Friday, 5 July 2024

Election reflections

 

There has been only one news item in the UK today, and one topic of conversation. At 15 Upper Village Road, Sunninghill, there is jubilation that we are rid of the Conservative government, and a warm welcome for the new Labour government (I am a, admittedly not very active, member of the party), and pleasure at the strong performance of the Liberal Democrats (Jan is a lifelong member and active leafleteer). Of course, the exact meaning of the results is not yet clear, but a few things, good and bad, seem clear enough to me:

 

1.     While many Labour Party members have been disappointed by Labour’s tentative programme for government, I have heard senior figures in the party say that these are the first steps that the party can promise to deliver. We must hope that more is to come. The initial programme includes some good measures: e.g. a commitment to increase the national minimum wage to the level of a truly liveable wage; a promise to abolish exploitative contracts of employment and precarious employment terms; measures to oblige landlords to improve the conditions of rented homes, many of which are damp, mould-ridden and cold; measures to increase the production of renewable energy and other initiatives to combat climate change.

2.     However, the turnout was low at 60% and Labour’s share of 34% of votes implies that only 20% of all possible voters actively voted for the party. The Conservatives received 24% of votes cast, and their right-wing challenger, Reform UK received 14%, wining respectively 19% and 1% of the seats. The disparity in terms of votes received and seats won is the consequence of our electoral system. In 2019 Labour won lots of votes in all the wrong places, but in 2024 the opposite is true: 32% of the vote in 2019 won 202 seats; in 2024 34% of votes yielded 412 seats. On the other hand, in 2019 the Conservatives’ 44% of votes yielded 317 seats, while 24% of the vote in 2024 gave the party 121 seats. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats, who in 2024 targeted their campaign spending very acutely, received 12% of votes and won 71 seats (they won only 8 in 2019).

3.     The Labour Party leader (with whom I disagree on some important matters) has been remarkably single-minded, focused and tenacious in reforming (and purging) his party, assembling his team, and planning a programme for government. While some appalling event may intervene to make life difficult for the government and our country, with a fair wind I think that much good could be accomplished. My optimistic self thinks that he is capable of assembling a capable team, of leading his government with a discipline and clarity of purpose, to deliver the initial programme and then go further. He may be dull as the media complain (I am not quite so sure he is, in fact), but I would rather be led by him than by any of those who have preceded him since 2010.

4.     The Conservatives whose comments I have heard on the radio, speak of being chastened, but in the next breath claim that they have achieved many good things, blame their performance on Covid and Ukraine, and describe themselves as “the natural party of government.” The complacency and sense of entitlement on the day of a catastrophic performance is astounding. I heard one MP say that because Labour received only 34% of the vote the party has no mandate to deliver the programme that it has promised to the country. This is rather rich: for example, in 2015 the Conservative Party received 37% of the vote and delivered Brexit, the most consequential and disastrous change in our international relations that has inflicted appalling cultural, political and economic harms.

5.     While, the election of a Labour government avoids, thank God, the surge of right-wing parties seen elsewhere in Europe, the election results are ominous. Reform UK won 14% of the vote, the Conservatives 24%, a combined total of 38%. If the Conservative Party responds by shifting further to the right, or even in extremis merging with Reform as some seem to propose, todays’ election could be a prequel to a resurgence of right-wing parties in 2029 I hope that the Labour party and my fellow Brits will not ignore this looming threat. I will raise a celebratory glass this evening, but wake up apprehensive tomorrow.

Formidable ladies and first impressions of Mexico

 

Jan and I recently read Sybille Bedford’s A Visit to Don Otavio: A Mexican Odyssey, first published in 1953 by Victor Gollancz under the title The Sudden View: A Mexican Journey. Sybille was born in Charlottenburg, Prussia, in 1911. When her father, a collector of art and wine, died in 1925 she moved to Italy to live with her mother and stepfather. As Fascism rose to prominence in Italy, the family moved to a fishing village in Provence, where Sybille met a neighbour, Aldous Huxley, and other writers such as Thomas Mann and Bertold Brecht. Sybille and Huxley became friends and, when she was unable to renew her passport because of her Jewish ancestry and writings critical of the Nazis, Huxley’s wife Maria suggested the marry a gay British man to get a British passport. Sybille promptly married Walter “Terry” Bedford, who had been a lover of one of Aldous’s manservants. When the Nazi invasion of France was imminent, Sybille joined the Huxleys in California.

 

One of Sybille’s most notable books is a two-volume biography of Aldous Huxley, so I asked a friend who is a member of the Huxley family what he knew about her. He replied:

 

“[O]f course, I knew Sybille Bedford. She was a very dear friend of Aldous and Maria and a good friend of my parents. In fact, she wrote a wonderful biography of Aldous that my father thought was the best of all of them. As you may know, Sybille was a wine expert, and I believe the first female member of the French sommelier society. According to family accounts, Sybille made most of her living by recommending wines for first born sons of wealthy English families upon their birth. (Thus a son who turned 21 would have a fully mature, wine cellar when he came of age.) Sybille, of course, kept some wine for her herself and had a huge collection of wine stored somewhere, maybe under Kings Road, which leads to the following story. When I was 17 and on my first trip alone to England, I of course had to visit this ancient lady, Sybille Bedford. To be honest, I was rather reluctant, but of course, I was invited to her house for dinner where upon she produced three different bottles of wine which she opened and poured into three separate glasses for me to taste. At that time I had no real “wine words“ but I did tell her which I liked and why. She listened and then told me the following. “I have good news and I have bad news for you. The good news is you have a good palate the bad news is it’s fucking expensive.” To say the least it was certainly an experience I have never forgotten and one that I remember quite fondly. You should really read her biography of Aldous which is quite good.”

 

Sybille’s account of her train journey from Grand Central Station, New York, to Mexico City and her several months of travel in Mexico is written for quiet amusement if not quite for laughs, so some of her observations should not be taken too seriously. But nevertheless, she had a good eye for interesting characters and events. She had clearly read up on Mexican history. She refers, for instance, to the famous account of Frances Calderón de la Barca (a Scot née Frances Erskine Inglis) of her residence in Mexico from 1839-1841 as wife of the Spanish ambassador. However, her spin on Mexican history is always humorous: her brief career of the hapless Habsburg Emperor Maximilian imposed by Napoleon III is written as a tragi-comedy. Nevertheless, Jan and I both enjoyed comparing our impressions of Mexico in the 1970s and later with Sybille’s.

 

I can’t quite work out exactly when Sybille was in Mexico. Online sources give dates from 1940 to 1950. Her comment that the population of Mexico City was 1.5 million suggests the early 1940s, since the city had 1.6 million inhabitants in 1940 (by 1950 the figure was 3.1 million) . However, if Sybille’s travelling companion E was, in fact, Esther Murphy, her lover from 1945 for a few years, and a lifelong friend, then the two were in Mexico in the second half of the 1940s, during the presidency of Miguel Alemán, just over two decades after the culmination of the Mexican Revolution.

