Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 2171

OUSU council to vet motions

 

Students may no longer be able to propose motions directly to OUSU Council if plans for radical reforms to the decision-making structure go ahead.

OUSU plans to ensure that all student motions are directed through a sub-committee which will be able to discuss and amend the proposal.

Currently, any two students can propose a motion directly to Council, which meets on alternate Fridays, where it will be discussed, amended, and voted on.

If the suggested changes are carried out, then all motions will have to go through the subcommittee unless they can gather 50 signatures.

The Review group states: “Experience in recent years shows that this has frequently led to incoherent and contradictory policies being passed that can be potentially damaging for the Student Union.”

OUSU President Martin McCluskey said that this will help give OUSU the “robust decision-making process” demanded by the government’s 2006 Charities Act.

He added that the current system of proposing a motion to a full council can be “terrifying” for students.  He added that the process of amendment by sub-committees would also mean that motions are “really well thought-out”, and that block voting in Council would be less likely.

He was keen to emphasise, “None [of the committees] are meeting behind closed doors.”

However James Dray, an ex-Returning Officer for OUSU, opposed the changes.  He said, “I do not think that it is in the interests of democracy to have apparatchiks deciding what can and cannot be voted on.”

He added, “These committees are likely to be dominated by hacks who are going to be even more intimidating in small meeting room in the bowels of OUSU towers than they are in Council.”

Worcester JCR President, Maanas Jain, reacted positively to the change, saying, “The time we have in council would be more effective.” He added that the democratic aspect was not being removed in any way.

An OUSU rep, who asked to remain anonymous, also said he was fully in support of the changes. He added that it would help “stop OUSU being bickering amongst people who don’t agree.”

Stefan Baskerville, the JCR President of Univ, argued, “OUSU Council is currently inaccessible and seen as out of touch, ” and that the proposals would be “an improvement on the status quo.”

It is currently thought that while anyone can currently bring a motion direct to OUSU Council the vast majority of motions are brought by OUSU Sabbatical officers.

Joe Mullan, the JCR President at St Peter’s College, said, “Some change is definitely required – as the current Council system does not work. It’s almost certain that the proposed new system will substantially increase policy coherence, something which is really needed.

“The changes will encourage more people to become involved in thepolicy making process by bypassing the need for them to have to make their case to Council, which can be quite intimidating for first time speakers.”

OUSU Council will not, however, have the power to amend motions, though it can make recommendations.
 

Student security risks exposed

A Cherwell survey has revealed that students are compromising college security by failing to take precautions against break-ins and thefts.

The results coincide with a recent burglary at St John’s College where a thief entered the grounds and gained access to students’ rooms. A man reportedly entered four or five students’ rooms, and stole a laptop and other items.

150 students took part in the survey, 59% of whom said they had loaned their access card or key to another student, and 11% of whom said they had loaned them to someone who wasn’t a student.

Over half of students said they had let someone into college they didn’t recognise and only 5% claimed always to ask a person’s name if they don’t know who they are.

Some 37% of students said they have lost their access card or key one or more times, and 31% that they wouldn’t report such a loss to the college immediately.

A number of JCR Presidents were concerned about college security upon hearing the statistics.

Dani Quinn, of Merton, said, “One area of concern for many of us is that we receive no warning when workmen (e.g. electricians) are going to be knocking on our doors to do checks. It’s embarrassing to ask for ID, and students often feel quite vulnerable when they have unidentified strangers in their rooms.”

St Peter’s College has taken steps recently to reduce the chances of college security being jeopardised by students’ carelessness.

Joel Mullan, JCR President commented, “The main college site is quite well protected. In the last year, college have taken difficult, unpopular, but necessary decisions to enhance security – such as locking both of the peripheral gates overnight. Other things like the recent successful request for overnight closure of Bulwarks Lane will undoubtedly also improve things.

“Security at the annexes is more questionable – a few weeks ago there was an attempted burglary – but we’ll be working with college in the next few months and suggesting improvements which can be made,” he added.

In response to the survey, one third year at Worcester College said, “I leave my door open all the time. Sometimes we see guys wandering about our flat but we assume they’re there for maintenance.”

Caroline Thomas, Home Bursar of New College, commented, “I doubt that any Home Bursar or Head Porter would be surprised by these statistics.

As part of the Freshers’ Week induction, New College makes it clear that most thefts occur from rooms that have been left unlocked or because students have allowed unknown people to follow them into a building or staircase. In other words, students are warned of the risks from day one.”

The Domestic Bursar of University College, Elizabeth Crawford said, “The College is constantly trying to raise awareness on these issues (via e mail, electronic notices and verbal advice through the JCR).

