Do we need another miracle of Fleet Street?

At a time when newspapers nail their political allegiance to whichever party they believe will win power and when there is little remaining of a mass circulation left-wing press, The Miracle of Fleet Street is a refreshing and intriguing read. The book, first published in 1925, is an account of the early days of the Daily Herald, a paper which evolved from a daily strike bulletin to become the voice of the labour left and their struggles for better working conditions, higher wages and women’s rights. It was these causes, and those more broadly of the poorest in society, which the Herald continued to support for nearly half a century before it fell into the hands of Rupert Murdoch who relaunched it as the Sun.

The book, now republished by Spokesman, is the work of George Lansbury who was part of the group who set-up the paper, and who later went on to become its editor. Lansbury chronicles the paper’s early life in plain but passionate prose, detailing the causes they took up and the continual financial and logistical problems that faced them at every turn. In those early years the Herald was ‘the hope of every rebel in the land’ and in its first issue was the only paper to attack the management of the Titanic for not adequately providing enough life boats for the poorer passengers on board and for prioritising the lives of the rich over women and children.

Lansbury himself was an intriguing character: a Marxist, East End MP, Labour mayor, anti-imperialist, republican, supporter of the suffragettes and pacifist. He never compromised his position for personal gain, a trait which was echoed by the policy of the paper which refused the money it could have received by selling its principles to potential advertisers.

If you are looking for a balanced and considered analysis of the press, Fleet Street and the Herald in the early decades of the twentieth century then you won’t find it here. However, what Lansbury presents is the inspiring story of a group of committed individuals who stood together to fight against the prevailing attitudes of their time. As you finish this book you can’t help but wish that such a mass-circulation paper existed today.

The Miracle of Fleet Street: The Story of the Daily Herald by George Lansbury is published by Spokesman Books and is out now.

Towards a New Internationalism

If there is a book written with a broader scope than Stephen Chan’s The End of Certainty I have yet to read it. In order to explore some of the great questions of our time, Chan sets out to fuse together the thoughts of scholars, philosophers and theologians spanning the globe. Most writers have their favourite authors or periods of history from which they draw their inspiration, but as Chan plunders the life of Alexander the Great, the South African constitution and the writings of modern day Iranian intellectual Abdolkarim Soroush, it becomes clear that he has no preference for time or place.

In so doing he reveals the inadequacies of Western thought which has dominated the field of International Relations. In the late 1980’s Francis Fukuyama thought that the fall of communism and the dominance of capitalism had bought us to the end of history, while more recently Samuel Huntington argued that the great conflicts of our time would be between ‘incompatible’ civilisations, particularly between the West and Islam. Rejecting these dogmas and critiquing their over reliance on Western sources and perspectives, Chan argues that if we are to fully understand the world we need an internationalist perspective which utilises the thoughts of many civilisations, philosophies, religions and strands of academia.

Chan chose this gargantuan task ‘precisely because there is an intellectual vacuum in British political and social life. Three decades of dogged soundbite phraseologies of both Thatcherism and Blairism have made debate a contest between assertions of certainty, and these certainties are about the best form of coercion to apply in any international moral impasse.’ As certainty is rejected, Chan takes the reader on a journey beginning with a love story on the battlefields of Eritrea and ending with the fusion of antiquity and modernity found today in Iran.

Because the author has taken up such a unique project, and because the strands of thought which are drawn upon are so diverse in origin, at times Chan’s writing can be hard to absorb. Read it and then read it again. For, if like me, your knowledge of Hindu and Buddhist theology, the origins of Wahhabism or the Greek play Antigone is limited, you’ll find yourself introduced to new and intriguing ideas which help to illustrate and give meaning to the common humanity that runs through us all.

In the book’s final pages Chan asks what are we to do? As citizens we must reject the simplistic assumptions that declare with certainty that there are clear distinctions between us and them, good and evil, the victim and the persecutors. In essence Chan is asking for us to be inquisitive, to try to see the similarities between what at first may seem like incompatible ideals and to draw our inspiration from as wider spectrum as possible.

