Interview With Greta van Susteren of FOX News

Interview

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

The Charles Hotel

Munich, Germany

February 6, 2011

---

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, nice to see you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Great to see you, Greta.

QUESTION: All right. Now, we expected that this conference would be about the START Treaty, and indeed it was; you exchanged the documents, the ratification documents, with Russia. But Egypt has sort of gone to the top of the topics. President Mubarak says that the protests and revolution will destabilize, leading to a rativized, fundamentalist government there. Scare tactics or possible?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Greta, first, I think it’s important to recognize that for 30 years, American governments, both Republican and Democratic administrations – certainly, this Administration under President Obama – have urged the Government of Egypt to do more on economic reform and political reform, because we believe that that kind of effort to democratize and create economic opportunity is in the best interests of long-term stability. So it’s not a choice between democracy, open markets, and stability and security. It does have to go together.

So what we’re seeing now is that the Egyptian people themselves are particularly motivated by young people demanding more rights, and the United States stands for democracy. We stand for human rights and for freedom. And we want to see an orderly transition. We want to see the process that has begun realize concrete steps that will lead to constitutional reform, the establishment of a set of political laws and regulations that will end in a free and fair election for a new president.

The United States is not, like any other country from the outside, making the decisions. But we are very clear – no violence by the government, peaceful protests, orderly transition, and we know the outcomes we seek.

QUESTION: Two issues with that, and I realize it’s a very complicated problem, but on the protestors, they’re not anxious to have this sort of orderly transition. I mean, they don’t want orderly, but they want it now. They don’t want President Mubarak to be in office until September and run. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is as we sort of publicly state that we support the protestors and their quest to get orderly transition, we send a message to our allies that, well, if – we don’t – not necessarily always stick with you. So how do you walk that line?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I think that Egypt is a great country with a very storied past of 7,000 years. And this is one of those moments in its history where the Egyptian people must themselves determine their future. And we have made it one of our principles in responding to what they themselves are doing that the voices of the protestors demanding freedom are legitimate and should not be suppressed, and in fact, should be listened to.

But we recognize, as do many of those who are now stepping forward from the opposition, civil society, political factions, that the country has to come together and reach an agreement about how best to proceed, because there are many ways this could go that are not in the best interests of Egypt, the region, or the United States. At the end, we know we want to see a peaceful and orderly transition. How we get there is going to be up to the Egyptians themselves.

With respect to our allies in the region, last month in Doha – before Tunisia, before Egypt – I said that we saw the foundations of a lot of these governments sinking into the sand in the region, because what was possible for them to maintain authoritarian regimes 10, 15, 20 years ago is no longer possible.

Technology has changed that. People are communicating. They know what goes on far beyond their borders, and particularly young people. And what’s so remarkable and what I called a perfect storm in my remarks here in Munich is that you have technology communication with a youth bulge – some of these countries have 50 percent to two-thirds of their population under 35, under 30 – with a very clear problem in the economies of these countries. They’re not producing enough jobs, so young people get out of college, they can’t find work. That is a recipe for unrest.

It’s not motivated by any ideology or any extremism yet; this has been organic. It came initially in Tunisia from a young man, a college graduate, whose only job that he could find was selling fruit on the streets and then he was harassed by the police and he set himself on fire. That literally ignited a revolution in Tunisia. That spread to Egypt with young people looking at each other, saying, “I can’t get a job. There’s so much corruption. I can’t find my way in anywhere because the elite won’t let me.” People then went to the streets.

So this is something I talked about a month ago. It is now being acted out in real time. And the United States very much supports the aspirations, but we do know that each country will have to find its own path forward. And obviously, we want to see end results that are not destabilizing, not giving safe haven to extremism, that actually produce a better outcome for the people who are asking for it.

QUESTION: But how do we do that? I mean, the big elephant in the room is that if the protestors – let’s say that they got what they want today, that Mubarak leaves, they have an election and they elect someone that is not something – that is not a strategic interest, and suddenly, we’ve got a situation like Iran? Number one, is that a probability or a possibility? And number two, then what do we do? Because that certainly then is very destabilizing in the region, especially for Israel.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we care deeply that what comes next in Egypt respects international agreements, including the peace treaty with Israel. That peace treaty has kept Egyptians and Israelis from dying and from having to wage continuous war for 30 years.

QUESTION: Yeah, we love it – I mean, we like it, we think it’s important.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: But what if the next group doesn’t?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but I think number one, we obviously would like to see responsible leadership in Egypt that recognizes it’s not in their interest to tear up a peace treaty while they’re trying to rebuild an economy, try to open up opportunities for young people, and engage in political reform that leads to democracy.

QUESTION: How do we do it, though? But how do we do that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, we have a choice. We can pretend this is not happening and wish that Twitter and Facebook and all those things had never been invented. That is not an option. We can turn our backs on our own values. We do stand for democracy, we do stand for human rights. We always have. We do business with lots of governments who we do not see eye to eye on, but there are strategic reasons that we do, and we will continue to do so.

Or we can do what I think President Obama has very well done, which is to say, look, here are the principles that we believe should be followed during this transition. We cannot reach in and move the players around on the chess board. That has to be an Egyptian-led, Egyptian-run process. Everybody recognizes that. But we can hold out the promise of what does lie in the future.

Most of the people who began to demonstrate in Egypt were driven by a desire for more political freedom and economic opportunity. The United States is very good about helping countries realize economic opportunity, and we think we can offer that. We’re also very good at helping countries, as we did after the Berlin Wall fell, in moving from authoritarianism to democracy. It’s not perfect, it is not predictable, but I think it’s a better course for us to follow.

QUESTION: You raised the issue about the diplomatic tension between the moral considerations and the strategic considerations. We do business with a lot of people who do all sorts of human violation – human rights violations. There’s a lot of complaining, clamor, assertions about human rights violations in Egypt. Where do we draw the line? From a purely political standpoint, how do we decide where we should lean on, being – the moral considerations or the strategic?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Greta, first and foremost, we’re guided by a very clear North Star – we stand for America’s interests and America’s values, and we protect America’s security. So there are different applications of that depending upon each situation. We never give up on our values, we’re always very clear about those – sometimes more publicly, sometimes more privately, but consistently, which is what this Administration has done.

But we also have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. We just hosted a very successful state visit for President Hu Jintao of China. We have a lot of business with China. We always raise human rights. And for the first time in a public setting, President Hu Jintao, in his press conference with President Obama, said, yes, there is more work to be done on human rights in China. Now --

QUESTION: But he says that – but they say that – they said it publicly, but they say that often to us privately, and I realize that we have to think of our interests, but oftentimes, we do look a little bit the other way on human rights.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but --

QUESTION: I mean historically. Not – I’m not saying --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no, but --

QUESTION: -- you or this Administration, but historically.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but Greta, we have – that’s why I say that we always stand for our values, we always pursue our interests, and we always protect our security. That’s what we get paid for in the position I hold or in the President’s position. And we are very clear about that. But we know that consistently pushing for more economic opportunity, more human rights, more democracy is in America’s interests in all three categories. But we cannot wave a magic wand. We don’t have some kind of ultimate power. We lead by our example and we lead by all of the different assets we can deploy as the leading nation in the world.