We are acutely conscious that our buildings and community are only as safe as College members allow them to be. But it is also important to get the balance right and not make students feel that they are living in a locked down and heavily regulated environment.”

“We have also taken out insurance against losses with Endsleigh for students who live in college accommodation, and the terms of this insurance take full account of students’ apparently relaxed approach to security. Thames Valley Police always start from the assumption that any security measures put in place are actually used,” she said.

Students have also been warned by Thames Valley Police in recent weeks to beware of burglars who follow students home and gain unauthorised access to colleges and student housing.

Ian Ashpole, a student who had something stolen during the St John’s burglary said, “He got into my room because I left my door unlocked – that’s how he got into anyone’s room. I’ve been locking my door since then, though”.

A message to members of the JCR following the incident said, “Make sure that if you leave your room you lock your door, especially if you have valuable items in your room such as phones, laptops etc.

Even if you are leaving for a minute or two this is ample time for a professional thief to operate. Also please try to ensure that the doors at the bottom of staircases are kept shut where possible, if they are left wide open then they provide no security whatsoever.”

Oxbridge IQ system slammed

Dr Bruce Charlton, an academic from the University of Newcastle, has argued that upper-class domination of Oxbridge is “a natural outcome of meritocracy” and flaws in the IQ system.

He has suggested that IQ is a faulty system for determining intelligence of individuals and that it is affected by class.

Charlton denies institutional elitism at top UK universities, saying: “Evidence to support the allegation of systematic unfairness has never been presented. Nevertheless, the accusation has been used to fuel a populist ‘class war’ agenda.

Charlton said, “Yet in all this debate a simple and vital fact has been missed: higher social classes have a significantly higher average IQ than lower social classes.”

He goes on to argue that the UK government “has spent a great deal of time and effort in asserting that universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, are unfairly excluding people from low social-class backgrounds and privileging those from higher social classes.”

According to Charlton, the average IQ in the UK is 100, but this rises to 115 for the ‘highest’ social class, who are mainly professional and senior managerial workers.

By comparison, Charlton argues that this falls to an average IQ of around 90 for the ‘lowest’ social class of unskilled workers – a difference of 25 IQ points.

Charlton predicts: “About half of children whose parents are among the cognitive elite (IQs of 130 or higher)” are eligible for admission to the most selective universities, but only “about one in 200 of kids from the lowest social stratum.”

Charlton has called his research “scientifically uncontroversial, whether people like it or not.”

Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus at the University of Ulster and author of Dysgenics, justified Charlton’s findings, saying, “The facts of higher IQs in higher SES groups is universally accepted by psychologists.”

However he added, “He stated a non PC truth. It was an emperor has no clothes statement – something everyone (experts, anyway) knows is true but dare not say.”

Bill Rammell, the Higher Education Minister, defended the Government’s commitment “to ensuring that everyone with the talent and commitment to benefit from higher education has the opportunity do so regardless of their background or which school they attended.

“This country cannot afford to let a child’s potential go to waste because of the circumstances in which they were born.”

Robert Sternberg, Dean of arts and sciences at Tufts University in the USA and an expert on human intelligence said, “Those who are in positions of power typically look for others like themselves to be allowed access to the educational routes that lead to power.

“It is a principle of interpersonal attraction that we tend to be attracted to others like ourselves, and this applies with full force to those who set admissions policies.”

At Tufts University, the admissions system is not only based upon exams such as A-Levels and SATS, but also what Sternberg calls the class-levelling “creative, practical, and wisdom-based abilities that are crucial for success in life as well as in school, and in which people of diverse backgrounds are more likely to excel.

“We have found that these measures do not show the kinds of group differences typically found on conventional measures like the SAT and A-levels.”

But when recommending use of such a system in Britain, Tufts was faced by “an admissions director of an elite UK university, which will go unnamed, commenting that the system I described could not be used in the UK.

“It does not surprise me when admissions directors of elite UK universities react that it cannot be done there. Such procedures might actually open up admissions slots to students from diverse populations, and some find that prospect frightful indeed.”

OUSU’s Access Officer James Lamming commented, “Greater than expected proportions of the higher social classes in Oxford are caused before admissions.

This is because sections of the country, predominantly in state schools, either choose not to apply to Oxford because they are put off by outdated myths or because they have been let down by poor schooling that means they do not achieve their potential and fail to reach the high standards required to apply successfully.

“Campaigns like OUSU’s Target Schools and the University Access Scheme seek to address these problems so that the most talented students, whatever their background, consider applying to Oxford on the basis of facts, not historic fictions.”

Asked about the admissions system, the University Press Office stated: “There is no discrimination in favour of or against any group.

“Selection criteria apply to all students in the same way and students are admitted solely on the basis of academic ability and potential.”