 

Sybille and E began their four-day train ride from Grand Central to Laredo Texas (a journey I replicated in two days some three decades later by Greyhound bus, but in far less style) with two large pink gins: Sybille had brought a pint of gin, a thermos of ice, Angostura bitters and two Woolworth glasses. She observed that ‘Whenever I can I bring my own provisions; it keeps one independent and agreeably employed, it is cheaper and usually much better.’ Sybille had supplied tins of tunny fish, a hunk of salami and of provolone, rye bread and black bread, but on their first night they followed their gins with fresh food: a roast chicken, Virginia ham, tomatoes, watercress, ‘a flute of bread,’ cream cheese, cherries and a jug of Lancer’s Sparkling Rosé.

 

As the train resumes for a few days more its long, laborious trek south (first stop Saltillo, some 300 kilometres), ‘hot, stony, dry country … Innocent of art and architecture’ and thinly populated, eventually yields to trees and fields, ‘young corn growing in small patches on the slopes; and a line and another line of mountains.’ The state of San Luis Potosí offers glimpses of ruins and churches, until eventually sugar-cane, corn and cacti announce ‘a bright rich tropical country miraculously laved; green, green, green, the Valley of Mexico.’

 

The two ladies settle into the capital, once the domain of Moctezuma and the centre of his empire. n‘The first impact of Mexico City is physical, immensely physical. Sun, Altitude, Movement, Smells, Noise. And it is inescapable…Everything is agitated, crowded, spilling over; the pavements are narrow and covered with fruit…one is tumbled into the gutter by a water-carrier, avoids a Buick saloon and a basin of live charcoal, skips up again scaring a tethered chicken…lottery tickets flutter in one’s face…motor traffic zigzagged by walking beasts; the lumps of country life, peasants and donkey carts, jars and straw…there are the overflowing trams’.

 

Sybille and E tuck into a hearty Mexican comida corrida (a table d’hôte lunch): a vegetable soup, called a sopa aguada, or wet soup to distinguish it from the obligatory second sopa seca (dry soup) of rice with peas an pimento; followed in rapid order by an omelette, fish in tomato sauce, a ‘beef stew with spices’, vegetable marrow in cream, ‘thin beef-steaks like the soles of children’s shoes,’ ‘lettuce and radishes in an artistic pattern,’ chicken drumsticks and wings ‘smeared with some brown substance,’ mashed black beans, fruit stewed in treacle, a basket of rolls, ‘all slightly sweet,’ and a stack of tortillas, all washed down with Carta Blanca beer, coffee and pan dulce (sweet rolls). The verdict: ‘Everything tastes good, nearly everything is good,” and all for nine pesos (less than ten shillings). By the mid-1970s a less gargantuan, but sill filling, comida corrida in a modest neighbourhood restaurant (often the front room of the cook’s home) cost me 12 pesos, the equivalent of one US dollar.

 

The ladies’ hotel was in a colonial palace on Avenida Hidalgo, ‘a length of slummy palacios with oddments of Aztec masonry encrusted in their sixteenth-century façades, and no shops but a line of flowers stalls’ selling elaborate wreaths decorated with ‘beads, filigree and mother-of-pearl skulls.’ Across the Alameda park is another street altogether, Avenida Juárez, ‘ablaze with juke-box, movie theatre, haberdashery and soft-drink parlor,’ which leads to ‘as amazing structure as I could ever hope to see’: the National Theatre (now the Palacio de Bellas Artes), sinking into the spongy subsoil. After a siesta and the daily shower of the rainy season, Sybille heads for the colonial centre of the city and on Avenida Francisco Madero finds food and drink shops so good, ‘One might be at Fortnum’s.’ She stocks up with Bacardi rum, Mexican brandy, hot chicken pasties, tequila, Campari, and, on the pavement, six avocados, a pineapple, ‘a heap of papayas,’ a straw hat, plums, flowers. A team of children carry her purchases home for sweets and pennies. The flowers cause consternation at the hotel: the housekeeper asks indirectly if the ladies like Mexico and the hotel, finally getting to the point: don’t they like the hotel’s flowers? Thereafter, their rooms are decorated with great quantities daily.

 

The ladies’ only contacts are foreign. Exiled Spanish academics invite them to a tea party in Coyoacán, ‘the suburb in which Trotsky lives,’ where the other guests are Czechs, Germans, and a Frenchman. All ‘had given their political youth to anti-fascism,’ a cross-section of the many Europeans who found shelter in Mexico in the 1930s and 1940s. The exiles dispense advice: travel only on first class buses (advice still current, but now for greater security, rather than to avoid animals); go to hotels owned by Mexicans (‘better value, better manners, more to eat’); ‘Never come straight to a point’: Americans offend ‘Mexican Indians’ by being too direct or too friendly; and so on.

 

Sybille and E first make contact with aspects of Mexican life on a bus journey to colonial Morelia, ‘accompanied by decorous Indios with small farm animals on their laps, the coachwork rattles and the driver’s dashboard is clinking with holy medals and ex-votos.” (I was reminded of deciding to return to Mexico City with my mother on a local bus from Teotihuacan to Mexico City. Dust flew in the open windows and our fellow passengers were carrying their merchandise, including some live fowl, to the metropolis.) Sybille and E’s bus stops at ‘the station buffet’, a ‘mud hut’ with a yard where passengers are served with ‘hot chicken broth, meat stew, vegetables and fruit.’ ‘Two elderly women in decent black’ remain in their seats and ask the ladies to buy them broth and tortillas. Puzzled, Sybille and E comply. The ladies in black explain that they are nuns and are not allowed to enter a public-eating place. They travel in plain clothes because the law prohibits priests and nuns from wearing religious dress – a legacy of the long battles between church and state. After drinking the broth, the nuns take out an ample picnic and eat it with their tortillas.

