And If an Iranian Nuclear Bomb Were Good for Peace?

Unstoppable proliferation
Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers: Russia, Turkey (through NATO warranties and through the special arrangements that were made during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961), Israel, Saudi-Arabia (which country is, in all probability, co-proprietor of the Pakistani bomb) and Pakistan. On top of all that, the US fleet in the Gulf is stuffed with nuclear arms.

The USA and its Western allies, having tolerated, if not supported, an

• Israeli development of a considerable nuclear capacity since the sixties,
• it's transfer to Apartheid South Africa in the seventies,
• the Indian bomb,
• the Pakistani bomb, and
• just some weeks ago, tacitly accepted the North-Korean capacity of building nuclear weapons, -

why do they make such a fuzz about the coming-out of a new small nuclear power?

Owning the Bomb works two ways: it generates arrogance and stabilisation of rogue regimes AND it learns them, paradoxically, to behave...
As we saw above, Iran is far from being the first country to introduce non-great power owned nuclear arms in the region. And it is not the first one, either, to threaten Israel with a nuclear response, if it uses its nuclear capacity against it or its allies. In 1973, the Soviet Union, when Israel considered nuking Egypt (Cairo), put its nuclear missiles in the Caucasus on alert and let that be known. The appeasing mechanism of mutual destruction risk, main element of the Cold War Years did its work then, too: No nuclear arms were used and a truce, later peace, was concluded between Israel and Egypt.

If it were true, that the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the ending of a bipolar world, would have made any proliferation (further proliferation) of nuclear capacities, suddenly extremely dangerous, why then, have the US and their nuclear armed allies not profited from the window of opportunity that existed during the Nineties, to implement the treaties and arrangements that existed at that time, to impose nuclear disarmament on the world, beginning with the existing nuclear powers? It was not impossible, as has been shown by the successful, UN controlled, nuclear disarmament of post-apartheid South Africa, the Ukraine and possibly other post-Soviet countries. (Libya is another case: it is essentially a security deal between the existing regime and the Americans, piloted by the UK, bypassing French, Italian and Russian ambitions in that region.)

The only answer to that, I am able to imagine, is, that nuclear armament has become, under certain conditions, a vector of stability and security, and, even, a condition for peace.

A Chirac "lapse" (?)
Some weeks ago, I found a confirmation of that, at first view, paradoxical proposition. It was here, in At Home In Europe (Week 5: Chirac on Iran, etc.), that I mentioned the "gaffe" of French president Chirac. The old fox, talking with American and British press, said that a limited number of Iranian nuclear arms, would do not much harm, but that it would, on the contrary force Iran into a more responsible policy. The day after, he made 'amende honorable' and slipped hastily back into the ranks of the Western diplomatic orchestra that puts (with some dissonances) maximum pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program. But it had been said. It is an expression of European uneasiness with the US brinkmanship in the Near East. Maybe, it was not a "gaffe" at all, but a voluntary statement of difference, intended to stay alive during one day only, for a small nuclear power like France cannot allow itself to appear dissociated from mainstream "international community" diplomatic opinion.

Which, if I am right, would draw attention another confirmation of the chiraquian proposition, i.e.: that even an established nuclear power like France, can only tell the naked truth about nuclear policy in a way, that the Germans would call "klammheimlich".

Before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union: the same rules apply?
And, considering the question from the experiences out of the Cold War era: Why should not a more complex and layered system of guaranteed mutual destruction, as it has come up after the Cold War, work out in the same way as the bipolar one has done from 1945 to 1990?

Apparently, it does!
- We mentioned the Israeli-Egyptian peace of 1979.
- We could also mention the consequences of the nearly contemporaneous accession of India and Pakistan to nuclear armament: Both countries are working out serious deals now on their eternal differences (Kashmir), have already a series of smaller detente measures in place for traffic and commerce, and are working out a major strategic deal about a gas and oil pipeline from Iran to India, running through Pakistan. Some years ago, this was unthinkable.
- Between Turkey and Israel, two potential foes, it is about a certainty, that (secret) nuclear deals grease the harmonious military and economic (and strategic: water!) relations that exist between them.
- We could continue: Nixon's travel to China (1972), Russian-Chinese peace after having warred over the Amour region, etc.

