Yes, Tony, there is a role to play, a real big role. The world is crying out for it.
The question is, "Are you the man for the job?".
I wish you were. And, even if you are not, but can become one, I am prepared to help you in this endeavor. The reason is simple - there are no other applicants for the job.
It is the same situation, which put you into your present job. The choice was between two candidates. The one was a bunch of slimy, sleazy, socialist tories, the other was 'new' labour a bunch of socialist career politicians headed by yourself, who went out of their way to impress upon the electorate that, if elected, they would be 'better tories' than the slimy, sleazy tories they would replace. Well, at least for the first term of their office.
To your credit, you were not much worse than the tories you replaced. But not much better either. Still the same 'political' government based on the doctrines of 'political convenience' and 'social acceptability'. And with the 'punch bag' opposition of William Hague you had an easy ride. But does it all qualify you for the world role you crave?
Well, you saw what is going on between India and Pakistan. You went, you saw, and you offered no solution. You went to Gaza earlier, and said, that you see how the situation there, could generate the feelings that lead to terrorism, but again you offered no solution. Having come back home from your Indian trip, you found a railway 'strike', and again you cannot offer a real solution.
You said that the present tensions in India were the result of the events of September the 11th. This is not true. They are the result of the way these events were handled by the Americans and yourself. Having unleashed an unprovoked (Afghanistan did not attack America) and totally wanton war on Afghanistan, the Americans have established a principle that any country can launch a war of any magnitude on any other country, if they 'habour terrorists'. The definition of 'harbouring terrorists' is totally for the country that wishes to start the war.
This principle was seized upon by Israel, India, Zimbabwe, and any country involved in a conflict.
On the other hand, the feelings generated by the American bombings of Afghanistan resulted in increase in militancy among various resistance and liberation organisations on the other side of the conflicts.
This lead to the present escalation of violence in Israel. India, and ... Zimbabwe.
You see, Tony, people believe that, if the Americans can start a war, using weapons of mass destruction, than why not Israel, India, or Zimbabwe.
Allow one school child to settle a score with a cricket bat, and on the next day all the kids will turn up to school with their cricket bats and machete knives.
The problem with the world today (and you agree, that there is a problem) is that of lawlessness. This is true about the events in Kashmir, Palestine, New York, North Belfast, the British 'industrial relations', and the drug related gang warfare in the Carribean. And the cause of this lawlessness is the present philosophy of government - politics, which is a form of lawlessness in itself.
Politics, in the context of government, is abuse of government powers to promote a particular interest. For example, to promote the personal career of a politician, or to favour a group of people on whose votes or financial support a particular government depends.
A government could be elected, because it promises to pass laws favouring a particular group, or it can yield to pressures by a group when already in power.
At the international level, a government could use wars, economic blockades, or restrictive trading practices to obtain a dishonest advantage or influence over another country.
In all the cases a government indulging in politics, rather than performing honest administration over its area of governance, is abusing its powers.
According to the Fundamental Principles of Government by Truth Honesty and Justice, abuse of government powers is crime.
Any form of favouritism by governments violates the principle of equality under the law. Any form of favoritism by governments generates feelings of injustice, which, if sufficiently strong, result in riots, terrorism, civil wars and just wars. And once hostilities start, they generate more and more hatred, hostilities, and thirst for revenge. These feelings of injustice and the hostilities generated by them can subsist for decades and even centuries (the conflict between Russia and Chechnya is some 500 years old).
You said, at the time of your visit to India, that the alternative to violence is politics. To say that is like saying that the alternative to burglary aggravated by grievous bodily harm is fraud.
It might be true, that it is better to be a victim of fraud, than to be a victim of murder, but is fraud an alternative to violent crimes?.
Use of violence (including wars and terrorism) can be justified, if it is restricted to honest legitimate self-defence. Fraud is dishonest by definition. Dishonesty can never be justified. Politics is fraudulent use of government powers. It is a particular instance of fraud. Politics can never be justified.
Moreover fraud, if there are no legal ways of protection against it, as it is in cases of fraud by governments, leads to attempts by the victims of fraud to take the law in their own hands, that is to use violence. Faced with violence, the fraudster resorts to self-defence, and if he happens to be government, to the use of police or armed forces. In response, the victim of fraud resorts to whatever means are at his disposal, usually riots or terrorism.
So the most politics can achieve is a temporary cessation of violence, like the Camp David agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It did not last long. Once the jubilations ceased, and the Palestinians woke up to the reality, the violence (the Intifada) broke out again. Or, in the case of industrial strikes, politics, pressures and mediations might result in a temporary 'settlement' of a dispute, only to be broken by another strike later.
So, if politics is not the answer, then what is?
"Government?", you will say, "But, aren't politics and government the same thing?"