The End of Certainty: Towards a New Internationalism by Stephen Chan is published by Zed Books and is out now.

Searching for the common good

The American Revolution was, perhaps, the single most influential event in modern political history. Spawning the democracies which have since spread around the globe, the revolution gave renewed impetus, credence and theoretical argument to the concepts of representative government, the separation of political powers, liberty, freedom and natural rights. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and James Madison, have all been immortalised by their deeds and words in that period. Yet one man, argued those who met at a United Nations colloquium in 1987, is unjustly absent from those so fondly and admirably remembered. Indeed, he was the first to call the United States of America by its now familiar name.

Thomas Paine, writes Leo Zonneveld, in the introduction to a new book bringing together the reflections of those at the colloquium, was a ‘brilliant activator and humble participant in the process of pointing out the reality of human brotherhood and true democracy.’ In the following 12 short chapters, a diverse group of Paine enthusiasts, including former Labour Party leader Michael Foot, UN assistant secretary-general Robert Muller and professor of American history Eric Foner, debate Paine’s legacy, put forward their interpretations of Paine’s work and talk about how he has influenced their lives. For Foot it is Paine’s unshakeable belief in the power of freedom which is most admirable; Foner offers Paine’s detest for hereditary privilege as one of his great characteristics; while Muller asks what would Paine of said about today’s world.

The direct references to Paine’s writing coupled with the biographical information present in many of the chapters, means that those who are not familiar with his life can easily follow what is being said and, indeed, may find this book an excellent introduction. For those well versed in the punchy, evocative prose of ‘Common Sense’ and ‘The Rights of Man’ some of this may be going over old ground. With the personal slant on Paine’s work given by many of the speakers, however, there are still plenty of new interpretations and insightful analysis to keep you interested.

In stark contrast to today’s mediated, spin driven politics a quote from a letter Paine sent to the Providence Gazette begins one chapter: ‘I have never yet made it the least point of consideration whether a thing is popular or unpopular, but whether it is right or wrong’. It is this uncompromising stance - one which on several occasions nearly cost Paine his life - which sets him apart from many others and provides the undercurrent for his admirers here. Unfortunately, this leads to the one problem with this book. At several points it becomes clear that there was no prior planning concerning who would say what, and this leads to several cases of repetition. Despite this and with June 8, 2009 marking the 200th anniversary of Paine’s death, this book succeeds in being a timely reminder of the work and influence of one of the leading political thinkers and activists of his or any generation.


Thomas Paine: In Search of the Common Good is published by Spokesman Books and is out now.

The Internet and political engagement

Increasing apathy concerning citizens’ attitudes towards and engagement with politics is a well-established and substantially expressed opinion in the western world. There are numerous statistics which illustrate growing cynicism and frustration among voters, lack of interest in political issues and parties, and a trend of decreasing turnout in elections.

In his book Democracy: Crisis and Renewal Paul Ginsborg argues that the current situation surrounding democracy is a crisis of quality not quantity. Democracy as an ideal and as an actual form of government has spread globally to a point whereby it is the most predominant form of government - 62% of nations are now electoral democracies according to Freedom House. During this time of global democratisation, however, disaffection has grown among citizens in nations with relatively longstanding democratic traditions. For Ginsborg this disaffection has shown itself in several ways including ‘declining voter turnout, declining membership of parties, loss of faith in democratic institutions and in the political class in general.’

Ginsborg identifies four structural changes which have helped bring about this discontent. Firstly, ‘the assignation of politics to a separate sphere, inhabited by professionals, organised party elites, protected by the technical language and bureaucratic practice of administrators, and to a very great extent impermeable to the general public.’ Thus, creating a situation or at least an impression of the public as a separate entity who do not possess the knowledge or means to participate in the political process. Secondly, cultural and socio-economic changes have created societies ‘rich in comforts but poor in time’ where dominance of consumer capitalism has resulted in the spread of ‘individual and family self-celebration and self-interest, of increased television viewing and dependence.’ Thirdly, the plutocratic nature of politics means that although everybody is equal at the ballot box, those with the greatest financial resources wield much greater political influence. This can lead to corruption, positions of power for party fundraisers and an alienation of those who lack such privileges. Lastly, Ginsborg singles out what was the ‘most vibrant democracy in the world’, the United States, whose foreign policy he believes has damaged democracy around the globe.