 

The ladies’ longest contact with Mexicans is at the home of Don Otavio of the book’s title. Otavio receives Sybille and E with the unstintingly generous hospitality, still the norm even in modern urban Mexico, on the remains of a once enormous rural estate on the shores of Lake Chapala, the largest inland water in Mexico. Much of his family’s land was confiscated under the revolutionary agrarian reform. Otavio lives on the remainder of the property while his brothers make their livings in Guadalajara or Mexico City. All quarrel over what remains of the family real estate: Mexican inheritance law still promotes frequent disputes, even in much less affluent families. The family’s conversation laments the passing of the glory days of Don Porfirio, Mexico’s great dictator of the late nineteenth century, toppled in 1911 by the Revolution. Otavio’s father, a Governor of Jalisco under Díaz who died just in time to miss the Revolution, had sent his sons (except for Otavio, whose education was interrupted by the Revolution) to Downside School in England. The family had travelled abroad, owned fine silver and Sèvres porcelain (all removed to Guadalajara when the Carrancista revolutionaries ‘were all over the lake’). They had a family home in Guadalajara, where Otavio and his brothers were educated by a tutor in addition to their time at Downside. Sybille discovers that the family had kept a cellar of fine French wines, Lafittes, Margaux and the like, but Otavio and his brothers did not like them, preferring Sauternes, so Otavio had given them to a neighbour, much to Sybille’s disappointment.

 

Even in these straitened times, Don Otavio relied on servants for the conveniences of daily life. A prolonged stay at Chapala enabled Sybille to get to know the Mexicans whose labour made genteel life possible still. A beautiful young girl, Soledad, brings morning tea, closes shutters and lays out clothes for dinner. Guadalupe, the former wet nurse who now cares for the geese, hears that Sybille has been to Rome, so asks her if she saw the Virgin there. Sybille replies that she saw the Pope, to which Guadalupe replies: ‘Yes, yes,the Pope. A very good man no doubt. He looks after the Virgin. Did you see Her?’ Guadalupe times her cooking by her prayers: the Ave Maria for eggs, the Paternoster for cutlets, the Creed for frying. One day a wild shriek announces a stabbing: one servant has knifed another in the kitchen. The assailant Jesús flees, the victim Juan recovers, and after a bout of drinking Jesús returns minus his mother’s cow, which paid for his booze.

 

The Mexico of the late 1940s was not far removed from the political struggles of the 1920s and 1930s and the civil war between the Catholic faithful and the anticlerical revolutionary governments known as the ‘Cristiada’. Western Mexico where Don Otavio lived was the very heart of that rebellion and the ‘Cristeros’ who fought for their faith are mentioned a few times by Sybille or her acquaintances.

 

The two ladies shopped liberally and must have been carrying substantial amounts of cash in Mexican terms if not by US standards. Nevertheless, the stabbing was their only experience of violence. True, they were locked in their hotel in Mexico City one day because elections were taking place and it was deemed unsafe for them to be out and about. They had only one encounter with crime while on a bus journey. While passengers were in an adobe wayside building tucking into lunch, some considerate ‘bandits’ quietly searched the baggage on the roof of the bus and stole, inter alia, a trunk of E’s clothes and a case containing Sybille’s writings. No passenger was harmed, had lunch disturbed, or was even aware of the theft until lunch was finished.

 

Some of Sybille’s impressions are similar to our own, although we first encountered Mexico almost thirty years after her travels. Mexico City had grown to a metropolis of 9.5 million and was if anything more of an invigorating assault on the senses. I recall introducing Jan to the capital. We were staying with friends in Colonia Cuauhtémoc, where well-to-do Mexicans built elegant homes in the days of Porfirio Díaz. Our friend Alfonso was descended from an influential family (they had been friends of José Ives Limantour, Díaz’s Minister of Finance), and he lived still in the family home. One of the servants had been his nanny (rather like Don Otavio’s Guadalupe). When Jan became sick (my fault for taking insufficient care about what and where we ate), the doctor prescribed injections which he said I should administer. Jan was relieved to discover that the former nanny was experienced in injections, who saved her from me plunging a needle into her behind.

 

On our first day in the city we strolled the short distance to the Paseo de la Reforma, the broad avenue that leads to the former Chapultepec palace favoured by Emperor Maximilian, and later official residence of Don Porfirio Díaz. Sybille noted that in the 1940s Mexico City had a few ‘gimcrack’ skyscrapers. She would soon have had to change her opinion when the Torre Latinoamericana, the tallest building in the city and the first earthquake-resistant skyscraper in the world, was completed in 1956. By the 1970s those that lined Reforma were comfortably the equal of New York or Chicago, but as we turned the corner we encountered a man belching flames to earn a few pesos from passersby. What economists term the informal economy was, and still is, the source of income of many Mexicans, and at its lowest level are the performers and sellers of cheap goods at intersections, on main streets, and, in the 1970s, on the city’s buses and brand-new Metro trains. On the buses boys of 10 or 11 belted out heart-breaking songs of love betrayed by fickle women., while on the Alameda boys of similar ages upwards would shine your shoes, and try to inveigle you into paying for an expensive extra shine. At traffic lights there might be jugglers, unicyclists, somebody producing a rabbit (often a soft toy, but sometimes live) from a hat, or selling chewing gum, sweets or a cool drink.

 

The streets of central Mexico City are no longer congested by a mix of cars and donkey carts. By the 1970s the choking congestion caused by ancient buses belching fumes, cars, yellow Volkswagen Beetles, peseros (cars that travelled back and forth on major avenues like Reforma and crammed in as many passengers as could squeeze in for a fare of one peso), and trucks, crammed the streets and polluted the air. But petty commerce was still ever present on the streets: sellers of tortas (rolls stuffed with mashed beans, meat, chile and other delights); taco stalls; purveyors of aguas frescas (water flavoured with watermelon, tamarind, hibiscus flowers etc); grilled and stewed meats; quesadillas. There were also the noises that announced the presence of mobile sellers of roast sweet potatoes (a steam-driven whistle) or tamales Oaxaca style (¡Hay tamales oaxaqueños!, shouted at a volume that carried all round the neighbourhood).

 

Bustle and noise are the signatures of urban life in Mexico, in cities large and small. We discovered when we lived in Zamora, Michoacán, in 2018 that, if we were tempted to over-sleep, we were sure to be woken by loudspeakers announcing ¡Gas, hay gas! or the mobile cake seller announcing his low prices. We once arrived back at our hotel in Talpa de Allende, Michoacán, a town of only 13,000 or so people when the pilgrims are not in town, to find an outraged American guest complaining that he and his wife could not sleep for the noise on the street. They had innocently asked for a room overlooking the street to enjoy the view of downtown Talpa only to discover that, once night had fallen, the street filled with mobile food sellers playing loud music to attract customers, and the chatter of a few hundred diners.

 

The hospitality that Don Otavio lavished on Sybille and E, although on a scale we could never experience, is characteristic of Mexicans. A friend who was familiar with Mexico and who later lived in Madrid commented to me once that, when he and his wife moved to Spain, they became worried that they were social failures, since no Spaniards invited them to their homes. By contrast, they had been accustomed to numerous invitations in Mexico to dinner ‘en su casa’ (literally, in your home). For a Mexican, it is an honour that somebody holds them in high enough esteem to accept an invitation to a meal or a party in their home, while a Spaniard would consider it rather odd to offer dinner at home, preferring to meet in a restaurant. An invitation accepted by a foreigner is a very particular honour. There may be one or two aspects of hospitality that a foreign guest needs to adjust to. For example, our friends in Colonia Cuauhtémoc arranged a dinner for us to meet some friends. Jan and I were slightly surprised to be served (me first, Jan next), and encouraged to start eating, before the other guests.