Porter quits amidst accusations

Hertford students have been shocked and saddened this week by the resignation of popular Head Porter Steve Jamieson, following managerial disputes and clashes over internal College politics.

Exact details of Jamieson’s departure have been clouded by the reluctance of both the College and the JCR to speak out, leaving the majority of Hertford students still unclear over the exact reasons for his resignation.

A Facebook group set up in protest has gained over 300 members under the title, ‘Hertford College in support of Steve Jamieson’.

On the group wall, ex-JCR President Thomas Lowe suggested Jamieson’s resignation had been strongly provoked by College actions.

Lowe wrote, “Steve’s role as Head Porter had been expanded over the past few years because the College needed someone to be fire marshall etc.

Then the College appointed a Home Bursar. Steve (and the Lodge) and the Home Bursar came into conflict over who was in control of what. This was exacerbated by Steve being better qualified than the Home Bursar and having more experience of the College.

“The bureaucratic turf war came to a head when the College began an ‘efficiency drive’ and focused on the Lodge. Steve asked for mediation and for a public apology from the College over what he felt was bullying of Lodge staff. The College refused and he felt his position was untenable. He therefore handed in his resignation.”

At the bottom of the comment, Lowe added: “*Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of events. Any references to real individuals/events is entirely incidental.”

Current JCR President Jon Colclough wrote, “All I can say is that Steve has told me he would prefer to stay, we would prefer him to stay, but he is leaving. I would say that is reason enough to express dissatisfaction.”

However, Colclough advised that tact was required, saying “Steve’s clearly been a great asset to the College, and a real help to all of the students here. He’s always done his best to help anyone in the JCR and it’s really sad to see him go.

“However, today I received a letter from the Principal expressing his sadness and that of the SCR that Steve was leaving (which, in fairness, was a nice touch from the Principal).

“Any further letters/protests/hunger strikes aren’t going to suddenly transform the situation. Steve hasn’t been sacked, he has resigned, so any further action on our part isn’t going to change anything (and I’m not entirely sure what else College could do anyway, other than bunging him a few million quid). Internal staffing politics isn’t necessarily black and white.

“The College has heard our opinion and understands how much the JCR appreciates Steve. The best thing to do now rather than getting overly militant is to sign Steve’s leaving card when it is passed around next week and meet him at the Lodge when he leaves on Friday.”

Jamieson himself, who was previously a scout at Hertford and played 1st XI football for the College, was unwilling to comment on the details of his departure. He declared how deeply sad he was to be leaving Hertford, saying, “It’s just a shame. I’ve loved the last three and a half years here, I thought I’d stay here all my life.”

“I have always had the interests and the welfare of the students at heart. It’s just a shame that certain members of the College don’t share my views.”

“It’s all about the students – these guys are fantastic, they are like family.”

Jamieson is an exceptionally popular figure around Hertford, and this has been reflected by the overwhelming weight of student tributes towards him. Alex Woolgar, creator of the Facebook group, called him “one of Hertford College’s greatest assets, and a credit to the College. His professionalism is exemplary, and he’s a fantastic guy too.

“It is absurd that Hertford is letting him go, considering his outstanding service to the College and its members.”

Tim Boothman, JCR Treasurer at Hertford, added that Steve “will be sorely missed by all at College, including the vast majority of the JCR, MCR and SCR, as well as the other staff.”

“He was an extremely professional, competent and friendly person who kept College functioning as it should, the first port of call for anyone with a query.”

Another undergraduate, Qu Hsueh Ming, called Jamieson “an absolute hero”, adding that he was “frankly disgusted that Hertford are treating him so poorly. No doubt he’ll boss whatever he’s doing next, but Hertford won’t be the same without his dry wit.”

Finalist Rohan Kandasamy echoed his sentiments, saying “Steve was the first person in Hertford I met when I visited the College for the first time. It was partly because of him that I applied here. He can’t leave! He’s too friendly!”

Elsewhere in the group, affectionate tributes have been made to Jamieson’s attributes. According to Lowe, “There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Steve Jamieson has allowed to live.” Woolgar added, “when Steve Jamieson goes swimming, he doesn’t get wet. The water gets Steve Jamiesoned.”

Hertford College declined to comment on Jamieson’s departure.

Uni launches fundraising drive

Photo: Oxford University 

Oxford University launched its biggest ever fund-raising drive on Wednesday in a bid to raise a minimum of £1.25bn.

The campaign is to be fronted by several prominent patrons including David Cameron, Michael Palin, Richard Dawkins and Ian Hislop. It is the largest ever to be organised by a European academic institution.

