100 days of "No"

US politics is conducted very differently than in the UK. For one thing, political advertising is banned over here, whereas over there ad firms are probably weathering the recession better than most because of the near $1 billion spent in last year's election campaign, principally on what they call ad-buys.

I just wanted to post a short example of a US ad that's just been produced by President Obama's Democratic Party - because all too easily could it reflect how the Conservatives are behaving over here.

It highlights how, 100 days into President Obama's term of office, the Republican opposition - and remember George Bush's Republicans are the sister party of UK Conservatives - have behaved: no ideas, no consistency, no grasp of the problems being faced. Just 100 days of saying "no" to everything. You don't need to recognise the faces - just as most people can't recognise the Tory shadow cabinet: just know that they represent the leadership of the opposition over there.

I know it's perhaps a quaint and outdated idea, but I believe politicians should set out their ideas openly and honestly - and that shouldn't change whether they're in power or opposition. Evidently George Bush's Republicans, and their sister party the Conservatives, think differently.

Here's what about Rotherham...and Putney, Matthew

Since the successful G20 summit last week, Conservatives - both MPs and commentators - have been struggling to come up with a vaguely credible response. One that David Cameron, and former Tory MP and now Times columnist Matthew Parris have been floating is to, through gritted teeth, concede that the Prime Minister succeeded in achieving results for the world, but somehow not for our own country.

Mr Parris, in an article on Saturday called The world is saved. But what about Rotherham - and presumably he didn't pick Rotherham because it's the hometown of Putney's Conservative MP - attempted to make this case.

This is either a really dumb, or a really obtuse line of argument. There is no-one credible who does not recognise:

1) that this is a global recession and
2) that its origin was the US not the UK

That being so, anyone who tries to then claim that sorting out the problem the world is in will somehow not benefit our own economy is ridiculous. The Conservatives want you to believe that Gordon Brown's international leadership is responsible for making our own economic difficulties worse.

To me, that's a strange argument to attempt when at the same time the Conservative response to the recession is to stand aloof, do nothing to shore-up our economy, keep people in jobs and their homes while at the same time cutting taxes, as Labour has done in a big way only this week.

I send out hundreds and hundreds of surveys to local people every month and recently I've added a question about whether Putney, Roehampton and Southfields prefer Labour's intervention or the Conservatives' argument that we should avoid spending in order to keep future public debt lower.

I have to say that - overwhelmingly - people are telling me that they prefer the government not to walk by on the other side when British people are in trouble. And these surveys are from a representative sample of Putney voters: it's not just Labour voters who are telling me this. The Conservatives have got it catastrophically wrong on this issue - and this issue is THE issue people will be voting on at the next General Election.

If you want to learn more about why the G20 Summit was a success there's a 1-sided A4 briefing here.

Arctic Survey

In less than a month's time, a really important expedition to the Arctic will begin, to survey the ice there to try to work out how long we have before it melts away entirely.

This is possibly the most important survey on climate change ever and not just for the information it will produce, but because of the credibility it will finally give to climate change models.

No one but those on the extreme fringes now denies climate change. But on the other extreme, the somewhat hysterical warnings by the Green movement and even some scientists who should know better have lacked credibility and alienated people. That's because, for all the academic research they've produced, it's all been based on models, and models require subjective hypotheses to produce results. Those hypotheses are well-intentioned but unreliable because we have very little information upon what will be the critical driver of extreme climate change: the melting of polar ice.

Why is the Arctic so important? Four reasons. First of all, because it is the largest mass of ice on the planet - and ice acts as a mirror, bouncing solar rays back into space rather than heating the planet. As this mass gets smaller, less will be bounced back. And that will speed up climate change.

Second, because the floating ice represents millions of tonnes of water that, when melted, will raise sea-levels catastrophically. That will have a critical impact on islands like ours, as well as millions of people in low-lying countries like Bangladesh and throughout the Pacific.

Third, the Arctic acts as a tidal pump for the world's seas: warm water from the mid Atlantic pushes north, hits the colder and saline-heavy Arctic water and is pushed below it where it too cools. This phenomenon is why Britain benefits from warmer weather than our geographic position merits - we are on the same line of latitude as Montreal and Moscow, yet never get the same severity of weather. That's due to the Gulf Stream, and the Gulf Stream is channelled towards us by this pump mechanism. In short, no Arctic will probably mean the gulf stream channelling far further south, and instead of warming, Britain will freeze.

