat difficult to stomach from an international community that essentially accepted him with open arms a decade ago. Their resolution to ‘properly investigate’ the ‘possibility’ that he has committed crimes against his people is equally pathetic, everyone and their mother knows that that man was a brutal dictator. Perhaps the most revealing reality of these demonstrations has been the way in which they have painted in black and white the West’s complicity in supporting and funding dictatorships that have oppressed their people.

                Now those people are rising, they want control of their own futures, and their bravery and determination is admirable. It should of course be noted that the revolutions are on-going in other countries; they have not even stopped in Tunisia and Egypt. For now, all eyes are on Libya. If Gaddafi falls, especially in this manner, the aftershocks in the region and around the world could be truly great indeed.