Welcome
Home This week's print edition Daily news analysis Opinion All opinion Leaders Letters to the Editor Blogs Columns KAL's cartoons Correspondent's diary Economist debates World politics All world politics Politics this week United States The Americas Asia Middle East and Africa Europe Britain Special reports Business and finance All business and finance Business this week Economics focus Management Economics A-Z Business education All business education Which MBA? Markets and data All markets and data Daily chart Weekly indicators World markets Currencies Rankings Big Mac index Science and technology All science and technology Technology Quarterly Technology Monitor Books and arts All books and arts Style guide People People Obituaries Diversions Audio and video Audio and video library Audio edition The World In The World in 2010 The World in 2009 The World in 2008 The World in 2007 The World in 2006 The World in 2005 The World in 2004 Research tools All research tools Articles by subject Economics A-Z Special reports Style guide Country briefings All country briefings China India Brazil United States Russia My account home Newsletters and alerts Manage my newsletters Manage my e-mail alerts Manage my RSS feeds Manage special-offer alerts More » Print subscriptions Subscribe to The Economist Renew my subscription Change my print subscription delivery, billing or e-mail address Pay my bill Activate premium online access Report a missing copy Suspend my subscription More » Digital subscriptions Subscribe to Economist.com Manage my subscription Mobile edition Audio edition Download screensaver More » Classifieds and jobs The Economist Group About the Economist Group Economist Intelligence Unit Economist Conferences Intelligent Life CFO Roll Call European Voice EuroFinance Reprints and permissions EIU online store Economist shop
Advertisement
document.write(''); document.write(''); Europe function toggle(embed){ if(document.getElementById(embed).style.display == 'none'){ document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'block'; }else{ document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'none'; } }Europe.view
Better red than dead?Nov 26th 2009From Economist.com
The peacenik past of the EU's new foreign minister deserves scrutinyIMAGINE a British Conservative politician—call her Catriona Aston—coming from obscurity to gain one of the top posts in the European Union, just as Baroness (Catherine) Ashton (pictured) has emerged from the Labour ranks to be the EU’s new foreign minister. Imagine that on closer scrutiny it turns out that in the early 1980s the fictional Ms Aston worked for a cold-war think-tank called something like the “African Freedom Foundation”, which campaigned against the spread of communism in Africa. Imagine that on closer examination it turns out that this outfit enjoyed strong behind-the-scenes support from the then apartheid government in South Africa. Among its supporters and officials are unrepentant defenders of the fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal and even those who said that Nazism had been a lesser evil than communism.
ReutersHolding her past to accountIt is easy to imagine what would happen. The hapless Ms Aston would be publicly disgraced and would have to resign forthwith. How could an EU representative credibly deal with the developing countries when she in the past had been a defender of a racist colonial regime? Nuance, context and balance would go out of the window. Nobody would ask if all causes supported by the former South African regime were equally evil, or if communism had maybe cost more African lives than apartheid.
Against that hypothetical background, the lack of fuss about the real life Catherine Ashton’s involvement with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the 1980s looks puzzling. Ms Ashton (as she was then) was a paid organiser for CND in the late 1970s and its treasurer from 1980-82.
It is worth remembering that CND was (and is) a legal organisation. It encompassed a wide range of views. Some supporters simply wanted Britain to get rid of its outdated and expensive “independent” nuclear deterrent. Others thought that the Reagan administration’s decision to put medium-range cruise and Pershing nuclear missiles in Europe was mistaken. Some idealists believed that a strong peace movement in Western Europe would inspire those behind the Iron Curtain to demand disarmament from their rulers too. Some were outright pacifists; others argued that nuclear weapons were so dangerous that “better red than dead” was the only rational approach.