It is absolutely not my personal preference for the world, this nuclear mutual deterrent system, but it works. Undeniably. I am even nearly convinced, that, if Saddam Hussein really had possessed the nuclear capacities that the US and the UK ascribed to him, the actual invasion of that country would not have taken place. But about Iraq, later.

Mr. Chirac, probably, spoke out of his own experience as leader of a minor nuclear power, when he mentioned the appeasing effects the possession of this kind of armament by a given country, has on its behaviour in international policy.

Daring to think the logic of multi-layered proliferation
Anyhow, having missed the opportunity in the beginning of the nineties, I see no way to halt a further proliferation of nuclear armament to a number of countries. We have to live with that, and dare to think of how it works and how to deal with that.

That is how we arrive at North Korea. Part of the famous "axis of evil" (Bush, State of the Union, 2002). Like Libya, the North-Korean regime intends to make a deal with the US, in order to guarantee its security and the continuation of its despicable system. Nuclear armament is the only asset it sees, to force the US into such a deal. That worked more or less fine during the Clinton era. A deal, acceptable to South Korea, Japan and China, was in the works. With the coming of George W. Bush, all that changed radically. Why?

I see two reasons for that.

1. The Star Wars Illusion in 2001
The first has to do with star wars, the idea (illusion?) that the US could escape the constraints put upon a 'normal' nuclear power, protecting themselves against nuclear attack with an interception shield (missiles that kill incoming warheads at sufficient distance from the US (mainland). In a deal with the former Soviet Union, the development of this kind of systems had been forbidden at the end of the Reagan era. But Bush revived this effort, and could do so, as the Soviet Union did no more exist, and Russia was not interested at that time, to keep up the deal (got probably something in return for abandoning its opposition). Installation of that "shield", would (will?) indeed allow the president of the US to use nuclear arms, without the possibility of retaliation.

• (At least, not on the US mainland - The risk for allies located elsewhere, would substantially grow: A nuked Iran, not being able to reach the US, could, for instance, retaliate in stead in Israel, like Saddam Hussein symbolically did in 1991 with his Scuds. The adventurous British, Dutch, Polish, Danish, etc. policies like we have seen them in Iraq, could even endanger the whole European Union, in such a case, the American shield being unable to protect them, even if they have missiles in Lithuania and Poland. In the last case, a retaliation on Europe becomes even more likely!)

The existence of the "shield" would have allowed the US to forbid whomever they wanted to have nuclear arms, and thus policing the world without fear for retaliation: The illusion of the 'American Century' manifesto of the neoconservatives (1997). The first months of the Bush presidency (2001) were nearly exclusively dedicated to the development of this main geopolitical revolution in the making. Many witnesses confirm this, in relation to the lax treatment of the Al Qaeda warnings. Terrorism was not an issue. The Shield would change everything.

In retrospective, Bush acted in January 2002, as if he had already such a shield ready for use. This was to become one of his major errors: He did not intimidate Iran and North Korea. On the contrary: North Korea broke the Clinton-deal and rushed to make its own weapons. It was only in 2002, that Iran seriously started to create the conditions for producing nuclear armament of his own. Other countries may also have accelerated their efforts to become nuclear powers because of this new US policy.

CONCLUSION: The first reason for the US abandoning the use of balancing the nuclear terror of mutual destruction between regional nuclear powers, was, if I am right, the illusion of being (soon) protected against (nuclear) retaliation, abandoning at the same time its allies to greater risks of becoming victims of that. The US would go it alone. What they did. Ask the NATO allies who offered a broad coalition after 9/11, and were harshly rebutted.