Alas, this is what most people think. Political government has been with us for so long that most people don't know the difference.
Government is one or more people whose responsibility is to protect people within the area of governance from injustice, to resolve disputes between people within the area of governance, and to ensure general public safety and well-being.
To perform its duties government has powers to interfere with the person, freedom or property of people within its governance without their consent, such as, preventing and punishing criminal activities, providing a workable legal system for resolution of disputes between people, and raising taxes to finance the legitimate activities of government. Such interference is strictly limited to the minimum necessary for the performance of the duties of government. Use of these powers beyond the necessary minimum or for any other purpose than performance of the duties of government is injustice. And any form of injustice is crime or civil wrong, whether it is committed by private individuals, groups of individuals or governments.
Once we accept the Fundamental Principles of Government by Truth Honesty and Justice, which are based on the principle of equality under the law (Principle 1), the solution to the problems of today's world comes within our reach.
How does it help to resolve the crises in Kashmir, Northern Ireland (yes, the crisis is still there, in spite of a colleague of yours calling the British policy there a 'success story'), and Palestine?
I was fortunate enough to have had an opportunity to talk to both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs of the generation who lived in Palestine at the time of the British Mandate. They told me that, at the time of the British Mandate the Jews and the Arabs of the then Palestine lived together in close proximity and had friendly relations. There were even friendships and social visits.
I have personally seen similar phenomenon in relationships between Cypriot Greeks and Turks in Britain - enemies in Cyprus, they became friends in Britain.
And the same is true about Muslims and Hindus from the Indian Subcontinent. At the time of the British Rule they lived in peace and friendship, and they live in peace and friendship outside of the Indian Subcontinent, in Britain, or East Africa.
So why these communities live in peace and friendship at some times and in some places, and become bitter enemies in others?
Under the British Mandate in Palestine, the Jews and Arabs were in equal position as far as the government was concerned. The government were the foreigners, the British, neither the Jews, nor the Arabs ruled the other, and they were treated equally by the British Administration. It was not until the issue of establishing the State of Israel was raised, that the conflict arose. The Arabs were afraid that, if the State of Israel is established, they would find themselves under the Israeli rule. When the British were about to withdraw, and the establishment of the State of Israel became imminent, they started attacking the Jews. The Jews started repelling the Arab attacks and, while doing so, driving the Arabs from their houses and their land and increasing the territory of the State of Israel. This process was repeated a number of times and is known as the Arab-Israeli wars. As a result, now half of the Arab population of Palestine live outside of the area, mostly as refugees and often still in refugee camps. The other half are in the present West Bank and Gaza in conditions which made you wince.
So the reason for enmity between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine, is that the government of Israel is not impartial. It is political. It is representative. It represents the interests of the Jews, at the expense of the interests of the Arabs. Had the government of the area been 100% impartial and neutral, there would have been no reason for the enmity between the two communities. It would not have mattered if a person holding a public office is an Arab, a Jew, a Chinese, or an impersonal slot machine, any more than it matters who happens to be the cashier at a petrol station. All that matters is that he (she, or it) takes the right money, measures the right amount of petrol and gives the right change. The same level of honesty, competence, objectivity, and impartiality is required from all governments.
The same is true of Northern Ireland, where the Catholics see themselves as being at a disadvantage as compared to the Protestants, whom they believe to be favoured by the British government. They seek a union with the Catholic Ireland. But the Protestants fear that if Ulster is united with Ireland, then they would be at a disadvantage, being ruled over by a government favouring Catholics.
And the same is true in Kashmir.
In all the cases the disputes are not religious, they are about power and privilege, about which community is to be favoured by the government of the area. They are disputes about which government will abuse its powers to favour which group.
The solution to these disputes is to reject politics as a method of government, and to resolve these disputes on the basis of the principle of equality under the law.
And the same is true about the strikes, and 'industrial relations' in Britain, and the present chaos and riots in Brazil.
Since its foundation the Labour Party has seen itself as a party representing a 'class', the 'working class'. A class which as a legal or constitutional entity has never existed.
There existed a myth about people who were not so rich as to live off capital, and did not own businesses, and for that reason had to earn money by doing some work for those who was prepared to pay for it, being a class. That they had to work not because they needed money, but because they 'belonged' to the 'working class'. I myself worked for money, sometimes doing low-skilled, physical work (so-called working class work), but I never belonged to a working class, or any class, because of that. I worked because I needed money, and because there happened to be somebody who was prepared to pay money for the work I was capable of doing at the time. It was just a contract between two parties equal under the law. I did meet people who believed that they belonged to the working class, because their father was a miner, or a milkman, or a social worker, but nothing except their own belief that they are working class prevented them from saving money, or borrowing money from a bank and starting their own business, or spending their after work time learning a skill or profession, or doing whatever they liked with their lives. They did not belong to any class, because there was no class to belong to.