Yet the fact remains that the Kremlin found CND and other “peace movements” useful ways of undermining the unity of NATO, weakening the West’s defence posture and stoking anti-Americanism. The e
Advertisement
Europe.view
Nov 26th 2009From Economist.com
IMAGINE a British Conservative politician—call her Catriona Aston—coming from obscurity to gain one of the top posts in the European Union, just as Baroness (Catherine) Ashton (pictured) has emerged from the Labour ranks to be the EU’s new foreign minister. Imagine that on closer scrutiny it turns out that in the early 1980s the fictional Ms Aston worked for a cold-war think-tank called something like the “African Freedom Foundation”, which campaigned against the spread of communism in Africa. Imagine that on closer examination it turns out that this outfit enjoyed strong behind-the-scenes support from the then apartheid government in South Africa. Among its supporters and officials are unrepentant defenders of the fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal and even those who said that Nazism had been a lesser evil than communism.
It is easy to imagine what would happen. The hapless Ms Aston would be publicly disgraced and would have to resign forthwith. How could an EU representative credibly deal with the developing countries when she in the past had been a defender of a racist colonial regime? Nuance, context and balance would go out of the window. Nobody would ask if all causes supported by the former South African regime were equally evil, or if communism had maybe cost more African lives than apartheid.
Against that hypothetical background, the lack of fuss about the real life Catherine Ashton’s involvement with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the 1980s looks puzzling. Ms Ashton (as she was then) was a paid organiser for CND in the late 1970s and its treasurer from 1980-82.
It is worth remembering that CND was (and is) a legal organisation. It encompassed a wide range of views. Some supporters simply wanted Britain to get rid of its outdated and expensive “independent” nuclear deterrent. Others thought that the Reagan administration’s decision to put medium-range cruise and Pershing nuclear missiles in Europe was mistaken. Some idealists believed that a strong peace movement in Western Europe would inspire those behind the Iron Curtain to demand disarmament from their rulers too. Some were outright pacifists; others argued that nuclear weapons were so dangerous that “better red than dead” was the only rational approach.
Yet the fact remains that the Kremlin found CND and other “peace movements” useful ways of undermining the unity of NATO, weakening the West’s defence posture and stoking anti-Americanism. The ex-dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, an expert in Soviet penetration of the West, says: “the worldwide disarmament campaign in the early 1980s was covertly orchestrated from Moscow. To a substantial extent it was also funded by the Soviet bloc”.
As CND’s treasurer, Ms Ashton argued publicly for the organisation to produce audited accounts, to counter allegations of covert Soviet support. That does not convince Mr Bukovsky. CND funding, and who knew what when, may merit further investigation.
The real scandal, though, is the West’s continuing amnesia about the cold war. Given the Soviet Union’s history of mass murder, subversion, and deceit, it is astonishing that even tangential association with Soviet-backed causes in the past does not arouse the moral outrage now that is still so readily evoked by connections with the (undisputedly revolting) regime in South Africa. Most CND veterans see their peacenik days, at worst, as romantic youthful idealism. Warm-hearted but soft-headed, maybe: but better than being cold-hearted and hard-headed.
That is a shameful cop-out. Imagine a 1980s Europe where CND had triumphed, with left-wing governments in Britain and Germany scrapping NATO, surrendering to Kremlin pressure and propping up the evil empire. Her opponents complain that Lady Ashton is ineffective. As a CND organiser, that may have been a blessing.
Back to top ^^
The Economist welcomes your views.
Advertisement
Advertisement
NUS Asia-Pacific EMBA Top 11 EMBA Worldwide (FT 2009) Admission Requirements: Bachelor degree 10 yrs working exp Join us for info session
UNICEF Director Office of Internal Audit New York
Università Bocconi: Economics and Management Education since 1902. - Bachelor - Master of Sciences - PhD Download your Welcome Kit!
Ministry of Labour and Social Policies Macedonia ANNOUNCEMENT FOR AWARDING PUBLIC CONTRACT
UN Somalia Risk Management Officer
MBA-DBA-PhD FRANCE, US, JAPAN, CHINA Boost your career with accredited Diplomas at ISM Flexible schedules Part-Time Study Worldwide
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2009. All rights reserved.
Read Full Article »