2. Underestimating China and other not-so-second-rate nuclear powers
The second reason is to be found in China. A first warning came even before 9/11. An American spy plane was forced to land on Chinese soil (the island of Hainan, facing the Vietnamese coast). All its installations were practically intact. First efforts to intimidate the Chinese at returning plane and crew, proved useless. Bush had to accept the Chinese conditions and to acknowledge, that Chinese technological progress, backed by a nuclear capacity, was something to reckon with. But not all consequences of that were thought out in Washington. Especially concerning North Korea. Apparently nobody in Washington got the idea, that North Korean nuclear armament possibly was not as much directed against the USA as against their big Chinese neighbour. So, during six years, the US continued to do the 'dirty work' of protecting China against an independence-loving neighbour and helping its ambitions for regional domination, menacing North Korea, isolating and starving it.
Very recently, the State Department announced a sudden turnabout in the relations with an -in the mean time nuclearily armed- North Korea. Everything is going to be smooth. (If Mr. Cheney will not ultimately have his way.) A possible reason for this may be the successful interception operation China executed recently of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Shit! The US, if they will ever have their shield, they will not be the only ones to have it. The Chinese too... Which means, that it is of still more importance to the US than before, to dispose of a - be it a small one - nuclear power on China's doorstep! (North-) Korean warheads will be able to reach Beijing (at some hundreds of kilometers from the Yalu River), where American intercontinental missiles will fail.

CONCLUSION: The second explanation for the unreasonable Bush politics on local nuclear balances might be their underestimation of the capacities of other nuclear powers. This seems to have been repaired in the North-Korean case.

IRAN
Will such a turnabout also occur in the Iranian question? Difficult to say.
There are reasons enough for it. A nuclear Iran would help to reign in exaggerated Russian ambitions in the Caucasus and in Central Asia. It would feel free of the risk of Israeli operations like the 1981 one on the nuclear reactor in Baghdad, and thus become more open to the necessary Middle East overall peace deal as proposed by the Arab countries. To the east of Iran, in Afghanistan, hidden (or uncontrolled) Pakistani help to Sunni extremists suppressing the large Shiite minority in that country, would be discouraged, and, more in general, one of the main aims of NATO intervention in that country (curbing Pakistan-supported talibanwise tribal criminality) would come nearer, without having to loose another war against local insurgents.

Against it? Yes: Iran would control the Straits of Hormuz completely. A danger to oil supply? I think that this capacity does not alter much to the existing situation. The interest of Iran with ongoing oil export is much bigger than it could gain by blocking half of Saudi-, all of Kuwaiti-, 60% of its own- and 70% of Iraqi oil exports. And, yes, the execrable Mullahs' regime would stabilise itself somewhat more. In the beginning. But as much as the external enemies will decline in number and in risk, the strong democratic and liberal tendency among the Iranian people will have more chances to gain the upper hand against the theocracy.

Finally: IRAQ
The only real victim of an Iranian accession to nuclear armament, would be: IRAQ.
The centuries-old rivalry between Arabs, Kurds and Persians would get unbalanced in favour of the last ones. Only twenty years ago, Iraq, under Saddam Hussein (with American help, it is true), was a virtual victor over Iran in the horrible war both countries fought then against each other. The balance of power between the two countries would become nonexistent. That balance is one of the pivotal givens of regional stability. Bush' father still understood that well, when he decided in 1991, to keep Iraq alive, within its historical borders, taking advice from the Saudis. Son has tried to do it his way, with the consequences we see at this moment. Even without nuclear arms, Iran is more and more setting its law in Baghdad. With nuclear arms, this tendency will only be stronger.

The only solution to this, is a very ironical one: Let the Americans help the Iraqis to build a limited nuclear capacity of their own, thus doing the work, Saddam Hussein was prevented to do, and what, not having succeeded, but nevertheless accused of, was reason for murdering him.
It would be a monumental good-bye present by the US to suffering Iraq! (And it would not cost any more American life there...)