And fourth, the Arctic is the catalyst for the massive acceleration in global warming. I've already mentioned that without the ice, less solar rays will be bounced back into space. That will increase global warming. In turn, there are huge frozen reserves of greenhouse gasses trapped in frozen peat around the northern rim of the world: throughtout Siberia and Alaska in particular. When these thaw, amounts of these gasses that will dwarf any carbon reductions we can make in our own ways of life, will escape.

So let's be clear: there is a genuine urgency to climate change. What people like me want from climate change experts is not model-driven hypothesis, but fact-based honesty. And that's why this expedition is so important.

So good luck to Pen Hadow, Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley who'll be braving the sub-zero temperatures (including actually having to swim in the Arctic Ocean carrying equipment-laden sleds), alien environments and the occasional Polar Bear, to obtain the most comprehensive data ever compiled on the depth of Arctic ice and how the Arctic Ocean is being affected by climate change.

You can find out more about the survey and keep track of the expedition's progress at http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/ (I recommend watching the short video on the site). It sets off in 21 days.

Stand up to hatred: Holocaust Memorial Day

The picture to the right is not of a cattle shed on some farm: it's of one of the barracks prisoners at the notorious Auschwitz concentration camps were crated in until they met their fate. Prisoners typically were crammed in four to a bed, with up to a thousand in each shed.

Holocaust Memorial Day is held on 27 January because it marks the day towards the end of the Second World War that this concentration camp was liberated.

The Nazi Holocaust is of course the most shocking and largest in size in modern history; but today is also about far more than commemorating an event that happened 60 years ago: We also remember the victims of far more recent tragedies in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur - all of which have occurred in my lifetime: one since 2000.

The Holocaust Memorial Day website contains a huge amount of information and background resource to today's events - please find time to visit it:

http://www.hmd.org.uk/

Act or do nothing - in President Obama's words

Yesterday President Obama gave his first weekly video address to America - you can watch it here. I thought I reproduce the text of that address, because the subject was the one that affects the UK as much as the US: the global economic crisis.

President Obama makes exactly the same case to his country as Labour is making here. The only difference is that while President Obama enjoys cross-party support for his recovery, the Conservatives choose to play politics and worse - peddle the absolutely absurd idea that doing nothing is what this country needs. Here's the President's Address:

We begin this year and this Administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action. Just this week, we saw more people file for unemployment than at any time in the last twenty-six years, and experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. And we could lose a generation of potential, as more young Americans are forced to forgo college dreams or the chance to train for the jobs of the future.

In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.

That is why I have proposed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to immediately jumpstart job creation as well as long-term economic growth. I am pleased to say that both parties in Congress are already hard at work on this plan, and I hope to sign it into law in less than a month.

It’s a plan that will save or create three to four million jobs over the next few years, and one that recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment - the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there’s so much work to be done. That’s why this is not just a short-term program to boost employment. It’s one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century.

Continue reading this post >

The BBC is wrong on Gaza appeal

I watched Newsnight on Friday when Caroline Thomson, Chief Operating Officer at the BBC attempted to justify the broadcaster's decision not to broadcast an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) for humanitarian aid to Gaza. She didn't do so well.

This is not about the rights or wrongs of Israel's invasion of Gaza or the rocket attacks on Israel that provoked it. That intervention is thankfully now over and innocent civilians need help.

The DEC is not some fly-by-night partisan organisation: it's the international body that co-ordinated help after the Pakistan and Iranian earthquakes, the Burma hurricane, and the Thailand tsunami. In several - if not all - of these natural disasters, the BBC has broadcast appeals by the DEC.

Of course the situation in Gaza is not a natural disaster - nor was Darfur, yet they broadcast DEC appeals for help with that crisis.

This is not about taking sides - it would take an exceptionally blinkered person to misinterpret a broadcast for aid on behalf of Gaza's civilians as BBC partiality on behalf of Hamas.

The Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander, has urged the BBC to rethink this mistake. He is right to do so. Our Labour Government has already agreed to £30 million in additional aid going to Gaza since the crisis began after Christmas. If that aid can be doubled, trebled or quadrupled by an appeal on the BBC then isn't that exactly the sort of public service we should expect of a public service broadcaster?

UPDATE: BBC Director General Mark Thompson sets out his reasons for rejecting the DEC request here. This is the strongest defence of the BBC position I've seen, but I personally would still have taken the opposite decision.