 

This experience was repeated routinely in much more modest, provincial homes, when we visited our son Chris in Atlacomulco, about two hours from Mexico City. These families could not afford the domestic staff that our friends in the city employed, so we were served either by the lady of the household, or, if there was one, a young daughter. Over more than 50 years of visits to Mexico, it would be impossible to count the number of invitations we have been honoured to receive in ‘su casa’.

 

Friendships and other interpersonal relations, such as that between a father and his child’s godfather, are extremely important. For example, the parents of a young man who was Chris’ closest friend in Atlacomulco, invited us to their son’s wedding, and clearly considered it a particular honour for us to travel so far to attend. On a busy wedding day they insisted on collecting us from our hotel and driving us to the cathedral and then the party venue. The bride’s religious parents had insisted that no alcohol be served at the lunch and subsequent party, but the father of the groom arranged to have a private stash of tequila under his table and made sure that I was plentifully supplied. If you are religiously inclined, you need two weddings, the religious that has no legal status, and the civil. At the civil ceremony Chris, as an honoured friend of the groom was invited to be an honorary witness – he could not be a legal witness because he is not a Mexican citizen. He is about to become a padrino (godfather) to the son of another friend in Atlacomulco.

 

In 2018 in Zamora, we were neighbours of Don Pepe and his wife. We first met them when they were out for an evening stroll. We greeted one another and Don Pepe commented that ‘We’re still boyfriend and girlfriend after all these years.’ Don Pepe and I often had a neighbourly chat when he was sitting outside reading his newspaper. He owned some agricultural land (his ‘huerta’ – roughly translated as an orchard, although not planted only with fruit trees), some urban property and a greengrocer’s shop, now run by his son Manuel. Manuel and various daughters and their families lived in homes nearby in our neighbourhood. When Mexican Mother’s Day approached, the family invited us to their party – after all they said, Jan is a mother – in the garage of one of Don Pepe’s properties. The afternoon and evening passed agreeably in conversation, live music and much sing-along, a barbecue and the inevitable tequila.

 

Of course, there are plenty of not so nice things about Mexico. In a country where the minimum wage is 249 pesos per day (£10.73 or US$13.58), it is not surprising that visitors are at risk of theft. However, my only experience in more than 50 years visiting the country is of once having my pocket picked in Mexico City on the Metro, which, therefore, we no longer use. And one takes certain precaution such as never flagging down a taxi in the street (too much risk of being held up, in extremis at gunpoint). Rather one calls a taxi from a taxi rank or hires a trusted driver (our super-reliable driver in the capital is Jorge). Then there is corruption on both large and small-scale, for a foreigner most likely in interactions with the police, for example for real or alleged speeding, jumping a red light etc. I recall paying small and not so small bribes in the 1970s when crossing the border from Texas, when a friend who was driving me home was pulled over by police who alleged he had a faulty light (I paid since my friend had lost at poker), or to retrieve a package from my mother at the central post office in Mexico City.

 

 

Although the turmoil of the Mexican Revolution and the Cristero civil war were events of the (still recent) past by the late 1940s, a certain amount of violence and crime was still common, but Sybille and E seem to have been almost immune to trouble. Unfortunately, the violence of the drug cartels and against women now mars the beauty of the Mexico we have come to love. One does take certain decisions with the avoidance of risk in mind: where to go or not to go at night, whether to visit a particular place, when and how to travel, and so on. I have developed a certain expertise in the history of the state of Guerrero, an already troubled region in which, nevertheless, I travelled unmolested in the 1970s, and visited briefly with my family in 2006. However, people I trust have told me that any future visits would be unsafe. Nevertheless, I have only once heard gunshots in Mexico. In 1975, I was sitting at home in my lodgings in the Colonia Condesa district of Mexico City one Sunday when several gunshots shattered the peace of our street. The doorman of an apartment building had made some inappropriate comments to a young girl who lived there. Her brother borrowed a gun to warn the doorman to leave his sister alone, but tempers rose, things got out of hand and the young man fired several shots into the doorman.

 

Sybille spoke basic Spanish and had been to Spain, but she was not prepared for how alien, disconcerting and charming Mexico could be. After our first visit together to Mexico in the late 1970s, Jan, who spoke Spanish and had studied in Spain, observed that Mexico and Mexican Spanish had been much more of a contrast with Spain than she had expected. Even the common factor of language is not very common, since usage and vocabulary vary considerably, but above all the culture and the society are enormously different, full of characteristics and quirks to be enjoyed. The indomitable Sybille and E certainly experienced many quirks, and above all the unstinting hospitality and generosity of spirit so characteristic of Mexicans. In that sense they knew the Mexico that Jan, our son Chris and I have come to know so well.

 

Tuesday, 28 May 2024

Tokyo, Gaza, London: justice, human rights and the international rules-based order

In the 1990s I was invited to a reception to mark the opening of an exhibition from the Museum of Modern Art in New York. After a lowish member of the imperial family had made her entrance and taken a seat in a roped off area of the room from where she presided in absolute silence, drank not a drop, and ate not a morsel while the guests quaffed champagne and tucked into the food, an oldish Japanese man gave a welcoming speech. A Japanese employee of the British Council whispered in my ear: “He’s a war criminal.” I forget his name, but he had served as a young officer in China during the war and had rehabilitated himself as a prominent figure in the art world.

 

I was reminded of my closest encounter with a war criminal when I read Gary J Bass’ monumental book Judgement at Tokyo: World War II on Trial and the Making of Modern Asia. The book is, as its title suggests, much more than just an account of the Tokyo war crimes trial, but its scrutiny of the trial’s contribution to the emergence of post-war international law is extraordinarily relevant in these turbulent times.

 

The tribunal that met in a devastated firebombed Tokyo had eleven judges:

 

Henri Bernard (France), on the tribunal because of the Japanese occupation of French Indochina, then under the rule of Pétain’s Vichy French regime.

Delfin Jaranilla (the Philippines), present because of Japanese crimes during the occupation of the islands. The Philippines had been in effect a US colony since the American defeat of Spain in 1898 and the Philippine-American war of 1899-1902. The Philippines had become independent of American rule in 1946.

E Stuart McDougal (Canada). Canada was a supporter of British imperial interests in the trial.