But we also recognize there are different historical experiences, different cultural experiences, different aspects of how countries view what we constantly are advocating. So do we say to ourselves, because there are human rights problems in China, we don’t deal with China? No. We say – we keep raising those, but we have economic, strategic, and other very important interests that matter to America.

Similarly with Egypt, for 30 years, president after president has said the same message – it would be better for Egypt, it would be in Egypt’s interests. But we also respected and appreciated the role that Egypt played in making peace with Israel, keeping peace with Israel, being a good partner to the United States in the first Gulf war and in so many other ways.

So I wish there were some kind of absolutist answer that could be given in every situation that I face around the world, but I think that the clear message that I want to give your viewers is that the United States stands strongly for our values, we pursue our interests, we protect our security. But we never give up on making the case to countries and people around the world what we believe is ultimately in their best interest as well as ours.

QUESTION: You mentioned the difference in the cultural – between the different countries or among the different countries. Prime Minister Cameron said here in Munich that multiculturalism has failed, and that, of course, is going to ignite a huge controversy or a big debate. What’s your thought about what he said about multiculturalism and how we’re not – that in his country, I assume he’s talking about, that it has bred radicalism?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I didn’t hear Prime Minister Cameron’s speech. I actually met with him yesterday morning and we talked a lot about Egypt and many other issues in the world. So I can’t speak to what he said. But what I would respond is that the United States, which has historically been an open society – welcoming of immigrants, creating a meritocracy, providing opportunity for people – has been able to manage a pluralistic, diverse society based on what we all believe as Americans.

And I think it’s important for every country to be both clear about what you stand for as a nation, what your basic values are, but at the same time welcome those who come from different backgrounds, and through the power of example, through inclusiveness, through economic opportunities and meritocracy and what America has historically stood for, people feel comfortable being both from somewhere else and being fully American.

QUESTION: But is there a line? I mean, I guess the best example is the Fort Hood example, where I think people looked the other way at some hateful things that he was involved with, and then all of a sudden, we had the tragedy at Fort Hood where people were gunned down. Where do we draw the line in terms of how we look at other people or even how we look at our culture? Because a lot of people in the United States are – that whole – even the issue of racial profiling, I mean, it’s a very sensitive and complicated issue.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is, and look, I think that evidence is coming out that demonstrates people should have paid more attention to what the defendant in the Fort Hood case has been saying and doing. There’s nothing that prevents us from being vigilant. In fact, freedom requires vigilance, and certainly our security in today’s world requires vigilance. But one of the great gifts that we have given ourselves during our history is that we have created a level of trust among people that is quite remarkable.

I had the great honor of representing New York, and every time I went to New York City as a senator and I saw people from literally every country in the world speaking every language, working together, going to school together, walking down the street together – you don’t find that kind of integration of different backgrounds as easily in our country as you do anywhere else. We have that. It is an enormous benefit to us.

QUESTION: So how multiculturalism not failed, though? Would you take – would you disagree? I realize you didn’t hear --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I did not hear, no.

QUESTION: -- the prime minister, but do you disagree that that --

SECRETARY CLINTON: See, I don't know what he meant by it. I don't know what people mean by it. What’s great about America is that we are all Americans, but we bring our diversity to the table. I mean, we sit as an American family with different cultures, different ethnicities, different religions, different food. I mean, it has enriched us enormously, and I think it positions us to be in a very good place going into the future, where that problem of how to deal with difference is going to be increasingly forefront. And we have to show by our example how we did it right here at home.

QUESTION: Okay. Now a different topic: The numbers are in. According to the tally, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on the road 165 days, 40 trips, and you have edged out Secretary Rice in the first two days. And I would like to say both women beat the men.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: So I’d just like to say that you have won the two-year travel award on behalf of the Secretary of State competition.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m exhausted just hearing you mention it to me. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: It is quite daunting. I was surprised. But it – the gentlemen apparently can’t keep up with you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't know if it’s so much gender as it is the fact that Secretary Rice and I both served at a time when, ironically, despite advances in modern communication, there was more demand for us to show up. That has been quite surprising to me. I mean, we could do a videoconference with our counterparts anywhere in the world at just the flick of a switch. But almost because it’s so easy to communicate, people want to see us. So we’re out there on the road a lot.

QUESTION: And it really – I mean, it is so enormously complicated what’s going on in the world.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It is, it is.

QUESTION: I mean, every time you move a chess piece here in this country, you’re creating an issue here or someone’s got a complaint and it’s --

SECRETARY CLINTON: The last --

QUESTION: You don’t realize how complicated this is.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have to say, Greta, the last 30 years have seen so many cataclysmic movements. And we think about the fall of the Berlin Wall a little over 20 years ago – hugely historically important. But there’s so much else that has just been buffeting the world in the last 30 years that the United States is very much caught up in and determined to continue to lead.

But the easy answers that were there in the Cold War – you were either with us or against us, and we were either for or against totalitarianism and communism – it’s so much more complex now. And it requires us to be more agile and understanding of what other people are thinking so that we can then try to influence them. If you don’t know what others are experiencing or how they see the world, it’s very difficult for us to come in and say, here’s what we think you should do. You’ve got to come in aware of how they are viewing you and viewing themselves and place yourself, to some extent, in their shoes while you try to promote America’s interests.

So it is a very challenging time to be in the positions that we’re in, but the President is very clear about the direction that we’re heading, and I feel very strongly that we are managing some quite challenging times that will eventually accrue to the benefit of our country if we can see our way clear.

QUESTION: And they’re all unexpected, and the enormity of them are unknown to all.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And so many of them at one time.

QUESTION: So many at one time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

Press release

Wednesday 9 February 2011

For immediate use


The 21st century welfare state: Radical change is change that sticks - Byrne

Speech to IPPR


Text of a speech given by Liam Byrne MP, Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, to the IPPR today.

- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY -

Nick can I start with a big thanks to you and the IPPR for hosting us this morning.

Since you arrived you have helped create one of the leading centres for fresh thought in politics.

You have brought together some of the best minds in the business.

And you are bringing verve and intellectual excitement to the task of thinking about Britain’s future.

In that future, one of the greatest challenges we confront is reform of the welfare state.

Next week we expect sight of the government’s welfare reform bill.

And so today, I want to set out Labour principles by which we will judge whether the government is taking reform in the right or the wrong direction.

I feel very privileged to be following Douglas Alexander who has set out a thoughtful, careful and intelligent approach.

I shall try my best to follow him.

I think I should start by putting my cards on the table.

My views have been profoundly shaped by the experience of serving these last six years, a community with the second highest unemployment in our country.

I don’t have to tour the country to confront the plight of poverty.

I confront it at work every day.

That experience has inspired my work bringing £133 million of new investment into the constituency. In developing community service in our schools. And, in piloting new approaches to getting people back to work.

That experience is why I passionately believe in radical welfare reform.

And that experience is why I want to argue this morning that the test of a radical welfare reformer is not the faculty to dream some grand new theory.

It is the force and focus to deliver a bold new settlement in practice.

Not on paper. Not in Westminster. But in every corner of our country.

That was the test that Beveridge passed with the foundation of the welfare state.

That was the test new Labour passed with the New Deal and Job Centre Plus and reform of incapacity benefits and job guarantees and Pension Credit and the Turner Commission.

