05/11/04

US governments have used military force or CIA "covert operations" to overthrow dozens of governments, often installing brutal dictators in place of democracies.

The motivation for such interventions? Consider the words of US strategist George Kennan, written in 1948: "We have about 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population... Our real task... is to maintain this disparity without positive detriment to our national security".

The "disparity" has been maintained. According to UN and IMF figures, restrictive trade practices, subsidies and debt repayments rob the developing world of about $1,000bn a year - about 20 times what they receive in aid from the rich nations.

But "national security" is beginning to suffer. For a clue as to the reason, consider the popular misconception that the US began sponsoring the Mujaheddin in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

In fact, the US began funding resistance to the Soviet-backed regime before the invasion, in a deliberate ploy to get the Soviets to intervene.

Admitting this, US security advisor Zbignew Brzezinski was asked if he regretted arming future terrorists.

He said: "What's more important... a few crazed Muslims or the end of the Cold War?"

It seems "a few crazed Muslims" have come back to haunt us.

The US is a great country, but its greatness can only be diminished by the abuse of its overwhelming military and economic power. It is great because it has produced some of the world's greatest pioneers of freedom, justice, human rights and equality. Sadly, George W Bush is not one of them. - Pete Winstanley, Durham.

HOUSE OF LORDS

ONE of many pledges made by New Labour as they sought government in 1997 was that the House of Lords would be reformed to bring it into line with a modern democratic England.

It is now 2004 and because Tony Blair has not been able to reform it as he thinks it should be run, it has been put at the back of Parliamentary business and will most likely appear as one of the ongoing election pledges that Tony Blair will again make before the next election. Until it is reformed it will still be used as a well paid job for out of work politicians.

We have Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten, both are now out of work due to the changing of the Common Market commissioners, and straight away they are made Life Peers and go on the pay roll of the House of Lords.

Thousands of bread and butter civil servants are being put out of work due to New Labour's modernisation policies, yet as soon as two ex-senior politicians are out of work they are made Lords and are entitled to a generous daily allowance plus expenses. And as we have recently seen, MP's expenses can be very generous.

I think that reform of the Lords is going to be a ongoing pledge like the reform of foxhunting. If Tony Blair doesn't get his own way there is no reform. - Peter Dolan, Newton Aycliffe.

EDUCATION

I READ Bill Morehead's letter (HAS, Oct 26) several times with growing amazement, and a conviction that he is alleging serious misconduct of our state education.

Central is his claim of a culture in which students are invited to choose between learning the subject or passing the exam.

In a rational world, those who construct examinations to be put to students are motivated solely by the need to gain an accurate measure of the breadth and depth of the student's grasp of what he has learned on the subject.

The student's exam efforts must be marked to give the same accurate appraisal.

With these criteria in place, it follows that the exam cannot be passed in any meaningful sense by a student whose subject knowledge is inadequate.

Mr Morehead's assertion to the contrary is a serious reflection on the entire system, implying as it does that the examining body has objectives differing from those outlined above.

Finally, his view of school-leavers presenting themselves to universities or potential employers, armed with pieces of paper certifying that they have knowledge and abilities which they do not have, should provoke at least a few denials. - Bob Jarratt, Richmond.

EUROPE

AS we come to the end of one referendum campaign here in the North-East, there are already concerns surrounding the funding allocations for the next one we will face.

The European Parliament has approved funding for an information policy campaign ahead of the 2006 referendum on a European Constitution. Whilst voting through the EU budget for 2005, MEPs passed an allocation of £6.25m to fund this information policy. Here in the North-East we know only to well what this really means. The Government's ''information campaign'' on the regional assembly proved to be a poorly disguised way of using taxpayers' money to fund the Yes campaign. Surely it can't happen again with the European Constitution referendum?

In my view, the EU should not be interfering in the democratic processes of Britain. Providing EU funds that could influence a referendum campaign in the UK is completely wrong and the lack of rules to govern its allocation is extremely worrying.

We are now in a position whereby the money will be divided up behind closed doors without any certainty as to where this funding will go or if it will be used in a balanced manner. - Martin Callanan MEP, Conservative.

WHAT a Cheshire Cat grin Mr Blair had as he signed the EU constitutional treaty (Echo, Oct 30). The TV pictures showed him signing large and with a flourish.

Surely this is cart before the horse. The referendum on whether or not the British people want him to sign has not yet been held. It is unwise and dishonest to sign any contract without first reading all the small print, understanding it and also consulting all those likely to be affected. Mr Blair has certainly not clearly explained the small print to the British people, nor has he gained their consent. He should not have signed.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signalled the possibility of a referendum in 2006. Too late. It does indeed look like another strategically thought out ploy to protect Mr Blair by hiding behind the expected rejection of the constitution by some other country, so no blame will fall on him. - EA Moralee, Billingham.

FIREWORKS

A MAN in Sunderland has died, in his own house, in a fire started by a firework put through his letter box.

How much longer are these lethal things going to be on sale to any idiot? The new law is useless, day and night the bangs go on.

The only good law would be to completely ban selling them, except for organised displays. - R Laycock, Shildon.