The Internet has the potential to alter the ways in which citizens participate in a democracy and possibly reverse some of these trends. American academic Bruce Bimber writes in Information and American Democracy that the Internet: ‘has precipitated much speculation about political change and transformation, from visions of direct democracy and erosion of processes of representation and institutional deliberation because of new technology to enhancement or degradation of the “public sphere” and the state of citizens’ civic engagement.’ The following will look at who these competing ideas relate to political engagement.

Passive or active engagement?

American President Woodrow Wilson said that a citizen “cannot be said to be participating in public opinion at all until he has laid his mind alongside the minds of his neighbours and discussed with them the incidents of the day and the tendencies of the time.” Reading the newspaper is simply not enough. It is this distinction between passively consuming and actively participating in democracy which is one of the fundamental differences between how new and old forms of information communication technologies foster an interest and involvement in politics.

In a pre-web age there was a movement from the participatory to the professional and representative form of voluntary organization. During this period the one-way flow of political information, produced and communicated by a small number of gatekeepers, meant that very few citizens actively participated in generating or questioning political information. The Internet provides the potential for a partial reversal of this process by allowing a greater number of people to participate directly in politics by starting their own organisations or producing their own information. In this vein Bimber puts forward the argument that new technologies have led to post-bureaucratic political organisations which possess three distinct characteristics with regards to fostering active engagement.

Firstly, the start up costs required to organise collective action are significantly lower than in the past and thus resources are less of a barrier to political action. Secondly, ‘as the flow of information inside political organisations grows increasingly independent of people’s official functions or roles, one of the foundations of Weberian bureaucracy is weakened: the formal segregation of information and communication as a function of those roles.’ One of the consequences of this change has seen the increased participation of those from outside the standard roles of political organisations in the generation and communication of information. Examples of this can be seen on the numerous citizen journalism websites, forums on the websites of political organisations, or the comments left on articles on newspaper websites. Lastly, the much greater fluidity of membership of post-bureaucratic organisations means that citizens can join more groups at less financial cost, which Bimber sees as leading to a move away from issue-based affiliation towards an events-based one.

These new forms of online organisations and communication platforms have led to information abundance and a more chaotic, globalised and networked information environment. Changes which have resulted in the partial weakening of national boundaries and the corporate and political control of information, therefore making the information environment more democratic.

All of the above changes in how information is produced, communicated and used for collective action point towards the possibility of a more active citizen. Now, instead of simply reading about politics in the newspaper the public can set-up a blog or website to express their views; start organisations to campaign on specific issues; network with others with similar interests on social networking sites; post comments and add sources on newspaper websites such as Comment is Free. These optimistic interpretations of how the Internet is affecting political engagement need to be tempered, however, as there are other more dystopian implications of the increased use of the Internet by citizens.

Politics carried out on the Internet can often take the form of simply putting a name to something without thinking too much about it. Examples include joining a group on a social networking site, sending a pre-written letter to a politician or signing an online petition. While these are forms of engagement many see them as an extension of what Benjamin Barber called ‘weak democracy’. Moreover, according to Bimber, ‘the problem with centrally orchestrated, “cheap” communication is not that none of the citizens participating are serious about the issue at hand, but that such efforts conceal the extent to which various citizens are interested and serious. Elected officials have little incentive to ignore serious and interested constituents and much greater incentive to ignore the background noise of the nonserious’.’ Therefore, while the Internet may allow great numbers of people to support a campaign, the actual effect of such support maybe significantly diminished. In his book The End of Politics Carl Boggs concludes that ‘the system now in place is, of course, a marvelously efficient instrument for gathering data and sending messages. But it is another matter for ordinary people, especially in marginalized sectors of the economy, to be able to register genuine choices, feelings, and critical opinions.’ Furthermore, the often isolated nature of politics online does not breed the active formation of social relationships which Boggs sees as vital for social movements to succeed.