It aims to sustain and enhance Oxford’s international reputation as an academic institution and to ensure that students from under-privileged backgrounds are not deterred from applying. The campaign intends to make admission to Oxford University “needs-blind.”

One of the key areas the campaign aims to target is the financial assistance offered to undergraduate and postgraduate students.
A spokesperson for the University Development Office, Susan Cunningham, said that she hoped that students from poorer-backgrounds are not currently deterred from applying to Oxford, but  admitted that there was a problem that was not currently being addressed sufficiently.

She said, “There is currently a huge amount done to encourage anyone to apply to Oxford if they have the academic ability. But we are not yet in an ideal position.

“We have one of the most generous undergraduate provision schemes, but the situation is not the same for graduates. We need to improve this.”

It has been alleged that the campaign is an attempt by Oxford University to compete with the larger American universities such as Harvard and Yale, which can charge higher fees and attract large donations from alumnae.

Cunningham said, “Our level of endowments is less than a quarter of our equivalents in the US. We know we need to improve this in order to move forwards.”

The move also aims to increase the University’s financial independence from the government, although Cunningham was keen to emphasise that there were “no negative motives behind the campaign.”

As well as encouraging applications from students from all backgrounds, the drive hopes to fund improved infrastructure in the University.

The money raised will go towards the building of  a new humanities and mathematical institute on the site of the former Radcliffe Infirmary. Important developments are also being made to the Bodleian library and to the Ashmolean Museum.

The Vice-Chancellor Dr John Hood spoke of the necessity of the campaign, saying, “It must significantly increase the University’s endowment if it is to establish a strong philanthropic foundation for the future.”

Cunningham was reluctant to give an estimated time period for the money to be raised saying, “There is no explicit time scale, we would prefer to base our time estimates on the success achieved each year.”

She praised the willingness of the patrons of the campaign to get involved, speaking of David Cameron’s enthusiasm for the project, and also adding, “Michael Palin is narrating a film about the University which is accompanying the campaign.”

Dame Vivien Duffield, Chairman of the Campaign, also discussed the importance of the campaign.

She said,“We are the custodians of the spirit, and the intellectual brilliance, of the University of Oxford.

“I passionately believe that the task before us is to guarantee Oxford’s future pre-eminence in a world now changing so fast that we must lead or fall behind.

“For learning and progress in the world, and Britain’s place in it, there can be no greater investment that in the University of Oxford. I urge you to join with us.”

Cunningham was also keen to echo this message. She said, “Our campaign supports what Oxford is all about, and that is the students.

“We will all benefit from the improvements that will arise form this campaign. It is an exciting moment in the history of the university and I would urge any students who have an opinion on any aspect of the campaign to get in touch.”

Since 2004, there have been more than 20,000 donors (individuals, foundations and other organisations) to the University and the pre-launch campaign has raised around £575m.

Dons remain divided

Nominations for candidates to University Council have revealed that eighteen months after the Vice-Chancellor’s failed governance reforms, dons remain divided into two camps.

When John Hood’s landmark reforms were rejected in December 2006, Hood wrote a letter to dons calling for the University to put what was a two year dispute behind them.

At the time he wrote that he hoped all members would “put aside division [and] continue…in an atmosphere of trust, tolerance and goodwill.”

Now it appears that he will leave Oxford with a legacy of division and dispute.

Four candidates are vying for two places on Council, the University’s elite governing body, and they appear to be split into two camps with differing views over how to govern the University most effectively.

A senior academic claims that there is a clear “division” between the two sets of candidates over approaches to the University’s governance.

He said, “It’s plain that there is an ongoing contest between the people who want to centralise things more and those who don’t, and these elections are a part of that,” he said.

The don added that under Hood’s leadership, proposals for reform have divided dons into factions which have continued.

“Hood’s period in office has served to wake people up. It’s perfectly plain: two groupings have emerged and remained. Hood has brought it out into the open and it’s going to stay out,” he said.

Two of the candidates for the election, Dr James Forder and Dr Jane Garnett, have received nominations from a number of dons who spoke out against the White Paper defeated by Congregation over a year ago.

The White Paper proposed fundamental reforms to the University’s system of governance, which opponents claimed would erode the current system of academic democracy.

The candidates have themselves previously opposed such reforms. In March, Forder used his oration as the outgoing Senior Proctor to underline his prioritisation of democracy and make a veiled criticism of reforms that would remove power away from dons.

He said to Congregation, “The benefits of all this nose-poking [that being a proctor requires] arise, one hopes, from the enrichment and defence of our democracy.”

He has also commented, “I am certainly in favour of maintaining the University as a self-governing community of scholars, but I do not think that there is now much serious challenge to that position, and certainly not from inside the University.”