Should you wish to make a donation to the DEC appeal, please use the following link: http://www.dec.org.uk/item/200

Grown-up opposition

I follow American politics quite closely. Over in the States, political leaders are grappling with exactly the same economic issues we in Britain face: how to respond positively and effectively to the downturn.

I thought I'd share excerpts of a review from the independent US government publication Congress Daily with you, just to highlight how, over there, the opposition Republicans (the sister party to the Conservatives) are working with the government; whereas over here, the Tories just want to play politics, pretend this is a problem unique to and caused by Britain, and do nothing about the massive threat it represents. Here's the release:

President-elect Obama and Democratic leaders Monday pledged to work with Republicans to pass an economic stimulus package as soon as possible that could provide as much as $1.3 trillion over two years.

"We all recognize that the country is in a financial difficulty that we have never seen - maybe in the history of the country," Senate Majority [Democrat] Leader Reid said after the meeting. "And what we did at the meeting with President-elect Obama just a few minutes ago is to say that we would jointogether and try to move some economic recovery relief for the American people as quickly as possible."

"We have not received, of course, the exact package from the president-elect and his folks, but he has indicated that there are at least 20 economists he has talked with and all but one of those believe it should be from $800 [billion] to $1.2 or [$1.3] trillion," Reid said.

Obama said at a photo opportunity with [House of Representatives Speaker] Pelosi that "The reason we're here today is because the people's business can't wait. We've got an extraordinary economic challenge ahead of us; we're expecting a sobering job report at the end of the week."

At a briefing after the Democratic leaders spoke, Senate Minority [Republican] Leader McConnell and House Minority Leader Boehner, who also attended the meeting, said that they believe Obama's bipartisan gestures to be sincere.

"I think [Obama] would like to have a large bipartisan vote in favor of this package," McConnell said. " I think this bill is going to start out and hopefully end as an example of very significant bipartisan cooperation."

Wouldn't it be nice for the opposition on this side of the pond to behave so maturely, responsibly and constructively, instead of isolating themselves by arguing for the same do-nothing economic approach that did so much damage in the two Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s?

Vigil for Zimbabwe this Friday

This Friday, 27 June, a vigil will be held outside the Zimbabwe Embassy at 429 The Strand, from 10am to 4pm to mark the death of democracy in Zimbabwe.

There will also be a 'funeral procession' to the South African High Commission in South Africa House, Trafalgar Square between 1pm and 2pm.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) have come out today against the survival of the defeated Mugabe regime and I was heartened by the more vociferous comments yesterday of Jacob Zuma, the ANC President in South Africa. Britain's TUC has also been urging a more interventionist approach by the South African Development Community (SADC): the group that has most clout with Zimbabwe and which, if they were minded to, could probably bring about the downfall of the Mugabe tyranny.

The Zimbabwe Vigil Coalition holds a vigil outside the Zimbabwe Embassy every Saturday between 2pm and 8pm.

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe's opposition leader - and the first-round winner of the Presidential election - Morgan Tsvangirai has withdrawn from the run-off election because what should have been a celebration of independent Africa has become a horror show of murder and terrorism.

It remains to be seen whether this move will end the campaign of terror that has led to the assault, torture and murder of many of his officials, MPs and candidates - it seems unlikely given that Zanu PF has said the election will still go ahead, and will want a huge vote on the pretext that this will somehow make them Zimbabwe's legitimate rulers.

What criticism and approbrium has been left unsaid about Robert Mugabe's terrorist, criminal regime that is stopping at nothing to prop up this octanagarian tyrant?

The breadbasket of Africa has become the basketcase of Africa.

The totally unacceptable situation in Zimbabwe is the second challenge to the international community in recent months (the other being Burma). Finally, finally, African leaders are beginning to speak out against the murders, torture, terrorism and vote-stealing that Mugabe is so blatantly carrying out. What a shame it took so many deaths, so much devastation, so shameless a rigging of the election before they stood up to be counted.

The West seems cowed by the imperialist ghosts Mugabe absurdly throws around, as if regaining control of his devastated country is a prospect any vaguely competently-run state would want.

South African Premier Thabo Mbeki has shamefully abrogated his responsibility as just about the only remaining Head of State with any influence over the madman destroying Zimbabwe.

And even the media - who I accept are hardly uncritical in their coverage of the elections - still cede too much to Mugabe. Why, for example, is the BBC still asserting that Tsvangirai did not win a majority of the votes cast in the first round: as copies of the statements from outside each polling station showed he did? Especially when the Mugabe controlled Electoral Commission spent three weeks sitting on (and opening up, illegally) the ballot boxes.