Classes did exist in the feudal times, when kings used to elevate those whom they favoured to the class of nobility. It was impossible to become a nobleman by becoming rich, or brave, or in any other way, except through a legal act of a king elevating a person favoured by him to the rank of nobility by touching him on the head with a sword, or performing some other legal ceremonial act.
In such sense 'working class' never existed.
Working class was a fraudulent myth which Labour Party politicians used to advance their careers. They were telling people who happened to earn their living by doing work in exchange for money:
"You belong to the working class. Because you belong to the working class, the only way you can improve your life is to join a trade union, vote Labour, and continue doing the low paid job you are doing till the rest of your life. We shall take care of you. We are a caring government. We shall rob the rich till the pips squeak, and we shall use their money to provide services for you and to improve your living standards. Just stay in your jobs, pay the union fees, listen to your shop stewards and vote for us. And when we achieve our socialist dream and abolish all private property, paradise on earth will come and we shall all live happily ever after."
Those, who followed the Socialist demagogues, stayed in their low paid jobs, and now depend on whatever 'services' the government will chose to provide. They are the victims of the political demagogues. Those who rejected the social demagogy of the Labour Party, and relied on their own efforts to improve their lives, succeeded and became masters of their own lives. I met people from the same family, where one son (or daughter) believed that he is 'working class' and so he remained fodder of the socialist demagogues till the rest of his life, while the other believed in his own efforts and became a successful businessman, or whatever he (she) chose to be.
The doctrine of the 'working class' is not as fashionable today as it used to be, and the idea of abolishing all private property has been abandoned by the 'new' labour party, but the 'industrial relations' laws based on this doctrine still remain in force. Trade unions, which are nothing more than private voluntary organisations, still have legal immunities and are above the law.
Moreover, your government have recently introduced a law which obliges employers who employ more than 20 persons to 'recognise' a trade union.
You have introduced the 'minimal wage' legislation which is based on the assumption that a 'wage' is not a result of a contract between two parties equal under the law, but some kind of 'social entitlement' like a welfare benefit, the amount of which is to be determined by the government, but the payment of which is to be effected by private individuals.
The Rent Acts, which are nothing more than a crime against property committed by the British government still have not been publicly acknowledged as a crime, and are on the statute books, be it with some amendments allowing landlords to regain their properties under certain conditions.
The present railway strikes are the direct result of the present industrial relations laws and the philosophy on which they are based. This philosophy is incompatible with the principles of equality under the law, individual freedom, and responsibility of every person for the result of his own actions. This philosophy is a hangover from the fraudulent philosophy of the old socialist labour party.
The solution to the present and all future strikes is to reject politics as a method of government, accept the Fundamental Principles of Government by Truth Honesty and Justice, to review all the existing legislation in the light of these principles and to remove every piece of socialist nonsense from the statute books.
You say globalisation is good.
And so do I.
But, we mean by it different things.
You mean some form of neo-colonialism, in which Britain (under your leadership, of course) will have access to the resources of the poorer countries.
My understanding of globalisation is a single world with a single currency, in which all people will have equal legal rights, and will be free to travel, work, and do business wherever they want. Where the governments are honest, competent and impartial, like that petrol station slot machine. Where the national armies are disbanded and replaced with a single unified supranational police force. And where the frontiers will have as much meaning as they have between the British counties, which any body can cross in any direction without being stopped or shot. Where wars, terrorism, and politics will become redundant, because all will be equal under the law, and all disputes between people will be resolved on the basis of the Fundamental Principles of Government by Truth Honesty and Justice.
Britain, indeed, has a unique position in the world, due to its colonial past. It is not a super-power, as you say. But even the super-power of the super-powers, the USA, speaks English and uses a legal system based on the English common law, and so does Australia, and India, and Pakistan, and so does much of Africa.
Then there is the giant Russia which woke up from its socialist nightmare, and now desperately needs a legal system, which will allow people to conduct business with each other with the confidence, which comes from the knowledge that a contract can be enforced in courts and cannot be frivolously interfered with by political governments. Such certainty is a necessary prerequisite of a free society. Today to enforce a contract Russian businessmen have to resort to the services of the Mafia.
So, Tony, are you the man for the global role?
... For the role to reject all the myths and superstitions of the 20th century, and abandoning politics as a method of government?
This is not a goal to be achieved overnight, not even in a single term of government, but you can start working towards that goal right now.
Because, if you don't, then after they have played enough with stances, postures, and trying to please everybody, and have found that none of their tricks work, the tories, will jump on the band wagon of government without politics. And it they do, they will steam roller over your 'new' labour, and only a wet spot will be left. Because government without politics is the future of mankind.