Just as the oil price approaches $100 a barrel in the market we hear that Brazil has found substantial reserves, which could turn this considerable oil user into an oil exporter.
This level of price also makes the exploitation of tar sands, and the conversion of coal to fluid hydrocarbon more likely. The doom mongers who think the great oil economy is soon to be undermined by a lack of raw material should think again.
The BBC has managed to run pieces on petrol and diesel prices now going above ??1 a litre ( ??4.56 a gallon, $9.56 a gallon) and has even mentioned that there has been a recent hike in the fuel duty, but still they blame oil markets and not the government.
When will they tell their audience the truth, that two thirds of the price is tax and the main reason we pay such high prices for fuel is the rip off government?
I wrote two books around the turn of the twenty first century about the changing shape of great power politics. The first, "Stars and Strife" (2001) predicted that the European Union’s attempt to rival the USA would peter out, both because the population numbers of the EU would fall and because the EU would be unable and unwilling to spend enough on military technology and hardware to back up its foreign policy. The foreign policy too, would remain dogged by disagreements and differing national interests amongst EU states. Whilst the EU would become a substantial and more integrated economy with its own currency for most of the members, it was no contest when it came to superpower politics. Its economy would also continue to underperform the USA owing to the choice of a high tax high regulation model.
The second, "Superpower Struggles" (2005), predicted that the USA’s true long term rival would be China. I concluded "One day China will turn her new found economic power into military power as well. For the time being her success will be heavily concentrated in industrial products and product markets,and her main impact on the west will be felt in the rising price for commodities as Chinese demand surges. Unlike Japan, she will not remain neutral and lightly armed.As her economic success develops so too will her military and political might" (Rise of China)
I now realise that the rise of China is happening much more rapidly even than I thought a couple of years ago. China has accelerated her path to great power status by two main means, both related to her grasp of the capitalist system and her generation of huge surpluses on trade account. By the end of this year the Chinese trade surplus will be running at over $500 billion a year, and China will have foreign exchange reserves in excess of $1500 billion. She is using these surpluses to buy herself a strong position in parts of Africa, Asia and South America where there are important natural resources. China wants more control over and access to the raw materials that are needed to feed her powerful industrial machine. She also sees the political leverage this gives her over the nations that produce the commodities, creating a new kind of Chinese empire based on Chinese contracts to buy the commodities, and Chinese investment in extracting the materials from the ground.
China is also now in a position to demand a place at the table of the rich west, as she can have an important impact on the value of the dollar and the interest rate on dollar bonds. Her large holdings give her the power to support or undermine US markets by buying or selling clumsily. The large dollar and Euro reserves also enable China to buy any freely quoted company in the west she chooses, enabling China to buy technology and management by takeover of the whole company that has them. This is in addition to the wide variety of partnerships, investment contracts and other negotiated deals which give China access to Western technology at home as she invites in an increasing number of western companies to help develop the Chinese economy.
This has come about because China has been allowed to keep her currency relatively low for a long period, giving Chinese goods an even greater competitive advantage in world markets. At a comparable stage in Japanese development there was intense pressure for greater upwards movement in the yen. The USA has understood this issue, but has proved unable by diplomatic means to get a sufficient revaluation of the Chinese exchange rate.
We see the way this economic power is translating into political power. China has shown her ability to influence North Korea, and the USA has accepted China’s position in dealing with this difficult country. One day, after the Olympic games have revealed the extent of China’s economic transformation to the world, China will up the pressure to take over Taiwan. This issue may prove to be the test of the political maturity of both China and the USA. China has to judge if and when the USA will no longer think she can protect Taiwan from Chinese takeover and no longer has the will to do so, and the USA will have to judge if and when they reach the point where trying to keep Taiwan independent is unrealistic.
It is difficult to believe that yet another Labour Prime Minister, and yet another Labour team of senior law officers and Home Secretary have bought the crazy idea that to protect our liberties we first need to destroy them.
I find 28 days detention without trial or charge bad enough – the longest period in the free world. Doubling it to 56 days would make us a pariah of the free democracies, turning our back on the important advances this country pioneered to establish that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and has a right to life and liberty unless charged with a serious offence, the charge backed up by evidence and supported as a case to answer by a junior court.
Yesterday in the Queen’s Speech debate on security and crime I asked the Lord Chancellor (Jack Straw) if it really could be this government’s policy to let proven criminals who had been sentenced for serious crimes out early in order to make prison places available for people for up to 56 days against whom no charges were laid. He told me my question was not up to my usual standard. This was I guess a kind of back handed compliment, but answer came there none. So I take that to be a "Yes" then.
I do hope the government thinks again about this. I like them wish to prevent terrorism. The way to do it is not to change the rules of a free society, but to use them to ensure justice is done. By all means charge a terrorist suspect with a lesser charge and then take the power to carry on examining him or her to see if they should also stand trial for a more serious charge. A Court should be involved in the process so there is some external check on its use. iI necessary part of all of the proceedings could be in camera to protect the identity of informants and witnesses. Allow the prosecution to use in court all the evidence that led the authorities to suspect the individual in the first place. It is farcical if there is good intercept evidence that someone is about to commit a terrorist act, but this cannot be used so the authorities have to spend 56 days on a fishing expedition to try to find some other evidence.
We need to take tough action to try to prevent terrorism, but we must avoid locking up hundreds or even thousands of people -we are told there are 2000 being monitored – when we cannot bring any charge against them and when some if not many of them will be innocent.
Two representatives of the BAA came to a Lords Committee Room yesterday to hear the comments of Parliamentarians and to answer our questions. I would like to thank them for coming.
I asked them why they had allowed such chaos in our leading airports following the change of security requirements. I pointed out that the queues were unacceptable, and reflected badly on them There were not enough security screening devices, too few lines to queue in, and a set of procedures which are comples but not necessarily helpful to achieve greater security.
They replied that service had been poor immediately following the new regulations, but felt that it is now better at their airports. They said at the beginning they lacked staff, and were now recruiting more. They claimed they were now freeing more space for more lines and machinery. In discussion it emerged that the worst delays now were caused by government services for Immigration on the way into the country, and we were reminded that the security requirements were designed by the government rather than by the BAA.
Their latter points were carefully phrased as they understandably have no wish to have a row with the government. What we do need is a sensible discussion between government and Airports over the following:
1. Will the government place enough staff and enough desks in the Passport Control area to make sure we have properly policed borders, whilst allowing most people rapid entry or exit from the country? Apparently if two jumbos land at the same time it can take 45 minutes to clear Passport Control at Gatwick.
2. Will the government review the requirements for the security checks? Why do they insist on such complex checks before getting onto a plane, leaving so many people vulnerable to terrorist attack in the departure hall before security? Have they taken on board the fact that the last terrorist incident at an airport was an attempt to burn people in the departure area by driving a vehicle at the doors and igniting it?
3. Will the government review why they have such elaborate checks for flights and no checks at all for train travel? Have they taken on board the horrendous terrorist attacks on trains on the continent?
4. Will they ask why it is necessary for most people to have to take off shoes, and for all to have to show their after shave or face cream in a plastic bag at an airport? Will they exmaine how effective the video technology assisted baggage search is, in the light of findings in the USA that in some airports too many planted devices went undetected when they tested the system? Can’t more be done by the technology? Couldn’t more be done by random sampling rather than making everyone go through the same checks?
The truth is we are more likely to intercept terrorists by surveillance, infiltration of their networks, eavesdropping and by being observant and alert. We should be concentrating on those where the authorities have reason to think they might be terrorists, rather than on most people who just wish to get on with their lives and go about their business.