There should not even be a second round to this election, let alone one which Mugabe would have "won" even if he received not a single vote. If the international community does not take action to rid the world - and more importantly, Zimbabwe - of Mugabe it is not fit for purpose.

Burma

If you didn't see the report on last night's Newsnight by Dr Chris van Talluken; the first British aid worker given access to the Irrawaddy Delta, I'd strongly recommend it.

A small clip of the report can be viewed on the BBC website here. But you can watch the whole thing - which runs to about ten minutes, by watching the Newsnight programme: the report's about 31 minutes in, if you want to skip the other reports.

I should warn that some of the report is pretty unpleasant viewing as there remain bodies still not reclaimed two months after the hurricane. Among other extraordinary sights, Dr van Talluken meets someone who sustained extensive injuries to his back caused by nothing other than the sheer force of rain water driving into him.

This really is an extraordinary report that is not simply an attack on the Burmese junta, but is actually all the more damning for that.

Burma: enough's enough

I've been outspoken in my criticism of the Burmese junta that has abused, maligned, imprisoned and attacked its own people for far too long.

The evidence exposed on Wednesday by the BBC that the military regime is actively stopping aid reaching those suffering from the ravages of the hurricane almost two weeks after the tragedy struck is despicable.

On Tuesday I was elected Vice President of Putney United Nations Association (UNA). The UN has a clause within its Charter that allows it to intervene when a regime fails to protect its own people. If that clause was written to apply anywhere and at any time it is in Burma, now.

The UN Security Council is set up so that any one of the permanent members: the UK, US, Russia, China and France has a veto on action, and at least one of these five has an interest in (or alliance with) pretty much all of the non-permanent members.

The permanent member associated with Burma is China and we could normally expect strong opposition from them to any UN active intervention in this country. There are two reasons why China may not intervene in this case.

The first is that they're preoccupied with the response (and doing far more, far better) to their own earthquake disaster. The second is that the worldwide outrage that will be provoked by the actions of the Burmese Junta will - I hope - make it almost impossible for the Chinese government to block international action, especially as it would be doing so just weeks before the start of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

What does intervention mean? Well, at the very least, it is now time to commence humanitarian aid drops. We may need to go further, depending on how the junta reacts to UN intervention. But the only point of action now is humanitarian relief. And let's be clear: the UN struggled to deliver anything substantive when the junta attacked its people and jailed its monks last Autumn. Its argument then, that greater intervention was beyone its mandate, does not and should not apply today given the humanitarian crisis that is engulfing the people of Burma.

The world, through the UN, must act Burma. Now.

The Burma Cyclone

So, barely two years after the tsunami that devastated Thailand and the Indian coast in particular, Asia is again struggling to recover from another natural disaster; this time Cyclone Nargis in Burma.

As if the cyclone is not challenging enough to respond to, Burma has one of the most stifling, bureaucratic, secretive and oppressive political regimes anywhere in the world.

Twice last year I wrote about this regime and criticised the rapidly-moving news agenda that too quickly lost interest in the supression of the democracy protests there.

The military junta is doing all it can to give the impression that it is more concerned that the cyclone has re-focussed international attention on their country rather than the horrific loss of life of their citizenry.

There can be no other reason why their Government is dragging its feet on letting aid agencies into the country, why it continues to prevent the media from adequately reporting the tragedy and persists in forging ahead with ludicrous plans to hold a so-called constitutional "referendum" this weekend.

The world must assist the devastated people of Burma: we cannot play politics with international aid.

But Burma's two main exports - paddy fields and offshore natural gas fields - have been absolutely devastated by the Cyclone and in the long term the international community would be absolutely within its rights to explain in categorical terms to the military junta that reconstruction aid and assistance must be coupled with political reform.

And that means the release and reinstatement of Aung Sun Su Kyi, the nation's democratic, elected leader.

Boycotting the Beijing Olympics

There seem to be two camps in the row over whether Britain should boycott this year's Beijing Olympics: those who believe British participation in them condones China's utterly attrocious record on human rights, especially in respect of Tibet; and those who argue that Politics should not interfere with sport.

Although I'm strongly critical of China in respect of Tibet and their human rights (lack of) record, I can see the difficulty facing the Government. Matters are also complicated by the fact that the UK is going to be the next host of the Olympics - something that traditionally incurs additional public responsibilities at the preceding games.