And it is the test the Conservative-led Government must pass as they seek to build on our work.

In the decade before the crash we halved unemployment and cut poverty and got the number of people on Incapacity Benefit falling and got employment up to a record high and the numbers on out of work benefits down by a million.

We didn’t allow unemployment to top three million once, never mind twice as under the Conservatives.

We didn’t watch the numbers on Incapacity Benefit treble, as the Conservatives did.

We didn’t watch social security spending rise; we watched it fall.

So I agree with the man who described our achievements as ‘remarkable’.

That man was of course the government’s very own Welfare Reform minister, Lord Freud.
But, when you look at things from where I stand in Hodge Hill you have to say it wasn’t all perfect.

The business of reform might never have stopped.

But we weren’t driving permanently at top speed.

That is what many of us here today, many of our voters and many of our party members wanted to see.

You know in one private poll we found 85% of Labour Party members supported the measures in our Welfare Reform Bill which cut benefits for those that refused to do the right thing?

On occasion, we needed the same single-minded determination to reform welfare that almost every Labour party member thought was right.

To act on any and every opportunity to ensure that the welfare state was not a way of life, but a way on in life.

When you serve a community like mine; when you see the wasted potential every day; when you work with the children that I serve, then you believe that no other pace of good reform but the very fastest will do.

So that is why I speak from the heart when I say that where the government is acting to put in place radical welfare reform that works, I will support them.

It’s why we will support the principles of Universal Credit because it advances the revolution we pioneered with tax credits, to make sure work pays.

It’s why we will support the principles new Work Programme which advances the revolution of the Flexible New Deal.

And it’s why if the government’s new contracts are delivering and offering value for money, we will not cancel them if we are elected in 2015.

Where this government is wrong, we will offer opposition inspired not by a thirst for political posture, but by a passionate belief that every citizen of this country, young and old alike, can do more, achieve more, be more, if we have a radical welfare reform that gives people the power to lead the life they would choose.

I think the public has a right to know the way we think about the government’s approach. So this morning I want to set out three tests by which we will judge whether this government has got it right.

The first test is perhaps the most important in the circumstances.

The government says it has a plan that is fiscally credible. But is it fiscally deliverable?

Are they in fact presenting us with a list not of economies, but false economies.

My fear is that the government is determined to fail this test by ignoring the most important lesson of New Labour’s era.

That hard work is the secret to national prosperity. There isn’t another way.

Over our years in office, we invested in repairing and renewing Britain’s health, education and police service, and transferring welfare payments to help close the inequality gap.

The result was that while the economy grew, inequality did not rise in the UK, unlike almost every other OECD country.

When the OECD reported on their global survey in 2008, they said the UK was one of just three nations where inequality was falling.

Overwhelmingly this was financed by delivering one of the highest employment rates in the world.

In the years before the crash, tax receipts rose by around £129 billion;

Nearly two thirds of these receipts came from income tax and national insurance contributions – in other words, from people in work paying their taxes.

Now with growth now stalling, our recovery is in the slow lane.

Without jobs, the challenge for the country is this.

You can make plan all the welfare reform you like.

But you can’t have welfare to work without work.

Without a faster growing economy, the government’s changes won’t push people into a job. They will push them into a corner.

The recession has now been over for more than a year.

Unemployment should be falling.

Instead, you at the IPPR are warning of a double dip in employment.

Instead 5 unemployed people are chasing every job vacancy that is advertised.

Instead, in over 120 constituencies, more than ten unemployed people are chasing every job.

Did you know the OBR has so much confidence in the government’s welfare to work plan that it is predicting the employment rate will fall throughout this parliament.

This failure is costing us a fortune.

An extra £500 million in welfare payments for every 100,000 extra out of work – that’s nearly £1,000 a minute.

Worse, this failure has profound consequences for the contract we expect of citizens in this country.

For over a decade now, Labour’s approach has been clear. If you can work, you should.

That’s why we toughened the contract year by year.

Setting out new responsibilities on people to take a job when one was offered, or face the sanction of a cut in benefits.

This was especially important for young people.

Our deal was simple.

The Future Jobs Fund offered every young person a job if they had been out of work for 6 months.

But we were clear that if young people didn’t take up that chance, they would be no easy life on benefits.

Now that contract is gone.

Back in 1983, Mrs Thatcher, faced with unemployment rocketing up beyond 3 million people, ended the obligation to work if you could.

The result was high unemployment that lingered for years.

Now the government is repeating the mistake.

Because the Tories can’t offer our young people jobs, they have stopped demanding of them any obligation to work.
This isn’t just a worry to young people.

Last Thursday, an older resident of the Bromford estate in my constituency said this to me:
“We worked hard all our lives. We paid our stamp all our lives. We helped make this country great. But if our young people don’t work who’s going to pay for the future? Everything we worked for will be gone.”

So, this is our first test.

Is what you say fiscally credible, actually fiscally deliverable? Will it save us money?

It’s the same test we’ll apply to Housing Benefit reform.

We agree with the need for Housing Benefit reform.

But the way the government wants to take £2 billion out of the system is so clumsy that frankly the costs of homelessness could swallow the money they save.

Last week the National Housing Federation revealed 9 out of 10 landlords won’t cut rents.

And last week, the government slipped out a Parliamentary answer to Douglas which said the cost of housing benefit over this parliament isn’t going to fall. It’s going to rise – by over £1 billion.

That is not what I call sorting out Housing Benefit.

My second test is this. Do your reforms foster ambition, and advance compassion?

That was the New Labour way. We called it social justice, and it was you here at the IPPR that pioneered our approach with your Commission on Social Justice.

An approach that got people into work. Made sure work paid. And supported each of us at times of need.

It helped people stand on their two feet and recognised that all of us have times when we need our neighbours.

My message to the government is simple.

Where your work builds on our record, evolves our approach, we will support you.

That’s why I support Universal Credit because it builds on the revolution we pioneered to make sure work pays.

But I have to say to the government:

You don’t foster ambition to work when you increase by 20,000 the number of people facing marginal deduction rates of 90%.

You don’t foster ambition to work harder when Universal Credit will see 2m workers see an increase in their marginal deduction rate, more than the number who benefit.

You don’t foster ambition when you double the effective marginal tax for 175,000 people who earn £40,000.

And you don’t foster the ambition to save, if as the IFS forecasts, you take Universal Credit from anyone with savings of £16,000 and above.

I’m afraid this government is failing the compassion test too.

Cutting Housing Benefit by 10% if you’ve been out of work for a year is not compassionate; it’s not supportive; it’s a punishment and I call on the government to think again.
It’s not compassionate to cut mobility money for those in residential care
These people are amongst the most vulnerable in our society.

This is not compassionate, is not supportive, it is a punishment for people who need our help.

My final test is what these changes mean for working people, especially those families feeling the squeeze.

We will be the party that stands up for the squeezed middle.

The welfare state in this country is not simply a safety net.

It’s a something for something deal. You pay in good times. And get help when times are tough or needs are great.

It rewards those who do the right thing.

It helps millions of hard-working families with a welcome boost to the pay-packet.

It helps us make sure that work pays.

And it helps families with the costs of the greatest and most important challenge in life; the challenge of being a good parent.