Major General Myron Cramer (USA). The USA had its own interests in the trial. Firstly, the US was really interested only in punishment for Pearl Harbor. Britain’s interest in restoring its empire, China’s search for justice for the Nanjing Massacre and other outrages, for example, were tiresome and caused the trial to last much longer than the US felt was necessary. Secondly, the trial was part of a broader plan to make a Japan rising from wartime ruins a key ally to advance US interests in East Asia.

Erima Harvey Northcroft (New Zealand). Like Canada, New Zealand helped to advance British interests,

Radhabinod Pal (India), who had served as a judge in British colonial India, but after independence in 1947 was a representative of an anti-colonial India. Pal wrote a long dissent arguing that all the indicted should be acquitted because the crimes of which they were accused did not exist, war being a prerogative of nation states. His document has become a favourite of Japanese revisionists who reject the convictions of the Tokyo tribunal. Alone among the judges, Pal has a statue In his honour at the Yasukuni Shrine, Japan’s memorial to its war dead.

Lord William Patrick (Great Britain), who answered to the imperially minded Labour foreign secretary Ernest Bevin. Britain’s interest in the trial was not only to punish Japanese crimes, but to consolidate Britain’s hold on imperial possessions forcibly occupied by Japan.

Bert Röling (Holland), present because of Japan’s occupation of the Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia). Röling wrote a more limited dissent from the final judgement than Pal.

Mei Ruao (China), appointed by the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Shek, which during the course of the trial was losing ground to Mao Zedong’s Communists. Mei was concerned primarily with justice for Japanese atrocities in China, most notably the Nanjing Massacre.

Sir William Webb (Australia), the irascible president of the trial, and like the New Zealand and Canadian judges present because of cruelties inflicted by the Japanese on Australian, Canadian and New Zealand POWs, but also as representatives of the Commonwealth and the British Empire.

Major General Ivan Zaryanov (Soviet Union) representing the political interests of Joseph Stalin, most notably concerning military encounters with the Japanese in northern China. Zaryanov approached the tribunal much as he might have a show trial in Moscow and was frequently frustrated by the legal approaches of the other judges, and especially by the determined work of the American and Japanese defence attorneys.

 

The chief prosecutor was an American Joseph Keenan, a personal appointment of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was absent at times because of ill health, and given to frequent drunkenness. When Keenan was absent or incapacitated, the British prosecutor Arthur Comyns Carr assumed control of the prosecution, mindful of British imperial interests. Both pursued the interests of their governments: Keenan to avoid prosecuting Emperor Hirohito and Comyns Carr the restoration and protection of the Empire.

 

The other key player was no judge, but General Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander in Japan who had his own interests in shaping post-war Japan. MacArthur’s personal interest in the trial was to punish the Japanese for the cruelties of the Bataan death march in the Philippines. He shared the US government’s determination that Emperor Hirohito should under no circumstances be prosecuted. MacArthur had a very personal vision of a democratic Japan, in which the Emperor would be the guarantor of democracy. Indeed, the first post-war election returned to the National Diet, much to the alarm of the US government, some communists and numerous socialists. MacArthur’s Quixotic overweening democracy project was soon derailed by the rise of Communism in East Asia, particularly in China. In this context, from the point of view of the US government the trial was a lengthy and dangerous distraction from building Japan into an anti-communist bulwark. Those accused of war crimes scheduled to be judged in a second and subsequent trials were released, and indeed some became significant figures in post-war Japan. For example, Kishi Nobusuke, accused on crimes in China, and grandfather of future Prime Minister Abe Shinzō, was Prime Minister from 1957-1960.  The rightward shift reflected in the election of Kishi was no accident. The USA alarmed by the Communist victory over the Nationalists in China and the ever-present Soviet threat had decided that there must be limits to democracy in Japan. The CIA accordingly assisted Kishi in forming a conservative bloc whose heirs have ruled Japan to this day.

 

The judges had considerable difficulty in agreeing whether the court had jurisdiction to pursue the proposed charges, and also whether some charges were crimes at all. One of the charges against Japan was the crime of international aggression: the violation of national sovereignty and the acquisition of territory by force. There was a considerable irony here. Several of the nations represented by judges and prosecutors had been guilty of acquiring colonies by exactly the same method: Holland in the Netherlands East Indies, France in French Indochina, the US in the Philippines, and Britain in India, Burma, Hong Kong, Singapore. One charge that was rigorously avoided (much to the annoyance of judge Mei) was the murder of civilians by intensive bombing of cities in China, since the victorious nations had been guilty of exactly the same crime in their carpet bombing of Japanese cities, and nuclear bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. None of the war’s victors wanted their own conduct to be scrutinized. In other words, the prosecution of charges was highly political and several of the prosecuting nations were as guilty of some war crimes as Japan. A curious irony here was that the Japanese had been particularly sensitive about the racist treatment of Japanese populations in the USA and Australia and had proposed that the founding charter of the League of Nations should prohibit racism. The USA suppressed this proposal at the behest of the British for fear that, if racism were banned, it would be impossible to maintain the British Empire.

 

Western nations have accused Russia of aggressive war in Ukraine, the charge levelled against Japan in Tokyo. There is also talk of crimes against civilians (rape and murder), for which Japan was also prosecuted. And western nations have supported the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) indictment of Vladimir Putin for the crime of abducting Ukrainian children. Even those nations that have not subscribed to the jurisdiction of the court, such as the USA, have applauded this charge. However, the same nations have been reluctant to contemplate the possibility that Israel has committed crimes against civilians in its (legally sanctioned) pursuit of and defence against Hamas. And some have wilfully mischaracterised the indictments sought against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for war crimes in Gaza by the prosecutor of the ICC as implying “equivalence” between the crimes of Hamas and the actions of Israel. This is nonsense, as those nations surely know: the commission of a crime by one party does not excuse another from the requirements of international law. Nor do the indictments prove ipso facto, as Israel alleges, that the charges and the prosecutor are antisemitic. Complicated and awful as events in Gaza, Israel (and we must not forget the West Bank) are, they do not exempt any party from its obligations under international law.

 

The political interests so clearly exposed in Bass’ book, are deployed today against the interests of international justice, much as they were in Tokyo. In the case of my own country, the hypocrisy of the world’s greatest practitioner of aggressive colonial war prosecuting Japan for just that crime, is equally alive today. Our government calls for the principled application of international law against Russia and Hamas, while the Conservative Party argues repeatedly that the “will of Parliament” and the “will of the people” relieve us of our obligations to human rights and international law when it is convenient to do so. The Prime Minister himself has proposed withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights if it prevents the application of UK laws to deny asylum seekers international protection. Recent legislation has restricted the rights of trade unions to strike (rights already much reduced by a number of laws since the government of Mrs Thatcher). Earlier this month the High Court ruled that a law that prohibited protests that cause more than a “minor nuisance” is unlawful. A judge recently dismissed charges of contempt of court brought by the government to punish a woman who held a placard outside a court stating the simple truth that a jury may rely on its conscience to acquit a defendant, a right first established in 1610 to acquit two Quaker preachers. The government, nothing daunted, has announced its intention to appeal. Fortunately, the forthcoming election may remove the government from office before it can do so.