Using the Internet for political purposes, as the above shows, can involve active or passive participation. The more active forms that can be developed the stronger democracy will become, however, the Internet is not destined to foster one type over the other. Pessimists, such as Boggs would argue that ‘global information technology is already thoroughly permeated with such capitalist values as: a tough, aggressive individualism, an intensely competitive ethos, commodified images, and an instrumental rationality’ which will result in control by corporations and elite actors who have no interest in developing active participation among the majority of citizens. Optimists argue, contradictorily, that the chaotic and uncontrollable nature of the Internet and the post-bureaucratic organisations it allows to grow will cause more active forms of participation to develop.

Direct and deliberative democracy online

The considerations above have centred on how citizens engage with politics in a representative democracy. However, the Internet offers not only the possibility of different forms and levels of engagement within the existing democratic system itself but, by fostering the direct involvement of citizens in political decision making, the opportunity of changing that system. Reawakening the old debate surrounding the ‘liberty of the ancients’ and the ‘liberty of the moderns’, the Internet has caused many to seriously consider the idea of the increased use, both in scope and regularity, of direct and deliberative democracy.

Benjamin Constant, speaking in 1819, argued that in small communities direct democracy based on the Athenian model was achievable but that in larger, more complex societies only representative forms of government were possible, thus making a distinction between what he saw as liberty in the ancient and liberty in the modern world. Since Constant’s distinction was made representative democracy has spread with few exceptions at the expense of any form of direct or deliberative democracy, even at a local level.

The Internet affects direct and deliberative democracy in three key ways: by allowing people to vote online, by providing information to voters to help them make a decision and by giving citizens a platform to express their opinions. The second and third of these factors are, perhaps, the most crucial as many of the critics of direct and deliberative democracy see it as passive (direct) and selective (deliberative), a critic which is, somewhat, circumvented by the adequate supply of information in order to make an informed choice and by allowing more people to take part.

There are many instances when policy decisions are best derived from the knowledge and opinions of a small group of specialist. However, John Matsusaka, who has studied various forms of direct democracy, argues that ‘there are cases where good policymaking may require information that is not know or knowable by experts … such as whether to use capital punishment or allow physician-assisted suicide.’ In these cases the relevant information along with competing arguments can be made available to all online at no cost to the citizen. People can discuss the various issues either online or in other mediums before voting, again either online or in-person.

Forms of direct and deliberative democracy do not have to solely concern the actions of governments in order to increase political engagement. They could be used to help create a political party’s manifesto commitments or to decide the specific areas where an NGO will focus their campaigning. If people feel that they can express their opinion and discuss options with others and that the process will have tangible results then there is an increased chance that they will take part.

On their own direct and deliberative models of political engagement offer little hope for the reduction of apathy and the strengthening of democracy. Direct voting in referenda without the required information and debate may result in passive, ‘couch potato’ engagement, with too much power given to the mass media. Deliberation without a vote would do little to motivate an apathetic voter who would fail to see the point in deliberation if there is no end result. It is, therefore, the possibility of combining both forms which represents the Internet’s greatest potential in altering how citizens interact with the decision making process.

A commune of ideas of an information cocoon?