But, theoretical as my reasoning may be, and, however much I wish all nuclear armament to disappear from the earth, I believe that, geopolitically, given the unstoppable proliferation, my idea is sound. History goes from one unimaginable irony to another. It is unpredictable.

Which should not stop us thinking.

(This text is the third version of a commentary I published in German to a blog post by BigBerta on Iran and the war that prepares itself against it [in DE] on February 25, 2007. In spite of what commonly happens, the text was not lost in the subsequent translations and rearrangements: The second German version in In Europa Zu Hause (2.25.07) is more balanced than the first, while the French version in L'Europe Chez Soi and in Toto Le Psycho (cross posted) of the same date, is better still. This English version here, of February 27 (was posted also on At Home in Europe), pleases me most. A Dutch version (upcoming), in In Europa Thuis) will, hopefully, crown this unusual excursion of mine into nuclear geopolitics.)

Mijn vader werd 90: Een leven vol stedebouwkunde 19.2.07 [NL]

(Jan D. Riethof (*1917), 20 januari 2007)

Ik ga steeds meer op hem lijken.
Dat kun je op het fotootje in de kop van deze blog goed zien.

Jan Dirk Riethof werd geboren in Schiedam op 20 januari 1917 als derde zoon van Jan Riethof en Elisabeth den Uyl (inderdaad, familie van -). Zijn vader was gepensioneerd ex-KNIL-militair die zich moest behelpen met fragiele baantjes als portier en museumbewaker.
Hij groeide op in Utrecht onder armelijke omstandigheden.
Via de Mulo, wist hij toch HBS-B af te maken, maar kon wegens geldgebrek niet naar Delft om daar bouwkunde te studeren. Het werd de MTS.
Wat ook nogal tegen de familietraditie inging: Hij werd lid van de Arbeiders Jeugd Centrale (AJC, zie Wikipedia), de sociaal-democratische jeugdorganisatie, opgericht door Koos Vorrink e.a. naar het voorbeeld van de Duitse Wandervögel.
Daar leerde hij mijn moeder kennen en daaruit heeft hij ook zijn hele leven inspiratie geput voor zijn politieke en culturele standpunten.

Stadsontwikkeling in Amsterdam
In het verlengde van dergelijke ideeën over natuur, optimisme, gemeenschap en respect voor anderen, lag het 'Nieuwe Bouwen', de stroming in de architectuur en de stedebouw (urbanisme) die met kracht elke nostalgie verwierp en stadsplanning plus woningbouw wilde ontwikkelen vanuit strikt rationele gezichtspunten, zoals: orientatie van woongebouwen op de bezonning, functiescheiding tussen wonen, werken, recreatie en verkeer.
Brandpunt van deze stroming in Nederland was de sector Stadsontwikkeling van de Amsterdamse gemeentedienst der Publieke Werken.Voordat mijn vader daar als tekenaar aan de slag ging, had de gemeente al een bijzonder volledig Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan ontwikkeld, geheel volgens de principes van het 'Charter van Athene' en op wetenschappelijke leest geschoeid: de afdeling 'Survey' produceerde aan de lopende band statistieken en daarop gebaseerde berekeningen, die de grondslag vormden van het ruimtelijk beslag en de stedebouwkundige ordening. Anders dan meestal bij dergelijke plannen het geval is, is dit AUP tot diep in de zestiger jaren vrijwel naar de letter uitgevoerd. Ondanks de schokken van de Tweede Wereldoorlog en de woningnood erna. Je kunt zelfs het bouwen in de zeventiger jaren in de Bijlmermeer, niet voorzien in het AUP, zien als een extrapolatie van de AUP-beginselen, zij het tot in het absurde doorgevoerd.

