To the Editor, the Sunday Times

Your leader on 16th November 2003 sets out the position of the Right - and more importantly, Rupert Murdoch, on the subject of George W Bush. Your key points are printed below in bold.

You believe that history will vindicate Bush. Will it? Will our grandchildren, struggling with the effects of climate change due to our uncontrolled addiction to oil and other finite fuels, really think, "How glad I am that George W Bush slowed up the transition to sustainable energy sources by a whole four years?"
Not to mention all the other international agreements that Bush has repudiated or undermined including, ironically, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT). Bush seeks to limit nuclear proliferation by violent means while expanding his own nuclear capability in highly dangerous ways which contravene the intent of the NNPT.

America, you say, is the leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy. This begs a lot of questions about freedom. Freedom means different things to different people. For some it is the freedom to have loads of money and the lifestyle that goes with it. For others it is just another word for nothing left to lose. Yes, America does a nice line in civic freedom, and we all owe a lot to American musical culture that was born out of the experiences of an enslaved people. But Supreme Court Appointee George W Bush, author of the Patriot Act, is not the man to receive medals for services to freedom and democracy.
Democracy is another word that needs a little more definition. Bush and Blair's imperfect grasp of the concept of democracy is displayed in their fumbling and increasingly desperate attempts to set up an elected government in Iraq. Focussed on the 24-man governing council, it has not occurred to them that power in a democracy should flow from the periphery to the centre, and not from the centre to the periphery.

If Bush and Blair want to get their tails out of the fire by June 2004, they should start setting up representatives from each village or town district, who will be responsible for ensuring provision of water, food, fuel, housing, waste disposal and health. They would form needs lists, which they would pass to the centre through a representative chosen from a group of, say, five villages. They would supervise the money that would flow back to the communities to help them help themselves. These same representatives would form a thing called a parliament, who will work to a draft constitution until they can evolve their final version from the practice of governance. In this way, the power and the constitution can emerge from the people. Which is what democracy is all about. Bush and Blair, and Sunday Times editorial writers will sneer at that idea, because they have no faith in real democracy and no faith in the people.

You dismiss the opposition to Bush's visit with innuendo and half truths. It is a lie to accuse protestors of supporting the sanctions that killed thousands of Iraqi children. Many groups that you would call peaceniks have been calling for the end of sanctions for years. We protested against the gassing at Halabja; your right wing government did its best to ignore it. Yes, Saddam was a mass murderer. We abhor all mass murderers, and would use international law to stop their legitimacy. Bush, on the other hand, opposes the International Criminal Court, and would certainly not be interested in implementing international standards of governance.

You are glad that America is engaged, and not isolated, under Bush. But how could it be otherwise? Where would an isolated America get its oil from, not that its own wells are pumped dry?
Would Bush rather queue for his gas, or would he prefer to own the gas station?
You applaud Bush for being prepared to send young men to their deaths in a long and difficult war against terrorism. Can you point to any evidence that terrorism is diminished, as a result of Bush's policies? The evidence points the other way.

You congratulate Bush for America's strong economic surge. Maybe you should have lunch with your colleagues on the economics pages and update yourself on the current realities of the American economy. Corporate wages are buoyant, sure, but the rest of the economy is far from sound. The $84 billion cost of the Iraqi adventure would have been better spent on developing America's communities and health care.

Sir, you have tried and failed to defend the indefensible. You have not made your case. The visit of Bush next week is at the very least an embarrassment for the Queen, and at worst a disaster; it should be called off. That is why I am taking the coach to London on Thursday.

(c) Dr Richard Lawson 16.11.03