 

Not only has Israel deployed the specious argument that rulings against it equate a democratic nation with a terrorist Hamas. In a BBC radio interview recently an Israeli MP of Prime Minister’s Likud party, dismissed a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel desist from attacking Rafah where large numbers of Palestinian civilians have sought refuge, on the grounds that the president of the ICJ is Lebanese. This neatly ignored that fact that the order was endorsed by a majority of 13-2. The fifteen judges of the ICJ are from many countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Romania, Slovakia, Somalia, South Africa, Uganda, USA.

 

Since this blog is titled Mexico and other matters, as I wrote this I came across an article by Jorge Castañeda, a former Secretary of International Relations of Mexico, about the recognition of the state of Palestine by Ireland, Norway and Spain. Castañeda speculated whether the government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) might recognize Palestine. Castañeda’s guess is that AMLO might wish to do so in what remains of his term of office, but that pressure from the USA and from groups in the USA who support Israel might dissuade AMLO from doing so. In the 1970s President Luis Echeverría supported a UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism. The resulting tourism boycott cost Mexico dear. Castañeda also notes that one of the judges who will decide whether to grant the request of the prosecutor of the ICC to charge Netanyahu and Gallant is Mexican. Judge Socorro Flores Liera has had a distinguished career in Mexico’s foreign service and the UN, and was a member of the Mexican delegation that was involved in setting up the ICC. Castañeda speculates that Mexican government, under pressure from the USA, might attempt to influence judge Flores Liera’s decision in the case of Netanyahu and Gallant.

 

Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the misery that flows from it are now decades old. The accumulated distrust and hatred did not begin on 7 October and will not be resolved by an Israeli “victory” in Gaza. It seems that for the USA and other western allies that an “ironclad” commitment to supporting Israel is more important than the application of international law.  For them the rules-based international order is a matter of selective convenience, rather than of principle.

 

Tuesday, 14 May 2024

Wheelchairs on Eurostar: a small victory

 

The blog of 9 April told the sorry tale of our friend Cedric Álvarez and the lack of support for wheelchair users on Eurostar services at St Pancras Station. Thanks to the journalism and determination of the redoubtable Anna Tims of the Observer, Eurostar has taken steps to improve its support of wheelchair users. The old-fashioned printed newspaper still has some power to encourage change.

 

Anna recently received this statement from Eurostar:

 

“Thank you for bringing this to our attention as well as other discussions we've had over the last month or so. The experience of this customer and your outreach has prompted us to take a very close look at accessibility, which is a top priority for Eurostar. We understand the challenges faced by customers with mobility needs, and we are committed to providing a safe and inclusive travel experience for all.

 

I'm pleased to inform you that, effective May 8th, Eurostar has updated its processes regarding accessibility assistance at St Pancras. Customers will now be assisted in their own wheelchairs, provided their equipment passes a Health Check (visual attached of this process) This measure is aimed at ensuring the safety of our customers and staff while accommodating individual mobility needs and providing a much better experience, bringing SPI into line with other stations for a more consistent service for customers.

 

To support this initiative, we have already trained over 60 staff members, and this training will be conducted every 12 months, with regular refresher courses as needed. Our Customer Assistance Team Members have been briefed on these changes, and our partners at the European Business and Service Centre (EBSC) are updating their information accordingly. Pre-travel communications will also be amended to explain the elements we will be checking.

 

The new guidelines have been developed in partnership with our Safety and Legal teams, and we will continue to work closely with Office of Rail and Road (ORR), ensuring compliance with industry standards.

 

We understand the importance of transparency and would be delighted to welcome you and a some of the customers to visit us and observe the training sessions firsthand. This would provide an opportunity for you to see the measures we are implementing to prioritise the well-being and needs of our accessibility customers.

 

Please feel free to reach out with any further questions or concerns. 

 

We value your feedback and are committed to continuously improving our services.”

 

Cedric and his mother Chantal will visit London at the end of June with tickets provided by Eurostar by way of apologies and we will celebrate our small triumph with a lunch and an afternoon at the theatre. And other wheelchair users will receive improved service.

 

Saturday, 11 May 2024

How to make people poor

 

I was born in a house in Swinburne Road, on Whitton council estate, newly built on the northern edges of Ipswich, in 1952. Whitton’s new houses, on roads named after poets and literary figures (Byron, Chaucer, Defoe, Shakespeare, Spenser and so on), were intended for the families of men recently returned from service in the war. My father, Douglas (Doug) Jacobs, had been absent for much of the war in France until the great retreat of Dunkirk, Palestine, and France and Belgium after D-Day. When my eldest brother was born in 1945 Doug was overseas. My sister was born in 1946. Doug was happy to be a council tenant, but his wife, Alice was determined that our family would own its home, and had saved his army pay to accumulate a deposit. She achieved her ambition five years after my birth. My family. Was not well-to-do, but my mother’s careful management of the family’s income kept us well-fed and clothed (Doug was good with numbers but not with money). But if my mother had not been so thrifty my parents could have lived securely in Swinburne Road until their deaths. My first school, a modest walk from the newly-built home in Ely Road that Alice and Doug purchased, was set in another large area of council housing, so many of my schoolfriends lived in council houses. These families, no doubt, were not especially prosperous kike the Jacobs family, but they lived in secure housing at affordable rents.

 

In 2024 Britain things have changed. The prosperous can still live in decent homes, mostly privately owned, but for the poorer members of our society employment, incomes and housing are precarious, the long-term publicly-provided home is a vanished relic of a very different past. Destitution, child poverty and homelessness are increasingly common and accepted as regrettable facts of economic life. The minister responsible for housing, an unctuous, pervasive character called Michael Gove, has stated that he feels regret when he sees the (steadily increasing) statistics of homeless children, but his only answer is to boast of the number of ‘affordable’ homes for purchase to enable families to ‘get on the housing ladder’. This evades the most pressing housing problem for the homeless and poor: the complete and deliberate lack of publicly-provided homes at rents that people can afford.

 

Things began to change in 1980 when the government of Margaret Thatcher introduced the “right to buy” policy which has systematically destroyed the provision of rented public housing. Tenants could buy their homes at a discount of 33%-70%. Councils, which were obliged to sell, also provided loans to finance the sale. The council received only half the discounted purchase price, and rather than use the proceeds to build replacement public rented housing, were obliged to use the revenues to reduce debt. Moreover, tenants’ legal right to buy their homes at subsidized prices, was an insuperable disincentive for local governments to build public housing since the Thatcher reforms made this a loss-making investment.