Dichtbij de 'groten' van het Nieuwe Bouwen (mej. Mulder, Ir. C. van Eesteren, enz.) ontwikkelde mijn vader zich tot hoofd van een onderzoekafdeling binnen de survey van Stadsontwikkeling. Er werd verkeer geteld, er werden vierkante meters ruimtebehoeften aan sportterreinen uitgerekend - ik heb het een beetje meegemaakts, als ik als middelbare scholier vakantiebaantjes vervulde op "zijn" afdeling.

Weigering van de vertrutting in de stedebouw...
Een grote schok in zijn werkzame leven, betekende de terugkeer naar een ouderwetse en meer intuïtieve vorm van bouwen en stadsplanning rond het midden van de zeventiger jaren in Amsterdam. Functionele patronen werden verstoord door 'inbreiding', nieuwe woonbuurten werden ontworpen als replica's van oude Ijsselmeerstadjes, korte-termijnbeslissingen vervingen de zorgvuldige meerjarenplanning. Stadsontwikkeling werd feitelijk opgeheven, onderzoeksfuncties gingen naar een bestuursdienst, die bij de (politieke) dag leefde en ondergeschikt was aan wisselende modes en bestuurlijke persoonlijkheden.

Toen hij 62 jaar was, hield hij er plotseling mee op: Vervroegde pensionering was toen nog een goede optie. Dat was 28 jaar geleden - een mensenleeftijd. Van zijn plannen om te publiceren over de geschiedenis van Stadsontwikkeling kwam weinig terecht. Er waren veel andere zorgen. Langzamerhand werd het gepensioneerde leven gevuld met de activiteiten in een hechte groep van oud-AJCers, in het begin vooral uit Utrecht. Het waren mensen van de generatie van mijn ouders, of iets ouder. De meesten van hen zijn nu overleden.

Oud worden in een zich verhardende samenleving
Een zwakker wordende gezondheid, vereenzaming, verlies van functies slaan nu toe. Toegang tot een plek in één van de bejaarden- en verzorgingshuizen in Amsterdam, die mijn vader zelf zo zorgvuldig had helpen plannen, is er helaas niet van gekomen. Met hulp van mijn drie broers en hun gezinnen, die verspreid in Nederland wonen, en -sinds kort- met die van de wijkverpleging (Zie: e-urban Journal: Niederlände: Maffia in der häuslichen Krankenpflege, 12.2.07 [DE]), wordt een stukje leven in stand gehouden.

Het is bijna een hele eeuw, die u met een onhandig gebaar groet.
Uiterlijk lijk ik op hem. Maar ik knok ervoor, om anders oud te (kunnen) worden.

(Crossposted from: De Lage Landen - Mijn vader werd 90 jaar.)

A dedicated Detective, a deflated Balloon and an empty Box 6.2.07

So Eeyore went to London, on January 23rd. Detective C., in spite of his Scottish name and his London phonetic twist, turned out to have at least three out of four ancestors from supposedly British-Indian origin. A nice man, a busybody, who took exceptional good care of his witnesses, me and Ion, the head of the Hotel Security, where the theft had occurred. We needed that, for conditions within the Westminster Magistrates Court on Horseferry Road were not exactly hospitable. Searched thoroughly at the entrance, we landed in a crowded waiting room, where lawyers conferred with their, often loudly mouthed, customers. Every fifteen minutes, Detective C. arrived, trying to keep our hopes for a soon liberation from this purgatory alive. Having travelled since five o'clock in the morning, I started to look for a coffee vending machine, a facility that is present in even the most sordid of continental waiting rooms, prisons included. But the only machine I found, was an automat to pay fines into. A Turkish young man, at a small distance from us, started shouting in Turkish to his mother, next to him, a 50 year old female lawyer, who accompanied them, struggled to provide a civilised English translation of what he said, to the representatives of the personnel that had come to restore order.

Ion, my companion, is recognisable from a far distance as a member of the ever growing guild of security guards. Heavily built, broad shoulders, black suit, hair cut short. We do not have much in common. Conversation that could have shortened the time, is hard to keep somewhat flowing.