The other two candidates, Dr Sally Mapstone and Professor Sarah Whatmore, have received nominations from dons who favour the centralisation of power in the University and from supporters of the Vice-Chancellor in the governance reforms debate.

This latest divide suggests that the University’s future is still marked by discord. However some dons have argued that the rift is neither as deep nor as harmful as it may appear.

Nicholas Bamforth, a fellow in Law at Queens College and an elected member of the University Council, said that the contested elections were healthy for the University, and upheld its democratic system.

He said, “It’s good that these elections are being contested: Oxford’s academic democracy helps make us a world-leading university, by contrast to places run by dull ‘managers’.”

Jane Garnett stated: “I am sure that all the candidates for election to Council are committed to the open and effective government of the University.”

Professor Susan Cooper, who nominated Forder, admitted that the nominations give the impression of a rift, but played down such a suggestion and stated that the University can still unite and move forwards.

She said, “It does appear that the candidates are split. That does not necessarily mean that this continues to be a deep divide in the University.

Cooper added, “I hope it isn’t and that we can move on from discussing governance to actually doing it – there are many important issues that need to be dealt with.”

Professor Cooper, a prominent supporter of academic democracy, was herself re-elected unopposed to Council this term, a possible indication of the way Congregation will swing when they return their votes before June 5. Bamforth described this result as “truly significant”.

He said, “She was one of the leading lights in last year’s governance debates and is a truly effective member of Council.

“If those who want to silence democratic debate had wanted to take on anyone, she would have been the person to beat – and yet, no-one came forward to oppose her,” he added.

A spokesperson for the University declined to comment on the matter.


Governance Reforms

February 2005
Hood’s proposals, first put forward in a Green Paper published in February 2005, would have seen the size of Council cut to 15 from 25, of which seven would be University members and seven external.
Opponents suggested that the reforms would impinge on academic freedoms.

December 19, 2006
In a postal ballot of Congregation, academics rejected the reforms by 1,540 votes to 997.

Prior to defeat the Vice-Chancellor wrote a letter to all dons asking for the University to unite and move forwards regardless of the result.

June 5, 2008
Voting closes on nominations for two Council positions. The four competing candidates appear to be split into two camps based on their attitude towards governance reform.

Plug pulled on Oxide

OUSU has been forced to pull the plug on Oxide Radio just hours after a Cherwell investigation revealed that it has been operating as a pirate station for the last two years .

Oxide stopped broadcasting at 6pm on Wednesday, following the revelation that it was not licensed to play copyrighted music.

The Oxide studio will now remain empty for the rest of term while Oxford University Student Union (OUSU), who run the station, seek the funds to pay off a two-year backlog in fees.

The failure to obtain a licence has meant that artists and composers have not received royalties for any of the songs played by Oxide over the last two years.

Ninety-minute warning

The station’s closure on Wednesday came unexpectedly for Oxide’s staff.
Station managers were only informed of the problem on Tuesday, a day before broadcasting stopped.

Oxide’s roster of over 100 DJs were notified by email only ninety minutes before the station closed.

As the station fell silent, Rich Hardiman, the OUSU Vice President responsible for Oxide, admitted that the licensing issue had only come to light in the last week.

He said, “It’s been under active discussion for about 48 hours and on my radar for two or three days longer.”

Hardiman claimed that he received an email from licensing authority PPL a week ago informing him that the station was not paying for the music it used.

However, station staff appear to have been aware of the problem for longer.

‘A fine line legally speaking’

During a discussion about Oxide hosted by cherwell.org’s ‘Aldate’ blog on May 19, nine days before the closure, one person with close links to the station alluded to its legally dubious situation.

Calling themselves Dave, the contributor wrote, “Oxide walks a fine line as it is, legally speaking, since they don’t pay royalties.”

However, Rich Hardiman denied that he should have organised the licence earlier this year.

“I’ve only known about the licence situation being deficient for just under a week,” he said.

“Without wishing to cast the puppy dog eyes, there’s a lot to be done during the year. The problems we’ve had during the year have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”

He added that he intends to use the station’s time off-air productively.

“If we can put forward a committee structure that means everything that needs dealing with is dealt with, then that would be great.”

His assurances will provide little comfort to those expecting to present shows this week.

Naomi Berlin, a visiting student who co-presents Oxide’s International Politics Show, said she was disappointed that she would not be able to complete her term at the station.

“Being a part of Oxide has been the highlight of my year. It’s such a shame.”

OUSU failed to inform sponsor

The move also came as a surprise to Shirtworks, the local company who have sponsored the station this year.

Aaron Harden, Shirtworks’ managing director, had not heard about the station’s closure when Cherwell contacted him on Thursday morning.

“Obviously I wasn’t aware they were pirate. I assumed that everything was above board,” he said.