Due to the nature of its development the Internet has certain unique characteristics that contrast to other forms of communication technology and have resulted in the Internet possessing a distinct culture. Part of this culture is the open sharing of information which allows for greater levels of collaboration. Introducing his concept of ‘we-think’ Charles Leadbeater asks us to ‘imagine for a moment that a computer nerd, an academic, a hippie and a peasant get together for a joint project.’ By working together through collaborative online platforms such as Wikis, Leadbeater argues that such diverse groups can, by sharing their knowledge and expertise, achieve great things. Potentially this holds great promise for politically engaging citizens by creating a more democratic way of supplying information and decision-making. A problem is posed - say, should the post-office be partly privatised? - an online platform for debate is created and a diverse group of people put forward relevant information, suggestions and arguments. This is a greatly simplified situation but, by involving more people in the decision making process and by drawing on diverse facts and opinions, the potential for greater democratic engagement is clear. Furthermore, not only does this form of organisation help to increase the number of citizens involved in politics it will, in certain circumstances, lead to better outcomes, with studies showing that groups with diverse skills and broad and wide ranging outlooks often develop better solutions than more intelligent groups who have similar skills and outlooks.

‘We-think’ or more broadly the networking of a diverse group to discuss an issue or solve a problem is not the only way in which people can use the Internet to find out or generate information. Instead users can seek out information from likeminded people who simply echo what they already know and believe. Politically this would lead to people only reading/listening to the opinions of those with the same ideological backgrounds. In his sudy of the Internet, Republic.com 2.0, Cass Sunstein calls this form of filtering an information cocoon which decreases the ‘unplanned, unanticipated encounters [which] are central to democracy’ while also removing the shared experiences which help people to understand one another and tackle social problems together. This solipsistic formation of online communities is detrimental to democracy as it creates the possibility of warring factions who, instead of regarding what others have to say before making decisions, become isolated and fail to progress. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of Internet use is for the purposes of entertainment exacerbates the problems that such Internet use possess for political engagement because not only can people use the Internet to cocoon themselves from political information which counters their preconceptions, they may also be using it to cocoon themselves from politics entirely.

The Internet - enhancing or degrading political engagement?

The ways that Internet is affecting citizen engagement with politics provides an intriguing picture. Bimber’s theory of post-bureaucratic political organisations, Brian McNair’s paradigm of information chaos, platforms for communal thinking and debate in ways outlined by Leadbeater and the increased opportunities for more direct and deliberative democracy all point towards new forms of increased political engagement and wider access to information. At the same time there is ample evidence that political use of the Internet is at the periphery of online activity, that much of the political activity taking place online is passive, and that the Internet is cocooning people in to fragmented groups all of which counter democratic possibilities. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that the Internet has increased membership levels of political parties, trust in politicians or turnout at elections.

In all likelihood the Internet is in its infancy and even in advanced post-industrial societies it is far from a universal technology with significant differences in levels of access related to race, gender age and education. Moreover, in the developing world - where it could have its greatest democratising effects - it is used mainly by elite members of society and may even be causing greater divisions in political engagement. Furthermore, there are dangers of too much democracy which may lead to mob rule, segregation of minority groups and issues and safeguards against these possibilities must be built into any framework for improving democratic participation. Allowing more citizens to participate in politics is also counter-productive for many powerful groups within society and it would be naïve to think that the Internet will be used to increase citizen engagement without attempts to control or reject it. Bearing this in mind any conclusions as to the democratising potential of the Internet need to be tempered.

The confusing nature and abundance of information present in today’s globalised world means that the ideal of the informed citizen is impossible. People do not have the time or the knowledge to understand all the complexities of the modern world. Thus, citizens are choosing to engage in greater detail with smaller numbers of issues and events, a process which is partly facilitated by the Internet. At the same time citizens are cynical and fed-up with the ‘playing of politics’ which abounds within the party system. When combined together these factors are leading to declining political party membership and voter turnout as well as an overall disinterest in party politics. However, this does not mean that the public is less interested in politics but that the indicators that are used to measure engagement are not sufficient. Instead new forms of engagement, many as a result in changes in ICTs are emerging, such as blogging, citizen journalism and increased events-based campaigning.

