I am quite angry about a good many things right now – not about things that have happened such as the Japanese earthquake/tsunami or are happening such as the perceived military success of the Gaddafi regime. I am furious at the vacillation and disingenuousness of the elites of the international community.
The terrible tragedy of the natural disaster afflicting Japan is truly saddening but what is maddening is not just the pusillanimity of the Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan, but the cover-up involving the nuclear power stations. Japan has had two lost decades but the institutional drift is indicative of this.
The Sir Humphreys of the Japanese civil service have lost the plot and no-one can replace them – in the boom times of the 1950s to the 1980s, laissez-faire and a new prime minister every other year are not such big issues, but in the 1990s crunch a new, dynamic leader needs to pick the country up by the scruff of its neck and deliver it from its sticky conundrum, a Winston Churchill, a Lyndon Johnson or a Harry Truman. Instead, the country has gone into a slow death spiral. Two years ago, the Japanese government was told about “potentially fatal flaws” in the reactors now in crisis. What did they do? Not only hush it up, but when one power station in the west of the country was closed down through safety fears, the government went to court to open it again and won. Now the prime minister criticises the company that owns the stricken Fukushima plant, but corporate and political Japan are responsible for this mess.
The Japanese people voted for change when they threw out the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and replaced them with the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). The trouble was most DPJ powerbrokers were LDP defectors. The election was a case of plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Now China, which is famed for secrecy and not meddling in the affairs of other countries, has demanded that the Japanese government hide nothing (as they did not report the fourth explosion at the Fukushima plant for twenty hours).
Another incidence of serious malfunctioning of government is situating a disaster recovery centre fifty yards from the shore in an inlet town; to be sure, it was four kilometres from the open sea, but in the event of any tsunami that would just funnel the wave to be even higher. One resident remembered the 1960 tsunami and was shocked that 1,000 people huddled in this one storey building – lambs to the slaughter if ever there was such a case. He managed to persuade 60 people to leave, to take refuge in the four storey town hall, but even then it was too late. 40 were swept away before they reached the building, five drowned in the stairwell as the wave overwhelmed the first two storeys and only the heroic 73 year old man and 15 others reached the roof and survived. The Japanese had been betrayed by the complacency of the authorities with the ludicrous siting of the earthquake emergency building and such was their obedience and trust in bureaucracy that they herded in there, instead of fleeing to high ground.
To top it all, Japan has debt equivalent to 227% of its economy with the most rapidly ageing population in the world. It may rebuild, its economy may bounce back, but the dead people will remain dead and there could be utter nuclear disaster at Fukushima. And it is not going to get any better in the medium and long-term. When the multiple inquiries begin (as there surely has to be more than one), the shit deserves to hit the fan for how the Japanese elite failed their people.

As for the Libya crisis, I am seriously annoyed that even though the Arab League has faced down the anxieties of Syria and Algeria and endorsed a no-fly zone, the proposal is still a non-flier. Incrementally, the USA is moving towards it, Dr Susan Rice, its UN ambassador, seemingly advocating air strikes as part of the package, while Bob Gates drags his heels hoping the uprising will be crushed before the USA has another policing operation. Yet the cynicism of Germany is striking and this is displayed by its pandering to the green movement by ditching its policy of extending the life of nuclear generators for three months while a review is conducted, a review that will conveniently conclude after local elections. After the flak they took for a (half-hearted) bail-out of the Euro currency’s strugglers, in taking an anti-war stance – or portraying their decisions as an anti-war stance – Merkel, Westerwelle and the rest of their cabinet are putting their own political lives before those of the Libyan people. Russia and China are using Germany as a stooge for their own opposition – they don’t want a no-fly zone because secretly they fear they have to use air power against their own civilians, whether in the North Caucasus or Tibet/Xinjiang (if not elsewhere) and don’t want to set a UN precedent. Britain and France have tied their hands with the first UN resolution because without a further one authorising a no-fly zone, they will increase the damage to the UN’s credibility. Yet the blame doesn’t lie with them or the Arab League, but with the contemptuous approach to human life and dignity expressed by certain elites. The blood of the Libyan people if Gaddafi triumphs will be on the heads of Bob Gates (not that he cares) and those of the German, Russian and Chinese governments (not that they care either).

Finally, I am infuriated by the pettiness of Labour Party elites in this country who oppose AV, yet are turning it into a personality contest. I can understand the Tories seeking to nobble it because they are extremely unlikely ever to get more than 50% of the vote and so will never again have it all their own way with the country if this passes. Tony Blair hailed left-liberal dominance in the 21st century, but flunked cementing that with voting reform because of the early opposition from Gordon Brown. The latter later had a deathbed conversion in 2010, but it was too late before the election produced a hung – or balanced – parliament.
The Labour politicians who argue against AV are exactly of the same hue of Tories in that they want sole power for themselves, without having to share it with other parties. They know that a good way to try and ensure the reform is voted down is to link Nick Clegg’s name to it, given that he has gone from political hero to zero in twelve months, mostly because of the spending cuts and the broken promise on student fees. One of the most momentous referendums in the last 40 years (indeed since the 1975 one on EEC membership, the only countrywide one) and they boil it down to throwing mud because they want to hurt the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg through not joining into coalition with them (even though Labour were monumentally unprepared, least of all ready to concede policy ground). Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, if indeed they are truthful in what they say. As campaign reformer Ken Livingstone – once against AV but only because he was in favour of the single transferable vote – said this morning, why hit the monkey, when you can hit the organ grinder (i.e. David Cameron) instead? Hear, hear!