Intermezzo: I could tell you a similar story about British Justice as I did about the Police. Every year, some ten to fifteen percent of their budget is cut off. And new tasks are adding to the existing ones. The Times of London, on this same 23rd of January, reports a rare public protest from the Judges syndicate against this situation. Response of Home Office Minister Reid: "We are busy to invest into a customisation and digitalisation of the paperwork. That justifies a considerable reduction of personnel." 

Imagine, you are a British judge: Your wig would fly to the ceiling! If I could do something about it, I would immediately designate the English Courts as a 41st Respect Zone, where Ministers are no more allowed to show that they are improperly brought up.

The defense of our culprit has asked the judge for a Spanish translator, who is, of course, late in arriving. The trial is rescheduled for the afternoon. We are dismissed for two hours, with order to stay near the Court. The only way to do so, is going to the Starbucks coffee paradise on Horseferry Road, where we sit among the same public as in the Court's waiting room. Not astonishing: It is the only accessible refuge in the neighbourhood. Only, and that is worth a thought,  their behaviour is much more civilised here.

The Verdict - Click for a full version. Then, after two hours to the minute, Detective C. calls me on the indispensable mobile phone, meets us at the entrance of the Court house, apologising politely, saying that both of us are no more needed as witnesses and that the Judge probably will dismiss the case, as the accused has only facilitated the actual theft of the case, standing near to that person, on the lookout.

Eeyore (Bourriquet), contributed by Merenwen [click to see the flower!]Eeyore got another half-empty box. But Detective C.'s charm, even in this dramatic moment of collapse, remains irresistible. I decide to prefer the half-empty box to the wholly empty one, I always expected.

And I begin to understand, why my British correspondent did not understand this deployment of serviceability. Detective C. must be, like my former Surinamian-Indian colleague and longtime buddy Budh Khargi at the Dutch Ministry of the Interior, one of those rare unbeatable, undisturbable go-getters, who, keeping strictly to the rules, with an  - at first sight- naive, autistic perseverance, keep doing their work, mobilising one or more of the almost forgotten and generally despised complementary services, that exist in every bureaucracy, fruits of a whim of a since long forgotten former Director, like the Victim & Witness Care Unit.

I cannot help to fall in love with people like Detective C. They show, that a better world is not impossible. And if some of his rare qualities really stem from Indian culture, let us humbly integrate them.

I returned to Brussels with a flower in my -empty- box.

This is the third and last part of an article that originally was posted on February 5, 2007 in Huib's Urblog at e-urban ThinkTank. Updated on March 20, 2007 for huibslog.

What Eeyore learnt about London Police and Magistrates 6.2.07

So, before telling you how Eeyore went to London to see justice done in Westminster Magistrates Court on Horseferry Road, I will entertain you with what I learnt from a closer look into British (London) Police practice from an urban redevelopment viewpoint.

Like Stalin used to say: "To be concise and short, comrades, it is an awful MESS." Whole lots of police tasks in the public sphere have been farmed to private, profit-oriented, businesses, like the parking management and the perception of parking fines. Permanently, 6 to 11 % of the force is on longtime sickness leave, while another average 6% is present, but on 'restricted duties', recovering from sickness (the Daily Mail, 5 February 2007, cited from The Guardian's Ros Taylor's daily 'Wrap'):

"The biggest bill is faced by the Metropolitan Police, which has 1,744 officers on restricted duties - 5.7 per cent of the total force strength."

Being on restricted duty, means, that one is confined to paperwork and telephone answering, doing often the same things as civil employees who are paid much less. Of course, the Mail, conservative, decries what it sees as a "waste" of public money, implicitly accusing the officers in question of parasitizing, and inviting its readers to say so (Which they do obediently: 41 indignant comments published, so far).