Organisations that develop new ways of engaging with the public which are: postbureaucratic, communal, issue and event driven, incorporate forms of direct and deliberative democracy and active engagement are the most likely to succeed in motivating citizens. By allowing citizens to meaningfully participate in the political sphere, and by replacing the plutocratic nature of political influence with a more meritocratic one, organisations with these characteristics will help to reverse several of the structural changes which Ginsborg identified as responsible for political apathy.

Equality - the route to a better society

Peter Mandelson proved true to his word when he said that new Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.” While the last 10 years has seen an end to the rapacious growth in inequality presided over by Margaret Thatcher, the super-rich have still got wealthier while those at the bottom have stagnated. Conventional wisdom scorned at those who felt uneasy about million pound bonuses and footballers earning in a week what the majority made in four years. If the country is richer overall everyone benefits, so let the ‘wealth creators’ get on with it and wait for the money to trickle down. Conventional wisdom was wrong and for those who doubted it now there is substantial evidence to prove it.

Research carried out by the Equality Trust and published in a new book The Spirit Level reveals that there is a startling correlation between inequality and social problems. Once a society reaches a certain level of affluence it no longer matters about levels of income, instead it is the difference between the rich and the poor which we should be concerned about. Whether looking at physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births or child well-being - the greater the level of inequality the worse the outcome. Mental illness is three times more likely in the US as in Japan; in the UK there are nearly twice as many infant deaths as in Sweden; and Australia - a nation famed for its sporting prowess - has approximately twice the levels of obesity compared to the Netherlands. These examples are not handpicked extremes but point to a conclusive trend.

The French playwright, Henry Becque, quipped that ‘what makes equality such a difficult business is that we only want it with our superiors.’ For many people higher up the social hierarchy there is a belief that greater equality holds nothing for them; a belief which has proved a stumbling block for those trying to convince people that we should strive to decrease the gap between the richest and the poorest. Perhaps, then, the most striking finding from the Equality Trust’s research is the myth destroying fact that in unequal societies the better of suffer as well. One example shows that children from wealthy families in unequal nations have lower literacy levels than their counterparts in more equal countries, there are numerous more.

So greater equality rather than higher average levels of wealth is the key to future development. As the report concludes ‘we have now come to the end of what economic growth can do for developed countries. Measures of well-being or of happiness no longer rise with economic growth … For rich countries to get even richer makes little or no difference to the prevalence of health and social problems … Societies with smaller income differences between rich and poor are more cohesive: community life is stronger, levels of trust are higher and there is less violence. The vast majority of the population seem to benefit from greater equality.’

With the government and the media’s attention focused on fighting the recession plans to develop a more equal society are lacking. Higher taxes for the richest, increasing the minimum wage, capping bonuses, limiting pay and increasing inheritance tax for the wealthy few are just some of the possible ways to level the playing field. At precisely the time when substantial changes can be made it is important that political pressure is applied so that we do not see a return to the old, failed and unjust policies which allowed the UK to become one of the world’s most unequal societies.

To support the Equality Trust and campaign for a more equal society sign the Equality Charter - http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/take-action - and write to your M.P.

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better is written by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett and is published by Allen Lane

Colombia's drug war investigated

For several decades Colombian civilians have been caught in the midst of a cocaine and oil-fuelled conflict. Government forces, paramilitary soldiers and various guerrilla groups have been fighting to control the country’s oil-rich lands and cocaine fields. In 2000 the U.S. launched Plan Colombia, a multibillion-dollar operation which switched the focus of the war on drugs away from drug traffickers to coca farmers. A key part of the strategy involved funding the Colombian government to carryout aerial fumigations of coca fields in the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) controlled regions, a policy which the U.S. government claimed successfully destroyed all of the plants. There was, however, little firsthand, independent evidence to support these claims and, with this in mind, Garry Leech set-out to see the impacts of Plan Colombia for himself.

Leech is a rare breed of journalist; one who sacrifices his own safety and comfort to investigative topics often over-looked by mainstream corporate media. In his latest book, Beyond Bogotá: Diary of a Drug War Journalist in Colombia, Leech intertwines historical explanation of Colombia’s drug war and his personal politicisation from naïve young traveller to investigative reporter, around the books central narrative of his 11-hour imprisonment by the FARC, who held him captive when he tried to enter La Macarena National Park to see the impact of the most recent fumigations, in August 2006.