He said that he found working with the student union to be “difficult” at times, but appreciated that OUSU could not be expected to match a business in professionalism.

“I understand they’re busy and this is their first foray into the world of business.”

As an internet-based radio station, Oxide does not require a broadcasting licence from Ofcom.

However, to play copyrighted music, a station generally needs two licenses.

Revenue from a PPL license is distributed among record companies, artists and musicians, while money from a MCPS/PRS license is forwarded to publishers and songwriters.

The MCPS/PRS Alliance say that they entered into discussions with the student union two years ago, but that these did not lead to the acquisition of a license.

Leaky roof

Licensing has not been Oxide’s only worry. The Bonn Square studio’s roof has been leaking water near the station’s mixing desk.

However, Rich Hardiman insisted that the room posed no risk to DJs. “The studio’s perfectly safe,” he said.

OUSU President Martin McCluskey said that he had not contributed to this week’s discussions on Oxide.

However, he was confident about the station’s future in the face of its current issues.

“I don’t think it’s insurmountable in terms of the cost of the license,” he said.

Meanwhile, station manager Katie Traxton said she hoped to have the station back on air in time for Freshers’ Week next term.

“At the moment, Oxide is like champagne,” she said.

“It’s on ice and it’ll come back with a bang.”



Student radio in Oxford

A chequered past

1999 Radio Authority (now Ofcom) fines Oxygen FM a record £20,000 for attempting to deceive the regulator. Station managers fabricate two days’ programming in an attempt to convince the authority that they are complying with programming quotas laid down in its licence.

2005 Ownership of Altered Radio, Oxygen’s successor, transfers to OUSU. Balreick Srai, owner of club night promoter Rock Oxford, tries to block the transfer, claiming he owns the station.

2006 OUSU removes Oxide’s £5,700 per year funding in response to financial difficulties. Presenters must pay membership fees to work at the station.

2007 Two presenters court controversy by inviting British National Party leader Nick Griffin to debate on air, pre-empting the Union’s invitations to Griffin and David Irving in Michaelmas. James Macadam and Max Seddon receive death threats via email and in their pigeon holes as a result, and OUSU prevents the interview from taking place.

UFOs give Aldate a go

Ah, rowing on the OxStu front page.

Which reminds Aldate… wasn’t it roughly this time last year that a certain OUSU-sponsored paper pissed away a front page with the headline "UFOs give Summer Eights a go"?

Interview: Tom Phillips

Name a famous British diplomat.

A Google search only turns out 354 responses – Viscount Grey, Sir Harold Nicolson, Gladwyn Jebb – none of whom are household names, despite having been extremely influential. Jebb, for example, acted as the first Secretary-General of the United Nations.

And Tom Phillips is no exception. Ambassador to Israel (an important, if not cushy posting), his job has taken him to Tel Aviv via Kampala, Washington and Harare. Now, he finds himself on the front line in a search for peace that has eluded the efforts of figures as recognisable as Clinton, Netanyahu and Arafat.

So why does he, like the rest of his colleagues, maintain such a low profile? When I ask Phillips about his job, he always prefaces his answers with a disclaimer. ‘My government’s role…’ he begins each sentence.

I press him for a more personal answer, and he pauses. ‘There are so many individuals involved. Tony Blair, for example, in his new role as Middle East peace envoy, has been instrumental in trying to build the civil institutions that the Palestinians so desperately need.’

The former Prime Minister, with whom Phillips’ relationship has not dimmed since he stepped down last year, seems to loom large on the Israeli horizon. His attempts to shore up the flagging Palestinian economy have recently been complemented by a £243 million pledge from Gordon Brown for UK investment in the Territories.

‘There was a really successful conference last week in Bethlehem,’ Phillips tells me, ‘involving 1,000 business leaders from across the region, and the UK has promised to match any funds raised by these individuals and their companies.’

His overall tone is optimistic. ‘Things are a great deal better than they were a few years ago,’ he says. ‘We’ve moved on from the entrenched, ideological debate of the early 1990s, and there is a far greater emphasis on finding a practical solution.

‘Particularly if you look at the voices of those on the right in Israel – people who insisted that the entire state must remain intact – those voices have relented.’

I ask Phillips about the balancing act he must perform with regard to criticism of Israeli domestic policy. ‘We have a frank bilateral relationship,’ he says firmly, ‘and the Israelis know full well that we have significant humanitarian concerns over how they, for example, respond to Hamas’s rocket attacks.’

I hover on the edge of my next question, but Phillips is quick to retrieve his impartiality: ‘of course, we understand Israel’s security concerns. And, whilst we’ve always had terrorism in the UK, recent events have made Britons far more aware of what it feels like to have suicide bombers in our midst.’