In this way, the welfare state is much more than a safety net; it helps with the way on in life.

It is what helps everyone in our country, no matter their background, stay connected to the economic advances we make as a nation.

It helps puts the mobility into social mobility.

It is what helps a society become a good society.

Yet families today face what the governor of the Bank of England calls the biggest squeeze on living standards since the 1920s.

With few jobs to go round, wages are flat. Yet prices are rising fast.

We now risk a third of our families falling further and further behind the average national progress in the decade ahead.

This is why the future of the welfare state is so crucial to the kind of nation that is forged in the years ahead.

So you might expect the government to step in to help.

Not a bit of it.

This April will bring 10 Tory raids on family budgets – more than half on help with raising children.

And that’s before the increase in VAT.

Let’s be clear – we support the need for welfare savings to get the deficit down.

We don’t oppose over three-quarters of the principled and burden-sharing welfare savings and efficiencies the government is making next year.

The switch in up-rating from RPI to CPI helps diffuse savings from across the system – but it shouldn’t be forever.

I don’t think a one year cut-off to contributory ESA is right – that could hit people recovering from cancer.

But a two year limit could work; and DLA reform is needed – but very careful change is the right approach.

A carefully designed new gateway for DLA could make sense.

But reform driven by a top-down cuts target risks denying support for those in search of a more independent life.

Yet, let’s be clear.

This government likes to say it’s balancing the books by slashing welfare.

George Osborne boasted of his £18 billion cut.

He’s likes to pretend he’s punishing ‘shirkers not workers’.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As you’ve pointed out here at the IPPR once you factor out the change in uprating, over half of George Osborne’s welfare cut hit the pay packets of the people in work.

This government is squeezing the middle of our country like there’s no tomorrow.

£3 billion pounds will come off support for working families; starting with a £1 billion raid on pay packets starting in April.

Yet, do you know that two-thirds of that raid is to pay for unemployment being higher than the OBR expected under Labour?

The government has put the recovery in the slow lane and the squeezed middle is paying for it.

And that’s before the raids on children.

By the end of the parliament, the government will have slashed the support for families with children by nearly £3.4 billion.

That is a billion pounds more than the special tax on bankers.

Let me ask you, what kind of government takes a billion pounds more off children than bankers?

For some, that squeeze is almost unbelievably unfair. Women in their late 50s are being told they’ve got to work an extra two years without a pension. How do they get the extra savings together?

A deputy head with a partner working part-time now faces paying a new higher rate of tax, and then the loss of their child benefit. How do they save for their children’s higher education?

A young family with a modest income but degrees under their belts are losing tax credits, child tax credits, and child trust funds. How do they now save for a deposit?

A retired couple on occupational pensions are watching inflation erode their savings, VAT eat their weekly budget and now prices are rising faster than their state pension. How do they afford the retirement they worked so hard to enjoy?

These are the people we will stand up for. These are the people paying for this government’s economic policy. And we will seek to defend them.

So these are our tests for Iain Duncan Smith:

Are your plans real economies or false economies? Without work, without jobs, we fear the worst.
Will your plans foster ambition and advance compassion? Where they do, we will support you.

And what are you doing to stand up to the Chancellor who seems hell bent on squeezing the hard-working majority of our country until the pips squeak?

Unless the government meets the tests I set out today, it will not pass muster as radical welfare reformers.

But nor will Labour win back that mantle by sitting as armchair critics.

We lost 5 million votes between 1997 and 2010.

I believe many were lost because people thought we had lost our edge as radical welfare reformers.

So this year, the fight for jobs will distinguish our election campaign.

But we must answer bigger questions for the future.

Next week I plan to set out the detail of our policy review on delivering full employment, re-forging the welfare state for the 21st century and delivering justice, fairness and security for those in old age.

We aim to report in June as part of the policy review I am coordinating for Ed Miliband.

Let me conclude with this.

If my experience of working in Hodge Hill has taught me one thing, it is that too many parts of our country face the challenge of a failure of power.

The absence of power that stops a neighbour walking where they like for fear of crime.

The absence of power that stops a young student going to college even though she has the grades.

The absence of power that stops someone getting a job, even though they too like the rest of us, thirst for a better life.

Labour’s vision for radical welfare reform must be to to fix those power failures.

At its best, politics in Britain has defined the big challenges we face on the road ahead – and been bold in the answers we’ve delivered.

At its worst, politicians talk big, and then tinker around the edges.

Nowhere is this more true than the welfare state.

There are few better examples than the welfare state of how by acting together we help ensure that each of us achieves more than we can alone.

The big challenge is to flourish in the new global economy that today links 6 billion of the world’s 7 billion people.

And to ensure that all of our citizens, not just the lucky ones, share in the new wealth that it is possible to create.

My ambition is that it will be the Labour party that once again sets the terms of debate; defines the change we need; and shows how we make that change stick.

That would earn us once again, the mantle of radical welfare reformers.


Ends



Editor's notes:



















Secretary Clinton traveled to Munich, Germany, February 4 to 6, to participate in the Munich Security Conference where she conducted a series of bilateral meetings and gave remarks highlighting the importance of the transatlantic security relationship.

MODERATOR: The Secretary of State of the United States of America Hillary Clinton, welcome. You were here in the earlier capacity as a United States Senator, but this is actually the first time, according to what I know about the 47 seven years of this conference, that we’ve had the pleasure of welcoming the Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton. (Applause.)

And to conclude the round of premiers is the fact that also this year for the first time do we have the pleasure of welcoming the President of the European Council, a position which was created with the Treaty of Lisbon. It is a great event today to have you, Herman von Rompuy, be with us and speak to us after the Secretary. (Applause.)

I would like to, before we get started, to remind you all that we will have at – around 6:00 this afternoon a special hour on the events in the Arab world in Egypt, et cetera, and will be tacked onto the program, and you will have terrific versions of the program heading out over the next hour or more. So without further ado, it’s my great pleasure to offer the floor to you, Mrs. Secretary. (Applause.)


SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good morning, and it’s very good to back in Munich. Thank you, Wolfgang, for your continuing leadership, and it was wonderful to see Chancellor Merkel earlier today, and I’m here with so many of my colleagues, and, of course, Foreign Minister Westerwelle and all who are working on behalf of our common objectives.

I’m also delighted to be sharing this session with the President. I’m looking forward to our discussion and will be meeting later with Lady Ashton who has become an indispensible partner on so many issues during the last 14 months.

I want to make remarks on two important subjects briefly. First, America’s enduring commitment to Europe and European security and then how we view the recent upheaval in the Arab world. The events unfolding on Europe’s doorstep remind us that in today’s interconnected world, rapid change is the new norm. The past several years have been difficult on both sides of the Atlantic. The United States face down the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. We have broken the back of the recession, but we are still challenged by high unemployment in debt.

In Europe, the financial crisis has caused deep pain and anxiety about the health of the Euro-zone. And I know that from time to time, on your side of the Atlantic, critics worry that America is preoccupied with its domestic problems or distracted by Afghanistan and other global issues.

On our side, critics fear Europe’s fiscal difficulties and political constraints will prevent it from remaining a robust partner in promoting global security. But the contents of my inbox tell a very different story. They show a strategic partnership between Europe and the United States that has never been stronger.