Each chapter of this mix of autobiography, travel narrative and investigative journalism represents one hour of Leech’s ordeal as he waits, held at gunpoint, while rebel commanders decide his fate. ‘At times like this,’ writes Leech, ‘I wonder why the hell I do the type of work I do. The time is passing interminably slowly. The option to change my mind, to simply walk away, no longer exists. I am now at the mercy of the FARC. Some distant rebel commander will be my judge, jury, and if things take a real turn for the worse, my executioner.’ This first person account of Leech’s captivity keeps the story flowing along in crisp, concise language but although these sections form the most exciting parts of the book, it is the more in depth explorations of the war on drugs and its impact on South American political and civil society which make up the books most interesting and enlightening aspects.

As a young traveller we learn that the author first visited Latin America disinterested in the areas political make-up. As he sees and learns more about the conditions in the various countries he passes through he becomes ever more politicised and when he returns seven years later, at a time when ‘the Panama invasion marked the first time that the war on drugs was used to justify direct US intervention in a Latin American nation,’ Leech has started to build an understanding of how political factors are impacting on the lives of Latin American citizens. From here on the reader is taken through various US interventions in Latin America which, according to Leech, have been self-serving and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and ruined the lives of large swathes of the peasant population.

In recent years the author’s research has centred on investigating the impacts of Plan Colombia which he has done through a series of high-risk interviews with guerrillas, government soldiers, paramilitaries and farmers. These encounters allow Leech to delve behind the stated reasons and aims of Plan Colombia to reveal its true impacts. Statistics don’t always do justice to the scale of suffering which takes place in conflicts but Leech manages to humanize the raw numbers as he vividly describes his encounters with ordinary Colombians struggling to live amongst the poverty and destruction which plagues their lives. Leech finds that U.S. and Colombian government claims are lies: the fumigations have failed to significantly reduce the amount of cocaine produced (growers have developed a higher yielding plant which is more resistant to the fumigations) and instead have destroyed subsistence crops leaving much of the rural population starving. At the same time the neoliberal economic reforms which have accompanied the fumigations as part of Plan Colombia have exploited the indigenous population, creating massive wealth disparity and exacerbated the conflict. By seeking out and speaking to those most adversely affected by the Colombian and U.S. government actions, Leech has given a voice to those under-represented in mainstream coverage.

While Leech meticulously details the devastating impact that the drug war is having on Colombia’s civilian population he doesn’t attempt to offer any solutions. As he states ‘Colombia’s long, dark past suggests that the attainment of such noble objectives [democracy, peace and justice] is an impossible dream.’ But the people who Leech has met on his travels through Colombia offer him the belief that one-day the situation may improve.

At several points throughout this book Leech asks himself why he has placed himself in such danger and more importantly what if he never sees his wife and child again? The answers are evident to all who read this book. Leech, and those correspondents like him, allow us to see the true picture, that which is often hidden behind the distorted propaganda emitted by governments around the globe. It is because of his dedication to find out, at first-hand, the truth, that this book will be of great value to those who wish to further their knowledge of socio-economic and political issues in Latin American or for those who wish to see the much maligned profession of journalism in its purest form.

Beyond Bogotá: Diary of a Drug War Journalist in Colombia by Garry Leech is published by Beacon Press.

Amnesty's challenge to Obama

With Barrack Obama’s presidency underway Amnesty International has created a new film and check-list asking the President to ‘take concrete steps to demonstrate his commitment to international human rights standards, including in the context of countering terrorism.’

Their challenges come under three broad headings:

• Close Guantánamo and end illegal detention
• Eradicate torture and other ill-treatment
• End impunity

To send an email to President Obama and back Amnesty’s plan click the link below.

http://obama100days.amnesty.org/petition.html