Category Archives: Politics

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK firms alarmed over Government crackdown on migrants

IMMIGRATION/BREXIT

BUSINESS leaders have clashed with the Government over Brexit following the pledge by Theresa May to curb the flow of cheap, low-skilled labour from Europe.

Business lobby groups reacted with fury to leaked Government proposals outlining a tough new immigration system after Britain leaves the EU.

Downing Street hit back, saying business needs to end its reliance on cheap migrant labour and do more to train British workers. Mrs May said ministers had a duty to curb immigration after last year’s EU referendum, and restated her pledge to slash net immigration to the “tens of thousands”.

But the Government was in disarray as Cabinet ministers, including Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Business Secretary Greg Clark are understood to have concerns about slashing immigration from the EU too quickly.

Damian Green, the First Secretary of State and one of Mrs May’s closest allies, is also thought to have misgivings, and believes the plan can be toned down.

It has also emerged that FTSE 100 leaders have refused to sign a letter backing the Government’s Brexit strategy. Downing Street quietly asked executives to sign an open letter saying they wanted to “make a success of Brexit”, and welcoming the Government’s push for a transitional deal.

But this was not welcomed by some, with one executive reportedly saying: “There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the talks.”

It is understood the letter, drafted by No. 10, was due to be made public as Mrs May tries to create support for the legislation going through Parliament about our EU withdrawal.

The row followed the leak of a Home Office document setting out plans to curb immigration from the EU after Brexit.

The Prime Minister said: “Immigration has been good for the UK, but people want to see it controlled as a result of our leaving the EU.

“The Government continues to believe it is important to have net migration at sustainable levels, particularly given the impact it has on people at the lower end of the income scale in depressing their wages.”

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: “We have always welcomed to this country those who can make a contribution to our economy, people with high skills.

“On the other hand, we want British companies to do more to train up British workers, to do more to improve skills of those who leave our colleges. So, there’s always a balance to be struck. We’re not closing the door on all future immigration but it has to be managed properly and people do expect to see the numbers coming down.”

The document, which has caused uneasiness among some ministers, suggests low-skilled workers from the EU would only be allowed to stay for a year or two, and EU citizens would be barred from moving to the UK to look for a job. Ministers are also considering a ‘direct numerical cap’ on the numbers who come here from Europe after the UK leaves in March 2019.

Big businesses reacted angrily to the proposals. The chief executive of the British Hospitality Association said the proposals would be “catastrophic” for the industry, one which relies heavily on cheap EU labour.

The executive said: “We understand the wish to reduce immigration but we need to tread carefully and be aware of the unintended consequences – some businesses will fail, taking UK jobs with them.”

A spokesperson for the Confederation of British Industry, said: “An open approach to our closest trading partners is vital for business, as it attracts investment to the UK. It also helps keep our economy moving by addressing key labour shortages.”

The Institute of Directors said business leaders would not welcome the proposals and its members would be hoping for changes in the Government’s final position.

The National Farmers’ Union said a cut in migrant workers could cause “massive disruption” for the industry. Its deputy president said 80,000 seasonal workers a year are needed “to plant, pick, grade and pack over 9 million tonnes of fruit, vegetable and flower crops”.

But Migration Watch, a think-tank, said ministers were right to pressure businesses to wean themselves off cheap foreign labour.

In a statement, it said: “We want to encourage employers to train local people and make more of an effort to prepare for a time when there won’t be all these people coming in with readymade skills prepared to work for lower wages.”

The leaked document was a draft of proposals due to be published this autumn.

Sources said a further six drafts have since been produced and it has not yet gone to ministers for approval. Senior figures in Brussels raised concerns about the document.

Gianni Pittella, leader of a large group within the European Parliament, said it revealed the “nasty side of Theresa May’s Government”, adding: “Should the British Government follow the position outlined, it will certainly not help the negotiations. It adds uncertainty and confusion.”

German MEP Elmar Brok, an ally of Angela Merkel, said he was “shocked by the language and content of this paper”, adding: “I think we are in a situation that EU citizens are seen as an enemy for the UK. This is not an atmosphere where you can find solutions.”

. How other countries control their borders

In the United States immigration law provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 newcomers, with certain exceptions for close family members.

The Immigration and Naturalisation Act allows a foreign national to work and live lawfully and permanently in the States.

Each year it admits foreign citizens on a temporary basis. Annually, Congress and the president also determine a separate number for admitting refugees.

Immigration to the States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the US economy, protecting refugees and promoting diversity. In Australia, a tough immigration points system is credited with keeping numbers under control while ensuring the economy has the skills it needs.

Extra points are given for factors such as experience, qualifications and age. But critics argue there is no guarantee it would bring numbers down, pointing out that Australia has proportionately higher immigration than the UK.

Since 1967, most immigrants to Canada have been admitted on purely economic grounds. Each applicant is evaluated on a nine-point system that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at age, education, skills, language ability and other attributes.

Standard
Asia, China, Government, History, Japan, North Korea, Politics, United Nations, United States

Essay: North Korea’s revenge for Japan’s forced occupation of Korea (pre-1945)

ASIA

THE North Korean regime of Kim Jong-un very deliberately chose Japan for its greatest act of provocation to date.

Crucially, it wanted to demonstrate the vulnerability of America’s key ally in East Asia – though Kim was playing on North Koreans’ savagely bitter memories of Imperial Japan’s 35-year occupation of Korea until 1945.

Japanese was imposed as the only permitted language in schools, but few Koreans were able to master it well enough to get good jobs.

Any new businesses were owned and run by the Japanese. Only a handful of Koreans were allowed to go on to higher education.