He is also keen to point out that for all its shortcomings, Israeli society is vibrant, democratic and self-scrutinising. ‘People back in the UK shouldn’t imagine that Israel carries on without reflection. It has a remarkable ability to take long, hard looks at itself, and it does so more often than many countries in the West. After the intifada restarted; after the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israel really needed a lively press. And it has one.’

His concern for freedom of speech continues as we move on to discuss the role of students with regard to the peace process. ‘Israeli academics often think that their British counterparts are biased towards the Palestinians. Personally, I’m delighted to see people like Shlomo Ben-Ami being invited to talk at Balliol, as he was a couple of weeks ago.’

Ben-Ami remains a controversial figure, even in his home country, for his role as Minister of Internal Security during riots in October 2000, which resulted in the deaths of 12 Israeli Arabs and a Palestinian.

Despite this, Phillips remains a vehement opponent of academic boycotts: ‘It is absolutely vital to keep all channels of communication open. Until one understands both narratives, it’s impossible to move towards that common ground where peace is forged.’

He wanders back mentally to his student days, during which he was ‘passionately engaged with issues like this.’ His early career as a journalist, which marks him out noticeably from his civil service colleagues, seems to have nurtured an infectious enthusiasm for the power of debate.

‘I’m all in favour of demonstrations – as long as they remain within the law – but honestly, I believe discussion is the best way that both students and academics can advance the process.’

And diplomats, perhaps? ‘My role,’ Phillips says, finally turning the conversation to himself, ‘is partly about finding creative paths to our goal of a two-state solution.’ But the UK also ‘has an incredibly detailed regional counter-terrorism strategy. It’s partly about reaching out to those in Islam who want to see…’

Phillips hesitates. ‘Different solutions from those which the UK believes will bring lasting peace. And it’s partly about a strategic dialogue with Israel that makes sure we’re prepared for anything.’

I ask how he feels about the stability of the Middle East at present. ‘We’re always looking over our shoulders when engaging with the Palestinian issue. We look across at Lebanon, which had a pretty worrying few days recently – and of course the shadow of Iran’s nuclear ambitions hangs over us all.’

Phillips’ deep antipathy towards nuclear weapons, whoever’s hands they may be in, gives me another reminder of his unusual path to the civil service. He doesn’t like to talk about his personal political beliefs, but it strikes me that he is very much a child of the sixties: socially and economically liberal, and serious about ‘world peace.’

But unlike the loud activism of the 2000s, which preaches environmental protection from concert stages illuminated by thousands of floodlights, Phillips’ quiet voice is committed to consistency, and sees links between everything.

I ask him about the effect of Israel and the Palestinians’ relationship on everyday life in Britain. ‘This is one of the central conflicts of our age,’ he says, ‘and there is clearly some kind of a link to our present experience of radicalism in the UK.’

He puts the emphasis on ‘some.’ For Phillips ‘doesn’t buy the argument that “if there wasn’t a crisis in Israel, Al-Qaeda wouldn’t exist.” It’s much more complicated than that.’

A devotion to dialogue, therefore, seems the overarching – and rather unsurprising – impression that Phillips leaves me with. I’m still not sure exactly who he is, but what I am sure of is that his low profile is a cultivated one. He keeps quiet so that others can talk; he facilitates dialogue by stepping back.

After the interview has finished, I wander into a bookshop and glance at the poetry shelf. Save the Last Page for Me, a collection of poems that include ‘troubled private reflections on the public world in which the author operates,’ sits to one side of a vast stack of Carol Ann Duffy volumes.

Its author is ‘Tom Vaughan, a British diplomat who has served in Africa and the US, and who is currently stationed in the Middle East.’ The cover photo impresses on me the anonymity of its figures, cropped from the neck up, and as I turn to the first poem I wonder whether these, perhaps, are the pages he has reserved for his own voice.

South America’s Cash Crop

The world’s drug problem, ’declares the latest UN World Drugs Report, ‘is being contained.’ A truthful statement, if a touch optimistic – but the use of the present continuous is telling. There continues to be a huge market for cocaine, cannabis and heroin, among other drugs, particularly in Western Europe and the USA.

And South America finds itself with the dubious accolade of being the principal global producer of cocaine. Recent UN estimates suggest that 0.3% of the global population use cocaine.

That may sound like a negligible fraction, but it represents a formidable 143 million cocaine users. With users in the US regularly paying $100+ for a gram, it’s not hard to see why coke production continues to flourish.

The extent of the drugs problem varies wildly from country to country. Some South American nations, such as Uruguay, are host to neither narcotics-producing nor transit.