On the economic front, the ties between us run deep. The transatlantic economy accounts for more than half of world trade, and when it comes to investment, the numbers are higher still. Now, these figures will change over time. And emerging markets are, indeed, promising. But our partnership is proven, and it must endure if we are to promote sound market-driven economic policies in countries around the world, level playing fields, and fight protectionist forces in an increasingly globalized economy.

This is crucial work because strong economies are the ultimate foundation for our security and leadership. We are also working together to fight poverty, disease, and hunger. The United States and Europe together are responsible for nearly 80 percent of all international development aid. And this, too, is an essential component of common security. We have seen over and over again that healthy prosperous societies are more likely to be good partners, and of course, we work together to secure peace.

In Afghanistan, nearly 40,000 Europeans serve alongside U.S. troops and those of 47 other nations in the International Security and Assistance Force. Together we are striving to build a durable peace by training Afghanistan’s police and army, and it is a strategy that is beginning to bear fruit. And we are stretching beyond traditional military solutions. In so many aspects of our partnership in Afghanistan, we see a difference.

On Iran, Europe and the United States joined together to give Tehran a clear choice: Meet your international commitments to demonstrate that your nuclear program is peaceful, or face increasing pressure and isolation. And last year, Russia joined us in voting for tough Security Council sanctions, an important precedent that we intend to build on.

In many other regions, we are also cooperating – preventing violence during the referendum on Southern Sudan, curbing piracy off the Horn of Africa, taking a unified stance on Belarus to support free and fair elections, defending civil society where it is under pressure, imposing sanctions on those responsible for human rights violations, promoting economic growth and democratic governance in the Western Balkans, and working to integrate the region more deeply with the EU and NATO remains a shared goal. In all of these ways and many more, our relationship with Europe is, as President Obama put it, the cornerstone of our engagement with the world and a catalyst for global cooperation.

But we are not standing pat. Our relationship continues to evolve. We’ve been working together to modernize and enhance the European security architecture, an effort that culminated with the approval of NATO’s new strategic concept in Lisbon last year. As Secretary Gates has noted, now that the strategic concept has been approved, we are reviewing its implications for the U.S. force structure in Europe. Ultimately, our decision will be guided by a fundamental principle: We will maintain the necessary balance of forces and capabilities to meet our enduring commitment to Article Five. And we will maintain our ability to protect ourselves and our allies, not just against traditional threats, but also new ones such as cyber attacks, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps none of these threats is more pressing today than the proliferation of ballistic missiles. President Obama has outlined a new approach to European missile defense which was endorsed by allied leaders in Lisbon. The European phased-adaptive approach will protect us against the current generation of missiles. And it will evolve over time as the threat evolves. This year we will be taking missile defense off the drawing board and putting it into action starting with the deployment of radar systems on land and Aegis ships in the Mediterranean.

We have made it absolutely clear we will not accept any constraints on our missile defenses. The U.S. Government will do what is necessary to protect America, our forces, our allies and friends from attacks, from countries outside of Europe. In Lisbon, allied leaders also reaffirmed our desire to cooperate with Russia on missile defense and President Medvedev embraced that idea. We seek a genuinely cooperative approach to this common challenge; one that strengthens cooperation with Russia and increases our common security while maintaining strategic stability. We have already started that conversation with Moscow about how this can be accomplished in practice, and we are eager to begin a joint analysis, joint exercises, and sharing of early warning data that could form the basis for a cooperative missile defense system. We will work together to ensure that our missile defense systems are mutually reinforcing.

The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia is another example of the kind of clear-eyed cooperation that is in everyone’s interests. I am delighted that Minister Lavrov and I will be exchanging instruments of ratification of the New START Treaty later today. We will also discuss further arms control issues including nonstrategic and non-deployed nuclear weapons and our ongoing work to revive, strengthen, and modernize the regime on conventional forces.

The work we are doing together today is part of a journey we have been taking for more than 60 years. Since the end of World War II, we have worked shoulder to shoulder to advance security and freedom throughout Europe to create a Europe that is whole, secure, and free. We have seen many nations make democratic transitions and begin contributing to growing stability and security across the continent and across the Atlantic. This project is not yet complete, and it has not always been easy, but we see its benefits again and again as more free nations share in the progress of the Euro-Atlantic community.

In the Middle East, we have not yet seen security and democratic development converge in the same way. Let me offer a few observations about where we’ve come from and where we need to go. We have built strong security partnerships with countries across the region to promote peace between Israel and her neighbors, to curb Iran’s dangerous nuclear ambitions, to support economic development, to stop the spread of terrorism, and we will continue to advance these goals, these goals we believe are essential to American and European security as well as the security of the people in the region.

For decades, though, most of these same governments have not pursued the kind of political and economic reforms that would make them more democratic, responsible, and accountable. In Doha last month, I urged the leaders of the region to address the needs and aspirations of their people and offer a positive vision for the future for their sake and for ours because the region is being battered by a perfect storm of powerful trends. A growing majority of its people are under the age of 30. Many of these young people, even the most educated among them, cannot find work.

At the same time, however, they are more connected with each other and with events occurring around them because of technology. And this generation is rightly demanding that their governments become more effective, more responsive, and more open. All of this is taking place against a backdrop of depleting resources. Water tables are dropping, and oil reserves are running out.

Leaders in the region may be able to hold back the tide for a little while, but not for long. That has been the story of the last weeks. It is what has driven demonstrators into the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and cities throughout the area. The status quo is simply not sustainable. So for all our friends, for all the friends in the region including governments and people, the challenge is to help our partners take systematic steps to usher in a better future where people’s voices are heard, their rights respected, and their aspirations met.

This is not simply a matter of idealism. It is a strategic necessity. Without genuine progress toward open and accountable political systems, the gap between people and their governments will only grow, and instability will only deepen. Across the region, there must be clear and real progress toward open, transparent, fair, and accountable systems. Now, in some countries, this transition is happening quickly; in others it will take more time. Different countries face different circumstances.

And of course, there are risks. There are risks with the transition to democracy. It can be chaotic. It can cause short-term instability. Even worse – and we have seen it before – the transition can backslide into just another authoritarian regime. Revolutions have overthrown dictators in the name of democracy only to see the political process hijacked by new autocrats who use violence, deception, and rigged elections to stay in power or to advance an agenda of extremism.

So the transition to democracy will only work if it is deliberate, inclusive, and transparent. Those who want to participate in the political system must commit to basic principles such as renouncing violence as a tool of political coercion, respecting the rights of minorities – ethnic and religious minorities, participating in a spirit of tolerance and compromise. Those who refuse to make those commitments do not deserve a seat at the table. We will continue to champion free and fair elections as an essential part of building and maintaining a democracy.

But we know elections alone are not sufficient. They’re not even sufficient to secure lasting change. So we also must work together to support the institutions of good governance, the rule of law and an independent judiciary, transparency and a free press, strong political parties, protection for the rights of minorities and more, because those, indeed, are the building blocks of a true democracy.

The transition to democracy is more likely to be peaceful and permanent when it involves both the government in power and a broad cross-section of the citizenry. So in addition to supporting institutions and free and fair elections, we are committed to supporting strong civil societies, the activists, organizations, congregations, intellectuals, reporters who work through peaceful means to fight corruption and keep governments honest. Their work enriches the soil in which democracy grows.