Living under such working conditions, with the new constraints of terrorism prevention coming on top, MUST produce such an epidemic of sick leaves. And the Mail's denunciation will absolutely not help to lessen the stress under which those people have to do their work. The wicked ways of many representatives of the the British press are evident in the following 'citation' of Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, well known in the world as the man who kept us informed about the murderous terrorist attacks on London public transport last year (The daily Mail):

"Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said it was an issue that must be tackled. He warned that, in some cases, police are receiving a full salary for as little as one hour's work each day."

Imagine: You are a police officer, suffering from a burnout, but having decided to do whatever possible, to overcome it quickly
and go to work on a 'sunrise' scheme, proposed by your employer, just to do what you can to help out your colleagues and be able to rejoin them at the shortest term. And then, you feel abandoned by your own commissioner in chief, who is presented as someone who denounces you as a parasite! I am sure, Ian Blair's remarks have been distorted by the Daily Mail, and I am also sure that most police officers, knowing their press, will not believe a word of what the paper says. But to the general public, who have (unjustly) no 6 months' 100% paid sick leave- and 'restricted-duty' reinserting schemes, the damage has been done.

Meanwhile, it rains reorganisation schemes: New absolute priorities every month. Yesterday, it was neighbourhood patrolling, establishing relations of confidence by small teams with a given urban area, be accessible night and day - here is our telephone number. Today it is a new priority: "Respect Zones", which means: integration into a local task force, singling out families with 'anti-social behaviour' in 40 areas in England. (Guardian, January 23, 2007).

Tony Blair himself announced it in his inimitable reverend's style:

" I think it's to do with drugs and the drugs culture and, it's a difficult thing to say, but there are a small number of very dysfunctional families where the kids are not properly brought up."

The local Councils, made powerless by Thatcher policies, and not much re-empowered by New Labour since, have to bear the brunt of this new, potentially divisive, 'crackdown'. They make, if I understand the Guardian report from several targeted neighbourhoods well, the best of it, engaging, like in Bolton, Greater Manchester, an experimented Charity to work with the new government money. And, which is still more significant, in my eyes, stating:

"The respect agenda is not just about tackling unacceptable or anti-social behaviour, but is about taking this further and reaching more people and communities," said Cliff Morris, Labour leader of the Bolton Council. "It aims to create a modern culture of respect by working on the underlying causes of bad behaviour [...]" [My bolds, HR]

I read this as an implicit critic of the spasmodic government initiatives, which neglect the necessity of a broad, holistic and sustained approach over more than 2 or 3 years to the community and it's environment. For, what is the sense of forcibly 'rehabilitate' families, if, at the end of the project, there is no job, no caring community, only street- and pub-life for the rehabs?

Imagine again: You are a police officer. On Monday, you get a training as a terrorism combatant and (I hope) learn to avoid killing innocent Brazilian immigrants; on Tuesday, somebody comes over to teach community patrolling; on Wednesday, the CrimeStopper Consultant celebrates his evangelium of New York "zero-tolerance"; on Thursday, the Respect Zones commissioner announces a reorganisation of the neighbourhood patrolling; and on Friday another somebody from Justice tells you, that there are no laws to support either community patrolling, nor Respect Zones, so that you have ultimately no means to impose the things the other ones said that are your targets. That leaves the day of Saturday to do your work. And,  was it by chance?, it was on a Saturday morning, that Detective C. managed to get hold of a member of the criminal gang who stole my bag.

Let there be no misunderstanding: My reconstruction of a metropolitan police officer's week is NOT based on any interview of an actual policeman, but only and alone on my personal 'long way' through government bureaucracies. I even fear, that actually, it is even worse. To me, even to me, the surrealisms, created by bureaucracy, are always above imagination. It is a new kind of creative, but utterly counterproductive, art. Heavily subsidised too. - Take note, dear friends at the Daily Mail!

This is the second part of an article, posted on February 5, 2007 in Huib's Urblog at e-urban ThinkTank website. Updated for huibslog om March 20, 2007.