But this doesn't have to be an "either/or" choice. We should try to keep politics and sport separate as far as possible. So our athletes should go to Beijing, without any criticism, pressure or censure from their fellow countrymen and women. But I'm struggling to see why politicians should attend - albeit that many of them have been looking forward to this junket for some time. I hope it won't come as too much of a devastation to our leaders that their presence will make little difference to the performance of those competing for Olympic honours.

However, it is naive to argue that never the twain shall meet between politics and sport. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has to be more aware of the political regimes of the countries that bid for the Olympics. This is not playing politics - the IOC has a charter setting out the Olympic ideals, and it must pay more than just lip-service to measuring whether bidder nations share those ideals. I struggle to see how China can reasonably claim to.

That, of course, cuts both ways. It has been mantra in the West for getting on for two decades at least that "bringing in" China and trading with them is far more likely to bring reform than isolation and criticism. As part of this process of inclusion Western governments strongly encouraged the IOC to look favourably on China's Olympic bid. The IOC must retain independence - because I can see very little reciprocity from China during this time that the West has been turning a blind eye to its misconduct.

Tibet

History doesn't usually repeat itself, but the parallels between the conduct of the Chinese Government in cracking down on Tibetans, and that of the Burmese dictatorship attacking the protests led by that country's monks are alarming.

When I wrote about the Burmese protests here and here, the international consensus was that China's opposition to Burma's behaviour was crucial because they are the regional power and carry greater influence with the ruling junta.

I was always somewhat concerned about this line of argument for the reasons that have become self-evident here: how can a regime that behaves in exactly the same way over Tibet be expected to be taken seriously by countries with equally dubious human rights records.

Of course there are differences between China's relationship with Tibet and Burma's with its own people; and the real politic of dealing with Asia's main superpower will lead many to treat it differently. But I for one was proud to see Gordon Brown offer to meet with the Dalai Lama the other day, and if that causes "dismay" within the Chinese government, so be it.

Benazir Bhutto 1953-2007

It is extraordinary how frequently major events occur during the Christmas period. In 1989, Romanian President Nikolai Chauchesku was overthrown - beginning the collapse of Communist Eastern Europe. Three years ago large tracts of South Asia were devastated by the Tsunami - and still haven't recovered.

Today the shocking news is that Benazir Bhutto, the Leader of the main opposition party in Pakistan has been murdered in a bomb attack.

The consequences of this terrorism should not be understated: the future of Pakistan as a democracy and of President Musharaf is now seriously in question. But today is a time to reflect on the contribution - and sacrifice - of Benazir Bhutto and her family (her father Ali was a previous Prime Minister and President of the country, overthrown and executed by the military in a coup in 1979).

What is clear is that Benazir Butto represented the single most significant opportunity Pakistan had for entrenching democratic values in the country. Pakistan is poised at a crossroads defined by two of its neighbours. It can either follow the path towards growing economic prosperity and democratic security that India is pursuing, or the far more troubled - and troubling - road that Afghanistan has suffered.

Benazir personified everything Afghanistan's former al Qaida-backed, Islamist-terrorist Taliban regime despised - elements of which are surely behind this bomb attack: a confident, imposing, articulate woman leader, a democrat, the separation of religion and government, optimism, economic growth, and unflinching, active opposition to terrorism.

Some are now calling for the Pakistan elections, scheduled for the New Year, to be called off as a mark of respect. While her party - the Pakistan People's Party - clearly needs space to regroup, it seems to me that the greatest mark of respect that could be paid to everything Mrs Bhutto stood for is for democratic, free and fair elections to go ahead.

Burma

Today the news agenda moves so fast that when stories stop getting coverage we often forget about them very easily. It's almost as though by losing interest in a story, the media are saying that the issue is resolved, or it no more of importance.

The fate of Burma is just such a story. In September, there was almost blanket coverage of the Monks' protest and the Military Dictatorship's draconian, outrageous and - I maintain - ultimately futile supression of that protest. In October I set out my views of the crisis, and how I would have liked the international community to respond here.

When it started, we had hopes that because it was led by Monks the regime would not dare crack down as they had in the past. We were sadly wrong. Today, the monasteries remain abandoned. Monks remain either imprisoned, or dispersed to rural communities where they are unable to foment trouble, as the regime would see it.

We need to keep the pressure up, even though there is little coverage of the problems. It isn't as though we have no leverage - China, the critical international player in this crisis is of course host of next year's Olympics which it doesn't want to be embarrassed over; so there is a real opportunity for the UN and individual countries to bring real pressure to bear.