The Thirties were the height of Emperor Hirohito’s Great East Asia Co-Prosperity sphere, an initiative that purported to benefit all of East Asia but which, in reality, had the Japanese installed as the master race and ultimate beneficiaries.

Koreans were dragooned for forced labour and to be cannon fodder in Hirohito’s armies, while some 200,000 women were turned into sex slaves.

At that time Japan’s armies occupied a vast swathe of territory from Korea to New Guinea, and the troops needed company on garrison duty.

So-called ‘comfort women’ were provided by their caring imperial government – Korean women who were shipped around Hirohito’s Pacific Empire as well as into occupied China. They were not only degraded into forced prostitution, but faced the risk of being bombed by the Allies when they attacked Japanese bases.

After World War II, the ‘comfort women’ were deplorably treated by their own people.

They were regarded as collaborators and shunned. In North Korea – Korea was divided into North and South in the aftermath of the war – a charge of collaboration with the Japanese could mean death.

Imperial Japan neither apologised nor paid compensation. In South Korea today, the legacy of this exploitation is still seen as a humiliation for which Japan has not made amends.

Stoking more than a century of Korean-Japanese antagonism is part of Kim’s plan to split America’s allies. At the same time, he is bolstering his dynasty and ramping up national feeling by reminding North Koreans of the potent myth of his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, as a resistance hero, defying the Japanese.

In response to the North Korean threat, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is trying to push through changes to his country’s post-war ‘pacifist’ constitution which renounces war and ‘the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.’ And while other players in the regions such as South Korea, China and the Philippines don’t like Kim’s aggression either, they have lurking fears of Japanese rearmament.

What is most alarming for Abe is North Korea’s ability to overfly Japan. Japan’s Patriot missile defence didn’t intercept Kim’s rocket – but it was not because Tokyo chose restraint.

It couldn’t have stopped the missile if it wanted to, because it was launched from a new site in North Korea, most likely from a mobile launcher, and in a very unexpected direction.

This brought the issue of Japan acquiring a nuclear deterrent to the fore.

For millions of Japanese, the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, destroyed by atomic bombs in 1945, is the only argument needed against going nuclear. The Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in 2011 has made even civil nuclear power controversial.

But North Korea’s apparent impunity and America’s dithering have brought out Japanese hawks who say their country must go nuclear. Washington is against such a move, but after events earlier this week Japan can legitimately ask if it can really rely on its ally to deter an attack.

 

JAPAN’S role in the world economy is huge and its forces – for the purposes of self-defence under that post-war constitution – are impressive. Since 1945, it has built up a large army and air force, and one of the biggest navies in the world (although the U.S. has made sure Japan lacks aircraft carriers capable of offensive action).

Given Japan’s mix of high-tech industry and nuclear power stations, it could make a nuclear bomb quickly. But there is another player in the region – China’s reaction to such a development would be off the scale.

In Europe, in the seven decades since the end of World War II, the idea of a war between the old enemies seems incredible. But in East Asia, while American power has kept the peace between Japan and her old foes, the deep-rooted enmity between the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese is never far from the surface. Disputes over sea borders, for instance, are just one symptom of the distrust between these nations.

So, while there is method and history attached to Kim’s madness, it does leave the Japanese government facing a huge dilemma. Whether the U.S. will still be able to bear influence over the direction that Japan’s military will take – in being able to properly defend itself –  is likely to be an issue that will gain increasing traction in the weeks and months ahead.

  • Appendage
Koreas Timeline

Koreas: Historical timeline

Standard
Government, North Korea, Politics, United Nations, United States

A world dangerously close to the brink

NORTH KOREA

North-Korea-missile-663759

North Korea launched a ballistic missile in the Sea of Japan. This may have been from a submarine or from a new land based launch site.

THE world has looked on in horror this week as North Korea fired a missile over Japan. That has spread panic among the 6million population of Hokkaido island and is cranking-up tension to snapping-point.

Not since the Cuban missile crisis has the world seemed as close to the brink of a genocidal nuclear exchange.

The difference is that in that terrifying stand-off of 1962, both John F Kennedy and Russia’s Nikita Khrushchev remained open to reason. For all their bluster, they saw full-scale war as unthinkable, and each was prepared to compromise.

But how confidently can the same be said of the arch protagonists in the Korean crisis?

We should all hope and believe that Donald Trump, though hugely unpredictable, is less reckless than he likes to appear. As leader of the world’s greatest democracy, he is also restrained by the US Constitution and independent-minded advisers.

But this is hardly true of the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. Surrounded by sycophants too terrified or brainwashed to rein him in, he seems as deranged as he is ruthless.

Indeed, his countless victims include his half-brother, poisoned at Kuala Lumpur airport, and an uncle he blew to shreds with heavy artillery at point-blank range. The fear is that anyone capable of such barbarity may be capable of anything.

But are threats of ‘exterminating’ his regime, and demonstrations of military might, the best way to deal with a madman who seems only to fear losing face?

Or will South Korea’s menaces and bombing exercises, and President Trump’s muscle-flexing, merely heighten Kim’s paranoia and sense of isolation, spurring him to ever wilder acts of lunacy?

One thing seems sure. If the North Korean dictator will listen to anyone, it will be to his neighbours the Chinese, who have everything to fear from war in Korea. The West should be using all its energy and efforts by encouraging Beijing to bring him to reason.

Certainly, Mr Trump should leave him in no doubt that the US will support South Korea to the hilt. But if he wants to be remembered as a statesman, he will tone down the language – and, like Kennedy, work tirelessly to broker peace behind the scenes.

Goading this tyrant with threats of ‘fire and fury’ is surely not the answer. Such language is adding fuel to a fire that could become dangerously out of control. It could even provoke the unthinkable: nuclear war.

Standard