So the United States urges the leaders of the region to work with civil society, to see it as a partner rather than a threat, and making the political, economic, and social reforms that are being called for. And just as America engages leaders in the region, we will continue to engage the people through civil society, through dialogue like the town halls that I have enjoyed doing on my travels.

Now, some leaders may honestly believe that their country is an exception, that their people will not demand greater political or economic opportunities, or that they can be placated with half measures. Again, in the short-term that may be true, but in the long-term it is untenable. And in today’s world where people are communicating every second of every day, it is unbelievable. Other leaders raise fears that allowing too much freedom will jeopardize security, that giving a voice to the people, especially certain elements within their countries, will lead to chaos and calamity. But if the events of the last weeks prove anything, it is that governments who consistently deny their people freedom and opportunity are the ones who will, in the end, open the door to instability.

So when we make this case to our friends in the region, we do so in the fundamental belief that their countries will emerge stronger and more prosperous if their societies are more open and responsive. Democracies with vibrant and truly representative institutions resolve differences not in the streets, but in city halls and parliament buildings. That is what leads to real stability and security. That is what leads to prosperity. That is what makes countries even stronger allies.

And we have our own experience to look to. This alliance of the Euro-Atlantic community has stood the test of time. And America has always, even when Europe was not wholly free, stood for the principle that free people govern themselves best. I look out at this audience. I see presidents and prime ministers and foreign ministers from countries that were neither free nor truly secure not so long ago and who today are, and whose examples are inspirations to so many seeking that same kind of future. We believe that that is the best foundation to build on for a more peaceful and prosperous world. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

The Migrants' Rights Network has published its 2010 Annual Report.

Download the report at:
http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/files/publications/MRN_annual_report_2010.pdf (pdf file, 1.1mb)

Joint Enterprise, Not Guilty by Association (JENGbA) has published issue no.3 of its latest newsletter.
Download the newsletter at:
http://www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/JENGbA_Newsletter_issue_3.pdf (pdf file, 464kb)

The Community Security Trust has published its: 'Antisemitic Incidents Report 2010'.
Download the report at:
http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents%20Report%202010.pdf (pdf file, 2.8mb)

Qa research has published a summary report for Children & Young People Now magazine on: 'Children and Gangs'.
Download the report at:
http://www.qaresearch.co.uk/index.php?/component/option,com_rokdownloads/id,60/task,download/view,file/ (pdf file 684kb)

The Home Office has published a report on: Knife, gun and gang-related youth violence.
Download the report at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/tackling-knife-crime-together/

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons has published a: 'Report on an unannounced full inspection of the short-term holding facility at: Luton Airport, 18 October 2010'.
Download the report at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/2010-Luton_Airport_STHF_final_report.pdf (pdf file 68kb)

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons has published a: 'Report on an unannounced full follow-up inspection of Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre and short-term holding facility, 16-27 August 2010'.
Download the report at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Colnbrook_2010_rps.pdf (pdf file, 580kb)

The Home Office has published a report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C: 'Sixth Report of the Independent Reviewer pursuant to Section 14(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005'.
Download the report at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/independent-reviews/lord-carlile-sixth-report?view=Binary (pdf file, 788kb)


CONSULTATION
The Ministry of Justice is carrying out a consultation on: 'Breaking the cycle: Effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders'. The consultation ends on 4 March 2011. Read the documents and respond online at:
'http://sentencing.cjsonline.gov.uk/index.aspx?id=5&id2=consultation

The Jos Royal House led by Crown Prince HRH Dr. Balla paid a courtesy call to the High commission of sierra leone in london

Tunasikitika kutangaza msiba wa mama yake Mtanzania Mwenzetu Anitha Malewo uliotokea jana usiku Tanzania. Tunaomba kumfariji mfiwa kama ilivyo desturi yetu. Msiba utakuwa 21 Don close, tilehurst, Reading, RG30 4YL.Nyumbani kwa pastor Noel, tafadhali mtaarifu na mwenzio.
--
Jumuiya Ya Watanzania Reading-UK
Blog :http://www.tareading.blogspot.com/
Email:tzra2009@gmail.com
Tel No: +447865673756

Press release

Thursday 3 February 2011

For immediate use

Speech to the London School of Economics - Harman

Growing the Aid Budget at a time of Deficit Reduction: Moral Imperative and Political Challenge

It is a pleasure to be here tonight at the London School of Economics where great work on international development is being done and where so many students from all over the world come to study.

And I want to say a particular thank you to Paul Kelly and to the British Government at LSE initiative for hosting this event tonight. This initiative was established only recently, following the general election. It is good to know that it’s not just us who are keeping a hawk eye on the government! We will compare notes. And scrutiny is exactly what is needed when we see only today that £2m of DFID money is being used to pay for the Pope’s state visit last year. We are demanding that the FCO pay it back to DFID.

I’m delighted to be talking to you tonight in my new role as Shadow Secretary of State for International Developm ent.

Overseas Aid target. Labour’s longstanding commitment – Tories’ recent conversion.

My constituency – of Camberwell and Peckham – has the biggest African diaspora anywhere in the UK – so development is always a major constituency issue for me. But, the Labour party’s commitment to playing our part in tackling poverty in the developing countries through overseas aid is a historic one, at the heart of Labour’s values. As long ago as 1969 the Labour party was committed to the 0.7% target.

When in 1969 the Pearson Commission, established under the initiative of the World Bank, proposed, for the first time, a target for Official Development Assistance to reach 0 .7% of GNP, the Labour Party backed that 0.7% target and put it in our 1970 manifesto. But that commitment was not matched by the Tories. Quite the opposite and when the Tories were in Government, ODA as a percentage of GNI fell by half between 1979 and 1997 – from 0.51% to 0.26%.

We came back into government in 1997 on a manifesto which committed us to reverse this decline and indeed we did – trebling aid and increasing it from 0.26% to 0.56%. And in 2004, in the run-up to the Gleneagles summit, Prime Minister Tony Blair and Gordon Brown put a timeframe on our 0.7% pledge, committing to reaching it by 2013.

While the Liberal Party, and the SDP, and then the Lib Dems, had traditionally supported the 0.7%, pledge, the Conservative Party cannot say the same. It was only later, in 2005, they matched our pledge, by signing up to the 2013 deadline which they then put in their 2010 General Election Manifesto. The Coalition Agreement reiterated the pledge along with a commitment to legislate to make it a binding legal obligation on Government.

So while this is a longstanding firm commitment for us - and one we have stuck to through good times and bad - it is a recent commitment for the Tory Party and one which, now in Government, they are taking forward at the same time as they are embarking on a programme of public spending cuts which aim to see the deficit eliminated by 2015. They have ring-fenced the DFID budget at the same time as they are making every “unprotected” government department cut on average 19%.

That position – setting the DFID budget apart from the process of deficit reduction - has been emphatically reaffirmed on many occasions by the Prime Minister and the International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell. And though we, of course, remain committed to that pledge, it is controversial within the Tory Party and has been publicly criticised by Tory backbenchers.