 

The provision of public rented housing reduced rapidly and many right to buy homes, after a qualifying period, were sold, frequently to private landlords. The minister responsible for this policy, Michael Heseltine, stated that "no single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state to the people." The long-term result of the policy has been to create a large (almost 20% of the population) of private landlords, who charge the market rent, not the affordable rent charged by councils. And the quantity of publicly-owned housing has been radically reduced. In effect the transfer of wealth that Mr Heseltine considered to be a roaring success was not to ‘the people’ but to the property-owning class.

 

The contribution of this policy to the manufacture of poverty can be outlined as follows:

·      An increasing proportion of people who cannot afford to buy a home in a society whose economy is founded on an ever-increasing value of housing as a ratio to income.

·      Landlords who control the rental market can, and have, driven up the real cost of renting as a proportion of income. Moreover, rentals are extremely short-term and insecure and tenants’ rights effectively minimal because such rights as they have are very difficult to enforce in a market in which the landlords have enormous power.

·      The state, which Mr Heseltine rejoiced has transferred capital to “the people” has, in fact transferred it to private investors. Moreover, the state continues to do so because the many people who cannot afford private rents receive (if they are lucky) rental support from the government. In short, the government subsidizes the inflation of rents. As rents inflate, a greater proportion of the population is unable to afford them, so they become insecure tenants, seeking less expensive places to live when the landlord increases the rent. Or landlords evict tenants who cannot pay inflated rents in order to charge more.

·      However, the government has not increased the rental subsidy to accord with the levels of rent charged, so rent consumes more and more of the income of even the poorest.

·      Those who cannot afford the rents, or who simply cannot find a landlord who will rent to them (for example, because they receive government housing benefit) become homeless. The very councils, which have been obliged to sell and reduce their public housing stock, are then obliged to provide housing for homeless individuals and families. So they pay inflated rents to private landlords or the owners of hotels and bed and breakfasts. This housing is often of poor quality and in many cases simply not decent or safe.

·      This emergency rented accommodation is frequently insecure, and may be long distances from family, friends, school and work, sometimes in another city.

Thus, the Conservative Party has engineered the largest transfer of wealth from the state to the people, and then to a class of private landlords, and in the process has systematically immiserated a substantial proportion of the population.

 

Another of Mrs Thatcher’s contribution to creating poverty was the political and fiscal consequences of the Community Charge, commonly known as the poll tax, implemented in Scotland in 1989 and in England and Wales in 1990. It replaced a tax commonly known as “the rates,” a property tax, which was based on the notional rental value of a property. This tax had become unpopular but nevertheless to some extent was proportionate to the asset value of the property. The new tax was a flat per capita tax to pay for local government: the rich and the poor paid the same tax. The poor were taxed more and the rich less (as a gleeful member of the House of Lords told me at the time). The political opposition to the tax effectively ended Mrs Thatcher’s career in 1990, and the tax was replaced in 1993 by a curiously hybrid tax, the Council Tax. The tax is personal to an extent, since the residents of a home occupied by two or more adults pays the full tax, while a property occupied by one person pays a reduced rate. However, the rate at which the tax is charged is based on the property’s 1991 value classified into bands A-H, H representing a value of £320,000. Since the valuations have not been updated, and since high value homes are now worth vastly more than £320,000, the tax on the wealthy is very low, while residents of low value properties pay much more as a proportion of the value of their home, and generally of their income.

 

Housing and taxes are not the only tools used by the Conservative Party to manufacture poverty. When the party returned to power in 2010, it adopted rhetoric and policies hostile to recipients of state benefits, in order to label its opponents as supporters of the feckless, lazy poor. The rhetoric was of “skivers” staying in bed while their employed “striver” neighbours went to work. New doctrines of fairness were created. It’s not fair for recipients of benefits to receive child support in proportion to their number of children, so support is provided only for the first two: the result has been increasing child poverty. A tenant who rents public housing may only have the number of rooms dictated by law – it’s not fair for the poor to have ‘too many’ rooms. Thus, a couple whose children have left home, and as a result has one or more bedrooms deemed to be no longer required, must pay extra rent or leave. Moreover, in order to fund tax cuts benefits have not increased at the same rate as inflation because the government’s policy is to force the supposedly workshy into work. Anti-trade union laws, employment laws that hav promoted highly insecure jobs and other government policies have further contributed to increased inequality and poverty.

 

The result is a society in which the number of people dependent on food banks has steadily increased. Moreover, many families can no longer simply not afford food, they cannot afford the energy required to cook a meal, to buy beds or bedding, new clothes, and other essentials of life. Poor families increasingly live in cold, damp, mouldy, rat and cockroach infested insecure and temporary homes. And, of course, Mr Gove regrets that there are many homeless children. I am sure that many social and economic problems worried the residents of the Whitton Estate in the 1950s, but at least families like mine had access to a decent and secure rented home.

 

As I was writing this, I received an email from a Latin American listserve that I belong to entitled “Poverty increases in Peru due to corruption and bad governance.” It seems that Peruvian government statistics record that 29% of Peruvians live in poverty (according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation the figure for the UK is 22%, although I suspect that Peruvian poverty is more severe than that of the UK). The author of the email (Enver Machel Figueroa Bazán, an economist at Syracuse University) writes: “The symbiotic association between the most discredited political groups linked to drug trafficking and illegal mining and the most incompetent and corrupted operators within the public administration has produced some of the wrongest [sic] and most damaging public policies, aimed only to keep big groups of people in a situation of vulnerability, with the intention of capturing their votes for the coming general election of 2026 by giving them direct cash transfers.”

Moe than one million Peruvians (Peru’s population is 34 million) live without access to potable water, sewage, employment, education, health care and banking services. Perhaps the groups that achieved control of the Peruvian Congress in 2021, who Figueroa Bazán blames for increased poverty in Peru learned a few lessons from Mrs Thatcher and her fellow Conservatives.

Tuesday, 9 April 2024

Más allá de le Esperanza – Eurostar and wheelchair users

 

A few years ago, I was asked to read the script for a new play, entitled Más allá de la esperanza. The literal translation of the title is Beyond Hope, which in English implies that there is no hope, a connotation that is not shared by the Spanish title, which can imply that something positive lies beyond mere hope. The play’s principal character is a disabled young man who, despite suffering from discrimination, is determined to show what he can achieve, and to prove that his life is capable of more than empty hopes. The writer was a young Mexican actor and playwright, and the play was part of his graduation requirements.