Other nations, like Venezuela and Brazil, are key drug-transit stops, due in part to intense corruption at the highest levels of government and in part to extensive borders which prove impossible to control. Yet they do not produce coke on a large scale.

And then there are the true movers and shakers of the coke world – Columbia, Peru and Bolivia. Last year Peru and Bolivia produced, respectively, 280 and 94 metric tons. But Columbia remains by far the world’s most significant cocaine producer, churning out an estimated 610 metric tons last year, representing over 60% of global supply.

The recent conflict between Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador over the latter two’s alleged support of the FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces), a Marxist militia owing much of its influence to the very un-Marxist means of drug-trafficking, arms-selling, and ransom-kidnapping, demonstrated the influence of the substance in the country’s politics.

Narcotics production has devastating effects, not only within the countries where the end product is consumed, but in the countries where it is created. Drugs mean power. A local drug baron essentially operates above the law, taking it into his own hands should his trade be threatened.

Between 1989 and 2007, 140 journalists were killed in Colombia, approximately seven a year, often because of their decisions to report on drug trafficking or corruption. Drug sales frequently go to subsidise armed groups, further destabilising the country and increasing those groups’ regional control over South American slums.

As always, there’s one nation which just can’t resist getting involved – the USA. Its extensive involvement is hardly surprising given that the States remains the world’s largest cocaine consumer.

The level of US financial and tactical input in South America is formidable. The aptly named ‘Plan Colombia’, for example, was established to help the Colombian government combat the drugs industry and promised $5 billion worth of US Aid.

In addition, US Government produces an annual ‘International Narcotics Control Strategy Report’ each year, outlining the extent of American aid to each country and how effective it has been in containing drug production and trafficking.

Yet despite extensive UN and US aid, the cocaine industry in South America remains steady, if not flourishing. Where exactly are they going wrong?

For a start, the vastness of the continent alone makes it very difficult to monitor the trade. With a total area of 17,840,000 km² spread over 12 countries, each with its own anti-drug laws and strategies, South America finds forming a united front to combat drug-trafficking nigh on impossible.

Whilst countries are beginning to form agreements with one another, including exchanges of intelligence between security forces, they have a long way to go before they find themselves capable of infiltrating organised and well-funded narcotic-producing organisations.

The geography doesn’t help much either. The rainforests and rivers which delight tourists provide perfect cover for cocaine production and transportation.

The border between Brazil and Colombia stretches across 1000 km, and much of it is made up of dense rainforest or large river systems, with countless minor waterways along which to smuggle drugs. Unsurprisingly, police presence in such hostile conditions is limited, and local drug barons, with extensive knowledge of their surroundings, will always have the advantage.

Then, of course, there’s the tourists. Were the cocaine market a purely domestic one, for consumption by locals, narcotics production would never have reached today’s dizzying levels.

Unfortunately, the presence of tourists eager to sample purer, cheaper coke ensures that the market remains lucrative. An inordinate number of average gap year kids will certainly be heading south to sample the continent’s most infamous product – cocaine.

The typical tourist attitude to the drug is increasingly flippant and thus damaging. Tourists at Colombia’s Ciudad Perdida now have the option of stopping off at a ‘cocaine factory’ for a photo opportunity. As one travel writer puts it, ‘it seems the drug is becoming a tourist attraction in itself. Just as you try steak in Argentina and caipirinhas in Brazil; in Colombia, you sample the coke.’

Agencies hold guided tours of the same favelas (Brazilian slums) in which addiction and drug-related gang warfare are decimating a generation of young men. Glamorising the drug in such a way goes against any effort made by the host countries to combat the industry.

Perhaps most crucially, anti-drug efforts fail because they fail to capture the loyalty of the local people, often damaging their lives rather than improving them. In particular, the mass destruction or seizure of land on which coca leaves are cultivated hurts a trade on which hundreds of South American families depend. Interviews with coca growers highlight the uselessness of such unsympathetic measures.

‘Coca is a means of survival for us,’ said one farmer interviewed by the Guardian, ‘because the soil is very tired, very eroded. Coca leaves are the only option we have for earning a living to feed ourselves and our families.’

The problem, such farmers would argue, lies in the northen hemisphere. Without American and European demand, there would be no market for the product. The Americans should deal with their own people, discouraging citizens from turning to drugs recreationally, rather than intervening in the politics of other countries.

The countries of South America need to re-examine how they conduct their fight in the battle against cocaine. Wiping out coca fields is not enough – they need to provide those same farmers with another equally profitable product to survive on.

To ensure the co-operation of local people, US assistance must be downplayed and eventually rendered unnecessary. For our part, the message must be reinforced that casual holiday drug binges have a far more sinister effect on the country in question than users ever imagine.