Indeed even before they got into Government and before the scale of their deficit reduction became clear, of the Tory candidates in their 220 most winnable seats showed that 96% thought the aid budget should not be protected, let alone increased. 70% of Tory party members surveyed described the rise in the aid budget as “the wrong decision”. That hostility is reinforced by campaigns and editorials in Tory-supporting newspapers. “No time for posturing on international development” says the Daily Mail. The Tory aid pledge is “ill-conceived, gesture politics” says the Sun

With the Tory Party commitment to the 0.7%/2013 pledge being fragile, with the opposition from within their own ranks so virulent, with growing public anger about the effect of the cuts on domestic priorities, alongside a significant public belief that “charity begins at home”, no-one should take it for granted that the Tories will inevitably deliver on their pledge. The fact that the two parties of the Coalition Government and the official opposition all agree on this target should not lull anyone into a false sense of security that its achievement is a foregone conclusion.

So, we cannot simply wait for the pledge to be honoured, we must remake our arguments for it. It is time for “a Keep the 0.7%/2013 pro mise” campaign and we are launching it in a few weeks. I am sure that we can look to young people, the churches, the aid agencies and our diaspora communities to support such a campaign – and indeed to all those who did so much to campaign for the original promise and so strongly backed the actions our Government took to increase aid and drop debt.

Our strongest argument is surely that, as the 20th wealthiest country in the world, (out of 182) and the 6th biggest economy we cannot and should not stand by when elsewhere in the world people are starving and dying of preventable disease when we can stop that happening.

For all the inequality that still exits in our country and for all that some people in this country still have to struggle – the life of those in poverty in the developing world is a world away – like the woman I met in India who proudly showed me the baby that she had just given birth to on an earth floor. As Clare Short, our first International Development Secretary said in the forward to her first White paper in 1997 “It is our duty to care about other people, in particular those less well off than ourselves. We all have a moral duty to reach out to the poor and needy.”

So our starting point is that of our common humanity. This is not just a matter for the generosity of individuals – who contribute to charities and through the money that migrants to this country send through remittances to their country of origin . It is also the role of Government. It is right that the Government should embody the values and match the efforts of its people.

The capacity for public generosity is evident in the high level of commitment to organisations such as Oxfam and Christian Aid and was clearly shown, once again, after the Haiti earthquake and the Pakistan floods. When people are contributing out of their own personal income they do not expect their Government to stand by and do nothing. And our Government taking a leading role on development aid, as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did in the run up to the Gleneagles summit, ensured that other countries increased their aid and that more therefore became available to tackle poverty.

Government aid can, in a way that charitable donations can’t, support long-term infrastructure projects which are vital to building the financial independence which ultimately lessens reliance on aid.

Alongside the moral case for development aid it is certa inly the case that it is also in our own interest.

Aid fosters the economic growth that enlarges the world market in which we trade – underdevelopment is a restraint on the global economy.

Poverty fosters conflict which spills over into regional and global insecurity.

Poverty drives global migration as people feel they have to flee their home to have any chance of a better future for themselves and their family.

Development Aid plays its part in helping protect against the impact of climate change and prevents people losing their homes and livelihoods and becoming refugees who have to flee.

A good relationship of mutual trust and respect between a donor and recipient country can and does become a productive trading relationship as the country moves out of poverty and becomes a “middle income” country.

Our Government’s aid is important not just to encourage other countries to do the same but because other countries have aid budge ts – if we pull back on aid, our influence will be commensurately less.

Above all, development aid that alleviates poverty is a vital part of moving towards global equality and tackling the unacceptable inequality which lies between and within countries. Global inequality threatens economic and social stability – as was pointed out by the IMF’s managing director and has been highlighted at the World Economic Forum in Davos which has cited inequality as one of their top five issues for 2011.

Despite the consensus across the 3 main parties on our 0.7%/2013 aid target, the protests against it have grown louder. And we need to challenge those arguments.

Some argue that now is not the time to increase international aid because the world is struggling to recover from the global financial crisis. But that is the very reason that this is not the moment to step back from our aid commitments. The financial crisis, rising food and fuel prices are hitting the develop ing world hard. We must not let our recovery from the global financial crisis be the justification to precipitate a crisis of even greater need in the developing world.

It is not the case that “aid doesn’t work”. Bill and Melinda Gates campaign “Living Proof” and organisations like ONE have shown that aid helped African countries put 34 million children through school between 1999 and 2006 and helped halve malarial death rates in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia.

It is not the case that aid traps countries in dependency and prevents them establishing their own growth and financial independence. Historically, one of the countries where our aid has played a vital part in poverty reduction is India which has now moved from being a poor country to a “middle income” economy. Far from fostering dependence, aid helps them develop their infrastructure and the institutions which are the building blocks for financial independence and it helps countries resolve conflicts which are an obstacle to prosperity.

Nor is it the case that the problems that aid seeks to alleviate are never-ending. Aid has helped not just reduce the incidence of small pox but eradicate it completely. We need now to do the same with polio. Where aid helps countries move out of poverty it lessens and then ends their need for aid.

Nor do we accept the argument that our focus is only the money that goes into the aid budget, paying no attention to what it achieves. We have always argued – as Clare Short did in 1999 that “we need to turn the development efforts of the international community from an obsession with inputs and generalised rhetoric about poverty to a clear focus on outputs and year on year measurement of effectiveness in reducing poverty against our agreed targets in each and every country.”

We do not disagree with those who point out that corruption in trade or aid is a problem. It is a crime not just against those for whom the aid is destined but also against those who give the aid – UK taxpayers. That is why our aid programme places a great emphasis on transparency and accountability in aid. And why, when we can’t trust the capacity of the Government, we give money directly to those on the ground. And we help back up the police and criminal justice agencies in countries, like Nigeria, who are battling against fraud and corruption. And that is why we are disappointed and angry that the government has revealed this week that it is again delaying the implementation of the Bribery Act which we passed – with their support – when we were in Government and which was due to come into force in October last year.

Despite the government’s commitment to UK aid reaching 0.7% of GNI by 2013, the Spending Review Statement of last October froze the aid budget as a percentage of GNI for the next 2 years.

The cost of this 2 year freeze – instead of continuing the upward trend we establish ed – is £2.2 billion which would otherwise have been available in development aid.

The loss of this aid is not insignificant, for example that £2.2 billion would pay for:

50 million children to be vaccinated – helping to protecting them from five diseases including diphtheria.

200 million mosquito nets which could help save the lives of over half a million children and protect many more from illness.

The treatment of all children with pneumonia in the world's poorest countries which could save 600,000 children’s lives a year.
Helping 8 million school children in Africa.

Now that will not happen.

Abandoning the steady progress towards the 2013 target, instead of building on the progress that was made when we were in Government will require a big jump in the aid budget in 2 years time. Following the 2 year aid freeze, to meet their promised target by 2013, they will need to boost the aid budget by 31% in a single year – an inc rease of approximately £3billion – in 2013.

It is all the more important, therefore, that the Government introduce legislation for a legally binding obligation of 0.7% by 2013 – as they promised. The Bill to enact this was drafted when we were in Government and has been through pre-legislative scrutiny. The government have a long parliamentary session to bring in this short, but important, Bill which has cross-party agreement. Bringing in this legislation would provide reassurance and put beyond doubt that the 0.7%/2013 promise will be delivered. By the same token, the Government’s failure to bring it forward only fuels concern they want to leave open the option to fall short of the 0.7% or delay the 2013 target date and the 31% budget increase that it will require.