 

A poster for a production of Más allá de la esperanza in Guadalajara

As I read the script, I was reminded of a young man Jan and I met when we walked to the bakery near our apartment in Zamora in 2018. We would often meet him sitting in his wheelchair on the pavement outside his family home, sometimes eating one of the sweet rolls made in great quantities at the bakery. I suspect that, if we were to return to Zamora, we might find him still sitting there, for Mexican society offers very little beyond empty hope to wheelchair users unless they are born into wealthy families. They can’t use public transport with ease because buses are not accessible. Jobs are hard to find because most workplaces are not adapted for them. Even if they are able to propel their wheelchair, or if it is motorized, they can’t go independently for a stroll because the pavements are too steep and irregular, and in some case simply absent.

 

A poster for an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, written and performed jointly by Cedric and a friend

Our friend Cedric, who wrote Más allá de la Esperanza, was the first disabled student to be admitted to the theatre department of the Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara (UAG). The department is in a rather splendid colonial building, and is therefore thoroughly inaccessible to wheelchair users. Worse still, the faculty were even more forbidding when they realized that their new student uses a wheelchair, and can walk a short distance only with some difficulty. They did all they could to persuade Cedric to abandon his ambition to make a life in theatre – his final performance was given a bad grade because his teachers considered it too upsetting to see a disabled person walk on stage.

 

Cedric in one of his more flamboyant roles

But the scepticism and hostility of his teachers never diminished Cedric’s determination and self-belief. He is now studying for a postgraduate theatre degree in Paris. A few weeks ago we met him London: he had travelled on Eurostar to see two plays, Stranger Things: The First Shadow and Little Big Things. The latter is the work of a disabled writer, is performed by disabled actors and was produced in the only theatre in London that is fully accessible in front of house and behind the scenes. This was the first time that Cedric had travelled independently – relying on the ‘accessibility’ service provided by Eurostar to get him from a Paris taxi to the train, and at St Pancras in London to take him from the train to a taxi and on to his hotel.

 

As we settled into an ample Iraqi breakfast at the Samad Al Iraqi on Kensington High Street (before visiting the Leighton House museum, around the corner on Holland Park Road, and fully accessible since its refurbishment), an excited Cedric told us that Little Big Things had changed his life. For he had seen what is possible for disabled actors – including a performer in a wheelchair flying across the stage. This play proved to him that a professional career could indeed lie beyond the realms of mere hope.

 

Then he told us a curious story. He had booked ‘assistance’ on Eurostar. In Paris he had been pushed in his wheelchair to the train together with his suitcase and helped onto the train. When he arrived in London, staff helped him off the train and he sat in his wheelchair, expecting to be pushed to a taxi which would take him to his hotel. However, the Eurostar London staff explained to him that, because of a new policy, they were not allowed to push his wheelchair. Cedric would have to propel it himself, but he explained that he could not do that. After some discussion, the Eurostar ‘assistance’ people asked if Cedric would mind their taking photos of him for their boss and then they pushed him to his taxi.

 

We decided that it would be wise for us to accompany Cedric to the ‘Assistance’ check in at St Pancras in case of any difficulties on his return. After he had handed over his ticket, the man at the ‘Assistance’ desk asked if I was Cedric’s companion. I told him that Cedric was travelling alone. He then explained that Eurostar staff could no longer push the wheelchair. We showed him the confirmation of ‘assistance’ that Cedric had received, and explained that his wheelchair had been pushed in Paris. The ‘assistance’ man replied that in Paris agency staff who were trained to deal with wheelchairs were used, but not in London. However, after making a phone call, he announced that if Cedric would catch an earlier train he could be pushed in his wheelchair.

 

Jan and I were incensed by Eurostar’s treatment of a passenger who needed support. Had the London staff not relented, Cedric would in effect have been stranded in London because the same company had different policies at different stations, but neglected to inform its passengers – indeed Eurostar had promised him in writing a service that it had no intention of providing. Moreover, having been inspired by Little Big Things, Eurostar put Cedric firmly in his place as a disabled person who could not travel independently: the message was that Más allá de la esperanza there is, after all, nothing. So, I wrote to the consumer problems column of the Observer.

 

I received a reply the next day from the redoubtable Anna Tims, who investigates problems and writes the column. Eurostar wrote to Cedric to say that “the team in Paris is not directly employed by Eurostar and an external company is used to offer assistance for our customers. This company is licensed to assist customers with reduced mobility and the staff are trained on [sic] how to manage wheelchairs safely without risk of injury towards [sic] the passengers or the members of staff. Unfortunately, this is not the case in London, and as such staff are not able to offer customers to push their wheelchairs.” In other words, Eurostar London intentionally offers its passengers who require assistance an inferior level of service than it offers in Paris. In practice, this renders the assistance service in Paris useless, since, when the passenger arrives in London, no help at all is provided. (Anna's article is at: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/08/left-stranded-and-humiliated-by-eurostars-new-wheelchair-policy?CMP=share_btn_url)

Anna pointed out to Eurostar the difference in service offered in London and Paris, but the company declined to comment. She also pointed out that Cedric’s experience seems to be a breach of contract since the information he was given about Eurostar’s ‘assistance’ makes no mention of the restrictions in London. Furthermore, the company drew her attention to its accessibility policy, which similarly makes no mention of the restrictions. She reported Eurostar to the Office of Rail and Road, “which requires licensed operating companies to publish and abide by equitable access travel policies”, and to London TravelWatch, which campaigns for the rights of passengers. I hope that Ana’s efforts will persuade Eurostar to change its policy, but meanwhile the company has offered Cedric and a companion free return tickets to London. So we will see him again at the end of June, together with his mother. Nevertheless, he will no longer be able to travel independently on Eurostar.

 

Cedric rarely brings up the subject of disability in our conversations, but we had discussed the topic over breakfast before he told us of his experience at St Pancras. I asked him for his opinion of a recent controversy concerning a production of Richard III at the Globe in London. The decision to assign the part to an able-bodied woman was criticized by some on the grounds that only a disabled actor can express authentically the experience of being disabled. Others disagreed, arguing that the very definition of acting implies conveying characters and experiences that are not those of the actor. Some noted the casting of a woman in a traditionally male role, an increasingly common practice in contemporary theatre, as evidence that actors portray that which they are not. Cedric’s view was far more practical: theatre offers very few specifically disabled roles, so if a disabled role is given to an able-bodied actor, the employment prospects of disabled actors (already very limited) are still further reduced.

 

Our friendship with Cedric has taught me that it is very difficult to truly understand the life experiences of a disabled person, although it is not difficult to understand the need for ramps, kneeling buses, accessible toilets, braille signs in lifts, hearing loops and so on. On the other hand, the management of Eurostar either lack the imagination and wit to provide to a truly accessible service, or they simply don’t care.

Cedric with fellow students in Paris March 2024: the group has been organizing a series of conferences