There are three absolute priorities: all prisoners held as a result of this uprising must be released. The Monks must be allowed to return to their monasteries. And a roadmap to sincere political reform in Burma has to be drawn up, culminating in the release of Aung San Su Kyi - the democratically elected leader of that country.

The signs are the exact opposite. The UN envoy has been expelled. This has gone largely unreported, though it is a major concern. Without the media coverage, the international community will not feel any urgency to force change. And yet again the Burmese people will be left to stand alone against a regime they despise. Now is the time for the UN to demonstrate leadership, and show the world why it can be trusted to resolve today's diplomatic and human rights challenges.

United Nations Day Service

At the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the United Nations Day Service at the Shree Ghanapathy Hindu Temple in Effra Road, Wimbledon. I am a member of the Putney branch of the United Nations Association and joined fellow members and the Mayor of Wandsworth in marking UN Day.

The Service took place in the week that saw the launch of the UK United Nations Associations Lobby for the UN - a campaign to promote dialogue between voters and MPs about the UKs contribution to the UNs work in maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights and promoting sustainable development. In 2007-08 the lobby will focus on the UN's role in:

• Achieving the Millennium Development Goals
• Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• Banning cluster munitions
• Combating climate change
• Implementing the responsibility to protect

In these changing times so many of the threats to our peace and security are global whether it is international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to climate change and the continuing scar of world poverty. The UN despite its imperfections, remains the principal route through which Governments must come together to tackle these challenges.

The covenant with our armed forces

I believe passionately in supporting serving and former armed forces personnel and their families and if elected to Parliament they can expect me to be an advocate on their behalf.

So when I was at the Labour Party conference last week I made sure I attended the fringe meeting organised by the Royal British Legion. I talked with RBL officials and with the families of service personnel on active duty abroad and was moved by their stories of quiet heroism.

Conservative attacks on the Governments record are cynical and dishonest, especially given the way the last Conservative Government ran down our armed forces. However, I am clear that as we ask more and more of our service personnel we should continually reassess the level of support we provide to them and their families.

Thats why I welcome whole heartedly yesterdays announcement by the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Defence of extra funding for Wiltshire and Swindon coroner David Masters, who deals with inquests for service personnel repatriated through RAF Lyneham. The move is intended to deal with the continuing problem of inquest delays and backlogs. The bereaved families of service personnel who have been killed on active duty abroad should be entitled to know as quickly as possible the circumstances in which their loved ones died.

Burma

There is as I write growing concern about the fate of the brave Monks who last week took a stand against the ruling junta that is misgoverning Burma.

I want Britain, the EU and the world to take a firm stand on the unacceptable human rights abuses that have been tolerated for far too long. I know I'm not alone in this.

Although these are effortless and possibly inconsequential measures, a facebook group supporting the monks' protest had about 70,000 subscribers last Thursday. By Friday it was over 100,000; by the end of the weekend over 200,000 and earlier today the total passed 330,000. Just one of many online petitions to the UN has amassed over 36,000 signatures.

The biggest contribution Britain can make is pushing for much tougher EU action: the French oil giant Mobil is one of the biggest investors in Burma. Their involvement in the country must end. Britain itself has virtually no remaining major trade links with Burma but there are plenty of small businesses who do.

We have seen strong leadership from the ASEAN nations: every single member other than Burma itself has criticised the military response to peaceful protests. China, which can do more than any other nation has gone further than it ever has before to criticise the military junta, but it must go further: it remains the break on the UN Security Council taking far tougher action than it has been able to so far.

It's often hard to see any tangible results brought about by diplomacy. But international pressure is bringing results - far too slowly, but the regime would not have even countenanced meeting the UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari without such universal condemnation. We should not be grateful for this - but nor should we dismiss it as inconsequential either.

We in Britain must appreciate that as the former colonial power in this part of Asia, we cannot be seen to be reasserting our Imperialist tendencies, however just the cause. It must be the region that takes the lead on Burma: that means China, Japan and ASEAN. Britain's role must be to lead the UN Security Council towards unremitting, crystal clear opposition to the Burmese Junta.

What we need - and we rarely get - are sanctions to be observed by everyone. The reason Saddam Hussain piled up reserves while Iraqis starved is that too many multi-national corporations - and I'm afraid to say, nations - felt that sanctions applied to everyone else but them. If we can bring about a genuine embargo enforeced and abided by, then the chance of Aung Sun Suu Kyi being reinstated as Burma's rightful leader will be massively advanced.