The aid agencies, churches and the diaspora communities are all calling for the introduction of the Bill and we are backing them in that demand. If the Government fails to bring it forward in this Parliamentary Session it will no doubt be the most obvious choice for a Private Members Bill to be brought forward by a backbencher at the start of the next session.

Although I have focussed my comments today on our concern that the 0.7% / 2013 pledge must be honoured, there is no doubt that aid is only one of the tools that we must use to make the world less unequal.

We must also tackle unfair trade and reform unfair tax systems. And our task will not just be what the UK does but the UK playing its role in leading international action to make the world fairer.

Tackling global inequality is not about charity – its about rights. It’s not about philanthropy – its about justice.

For our part, Labour’s Shadow DFID team, myself, Mark Lazarowicz MP, Rushanara Ali MP, and Baroness Glenys Kinnock, we will do everthing we can to make sure that the government keeps faith with the 0.7/2013 promise which we made and they matched.

They must kee p faith with the promise they made to the British people at the General Election and Britain must keep faith with our moral duty to the poor of the world.

Ends

4th February….Today is World Cancer Day. What are you going to do?



I remember the summer of 2006 as if it was yesterday, this lady 35-45years old, undergoing treatment for breast cancer…living alone, in a one bedroom house with no one to visit her…in between her aggressive treatment, regime, you would see her struggling to her garden…lying herself on the grass to get the sun, always wondering why she is still living and why she has to go through all this suffering…either side of her address, are neighbours who are seemingly living a vibrant life without having a care in the world, oblivious to the fact that what this lady desperately wants is to hear a warm voice…hey, how are you, or even a warm smile to show her that people care…



But this ought not to be so.


You can be the difference ….


…take up the challenge today…

•Are you going to think of someone else other than yourself?
•Do you want to know more about cancer?
•Do you want to know how you can support your neighbour suffering from cancer?
•Do you want to know how to approach your neighbour that you haven’t spoken to ever since you moved into that new address?
•Do you want to know how you can include neighbourliness in your busy schedules?
Your questions, experiences, your voice, your dialogue, your contribution could change someone’s life.



Be the difference by making your voice heard.

Contact us at talk4hope@gmail.com , text 07877479536

Liberation Day (February 26) celebrates the liberation of Kuwait by a multi-national force from seven months of traumatic Iraqi occupation on February 26, 1991. Each year the day is marked with public gatherings and get-togethers.

However, the day is also tinged with sadness as Kuwait remembers and honours the martyrs who lost their lives fighting Iraqi oppression and the 605 Prisoners of War out of which, 236 remains have been found and the fate of 378 POWs is still not known.( As Per July 2008)

Liberation Day (February 26) celebrates the liberation of Kuwait by a multi-national force from seven months of traumatic Iraqi occupation on February 26, 1991. Each year the day is marked with public gatherings and get-togethers.

However, the day is also tinged with sadness as Kuwait remembers and honours the martyrs who lost their lives fighting Iraqi oppression and the 605 Prisoners of War out of which, 236 remains have been found and the fate of 378 POWs is still not known.( As Per July 2008)

Dear All:

As one of our valued stakeholder I am delighted to share with you some good news and a perfect opportunity to meet up again! It has been a while since we had a social get together, with a purpose, hasn't it? Aim to read to the end, trust me you won't regret!

I am pleased to let you know that the Tanzania Edinburgh Community Association (TzECA) as part of the working group with DARF and SASHITA, in collaboration with Tanzania Scotland Network is delighted and honoured to confirm that there will be one great social event, uniquely delivered this time around - never ever tried before in such a highly collaborative style, here referred as Infusion Event, taking place on the 19th March 2011 from 1800hrs to 2300hrs at the Lauriston Jesuit Centre, Lauriston Street, Edinburgh EH3 9DJ.

The event is expected to be one of its kind, and as our value stakeholder, we would not want you to miss this one!

The main purpose of the March 19th 2011 event is to come together and welcome to the new Tanzania High Commissioner H.E Mr. Peter Kallaghe, this being his first visit to Scotland since taking office from the former High Commissioner H.E Mrs Mwanaidi Sinare Majaar.

We can also confirm the Guest of Honour will be H.E. Mr. Peter Kallaghe, High Commissioner of the United Republic of Tanzania to the United Kingdom. Other dignitaries in Scotland have also been invited to the event.

We will be happy to see you join us as our invited guest.

As a community organized event, by dedicated and passionate active members, this is yet another rare historic and great opportunity to come together to celebrate and mingling with Tanzanians and great supporters and friends of Tanzania from Scotland and all over the United Kingdom.

There will be some light touch presentations to highlight and celebrate some of the successes and there will be plenty of networking opportunities. Among many things, there will be African Music, Delicious and Authentic African Style Food on the offing, Scottish Highland Dance and lots more.

• Come and start your weekend evening with us. To confirm your attending please quickly book your place by buying your tickets online

• Reserve your place and buy your tickets today @ http://www.etickets.to/buy/?e=6391 . For Early Birds, there are limited number of discounted tickets for reservations that are secured before 28th February 2011. Get yours now to avoid disappointment!

TzECA continues with this long journey and it will be a great honour for you to be part of this great evolving story between Tanzania and Scotland.

• If you do have items for presentation or may need a slot in the timetable, please make your written submission now and our working group committee will make sure your request is considered and planned as appropriate.

• If your office wants to send formal written brief welcoming message that can be read in public, please do send us the communication and we make efforts to get the message is delivered.
  

We would appreciate if you could help us with passing the attached LINK @ http://www.etickets.to/buy/?e=6391 and or this email on to those you think could be interested to attend, and feel free to post the link on your websites, facebook, emails etc. Let others know, and COME ONE COME ALL. Please let all your networks know!

Many thanks for your support!

We are enthusiastically looking forward to meeting you on March 19th 2011.

BIG ask - if you are not attending, we will miss you, but you can still help by letting one other person know.

--
Kind regards,

-----
Apollo Temu

Chairperson
Tanzania Edinburgh Community Association (TzECA

Ayoub mzee with the Deputy Prime minister of zimbabwe Prof. Arthur Mutambara


Eminent Persons Group (EPG) statement
“An association of 2.4 billion people will have a powerful impact” Read the statement.

The EPG was established by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their summit in November 2009. It has been tasked with developing options for reform to sharpen the impact, strengthen the networks and raise the profile of the Commonwealth.

View the text and video from other Conversations with America by following the links below:

Conversations with America: Haiti in 2011: The Way Forward (January 10, 2011)
Conversations with America: Leading Through Civilian Power: The First QDDR (January 6, 2011)
Conversations with America: The Millennium Development Goals (September 16, 2010)
Conversations with America: A Discussion on PEPFAR (August 10, 2010)
Conversations with America: A Discussion on the NEW START Treaty (July 29, 2010)
Conversations with America: U.S. Engagement with Muslim Communities (July 9, 2010)
Conversations with America: The U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue (June 8, 2010)
Conversations with America: A Discussion on Afghanistan and Pakistan (April 19, 2010)