A Vision for Europe - Brussels Declaration

A Vision for Europe

As the 50th anniversary of the creation of the European Union approaches, the principles and values on which modern Europe was founded are once again under threat. Recent events have thrown into sharp focus the divisions that exist between those who share our liberal, humanitarian values and those who seek to create a more authoritarian society, or would use our culture of tolerance to promote intolerance and undermine democracy.

Unless we stand firm and defend our values now, fundamentalism and authoritarianism will once again ride roughshod over our rights.

We offer this Vision for Europe to the people of Europe as a restatement of our common values, the liberal values of individual freedom, democracy and the rule of law on which modern European civilisation is based. They are not the values of a single culture or tradition but are our shared values, the values that enable Europeans of all backgrounds, cultures and traditions to live together in peace and harmony.

The Vision for Europe is the outcome of an unprecedented collaboration between academics, politicians, writers, community leaders and both secular and religious non-governmental organizations.

The centrepiece of the Vision for Europe is the Brussels Declaration, a one-page summary of our common values. More: https://www.iheu.org/v4e/index.html

This is a full list of the people and organizations who have accepted the Brussels Declaration.

Over 400 of Europe’s leading personalities have so far lent their names to the Brussels Declaration including more than 60 MEPs. The signatories include leading conservative, liberal, social democratic and green party politicians, Catholic, Protestant, Humanist, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu leaders, and many leading academics, philosophers and scientists, including several Nobel prize-winners.

Brussels Declaration launched

European Parliament, 27 February 2007

A Secular Vision for Europe

On this, the 50th anniversary of the creation of the European Union, we reaffirm the common values that have shaped and guided the foundation of modern European civilisation, and that will continue to inspire and shape our future.

These values emerged from the long experience of our forebears and their sometimes bitter struggles against tyranny. They are essentially secular, that is neutral in matters of religion and belief. They underpin a society in which all peoples, whatever their religion, philosophy or beliefs may live in harmony without favour or discrimination.

The Secular Vision for Europe is neither a manifesto nor a program of action, but a re-statement of the ground rules that enable all Europeans whatever their origin or background to live together in peace and harmony. They are based on an understanding of our common humanity, individual human rights, mutual tolerance, and agreement neither to resort to threats or violence nor to seek to impose our own particular worldview on others.

These values are not those of a single culture or religion, but are universal. They have existed in one form or another throughout all of human history and they find resonance in all of the cultures and religions that make up today’s Europe. They entail both rights and responsibilities. The key values are these: the autonomy, dignity and worth of every individual; democracy, human rights and the rule of law; a spirit of openness and free inquiry; and an understanding that the state must be independent of religion.

Finally, we recognise that human rights are individual rights and apply to the individual rather than the group. Every citizen, regardless of their origin or background, must have equal rights and protection, and an equal say through the democratic process.

Our values come neither from divine authority nor from a particular tradition or culture but are deeply grounded in human nature. Many evolved over centuries of struggle against authoritarian regimes and against those who sought to impose their will on others, often by force. They provide rights for the weak against the powerful, and for the individual against the would-be oppressor. They were inspired by the tribulations of history and by our common resolve that never again shall Europeans suffer at the hands of tyranny. Many who fought for these principles paid with their lives.

Our values are the common heritage of all Europeans. We must not compromise the gains that our civilisation has made over the centuries, and that have cost the lives and freedom of so many. We need to educate our citizens, and use every effort to explain and defend our values.

We call upon the people of Europe and all who care for freedom, democracy and the rule of law to join us in promoting and protecting these, our common values.

More...

Conclusion

The principles and values on which European civilisation is founded are once again under threat. We call upon the people of Europe and all who care for freedom, democracy and the rule of law to join us in promoting and protecting them.

Committee for A Vision for Europe, Brussels, 25 March 2007.

Register your support for the Brussels Declaration

Berlin declaration excludes reference to religion

1 April 2007 07:33

Joan Smith: Sorry, God. You're not on the guest list

(National Secular Society Honorary Associate Joan Smith, Independent on Sunday)

This is the high point of a fantastic week for secularism

Published: 25 March 2007

When the leaders of 27 countries meet in Berlin today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the EU, there will be one significant absence. To the annoyance of many Poles, who have what is arguably the most crackpot right-wing government in Europe, God has not been invited to the party. Neither Christianity nor the deity feature in the declaration which Europe's leaders will sign to mark the occasion, signalling the high point of what has been a fantastic week for secularism.

I would think that, you might say, given that one of the jobs I most fancy is poster-girl for a strictly rational approach to human affairs. But recent events show that it isn't just sceptics who are worried by the inroads which other people's imaginary friends have been making in secular states. The politician behind the decision to exclude any reference to religion from the Berlin declaration is the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a pastor's daughter, who recognises the crucial importance for most modern societies of a separation between church and state - and of not providing ammunition to critics who accuse the EU of being a Christian club.

In this country, in a blow to the Islamophobia industry which has tried to silence critics of Islam through strident accusations of racism, the Education Secretary Alan Johnson issued guidelines which will allow schools to ban paranoid forms of religious dress, including the mask, or "niqab", worn by some Muslim girls. I'm sure this will have wide public support, because the last thing most people want is a Talibanisation of relations between men and women in the UK.

At the same time, some of the country's most senior Anglican prelates were roundly defeated in the House of Lords when they made the idiotic error of supporting the Catholic Church in its attempt to discriminate against gay couples who want to use its state-funded adoption agencies. "What do we want? Discrimination! When do we want it? Now!" has never seemed to me a persuasive platform for any religion to fight on, especially when the public has warmed to gay weddings such as that of the singer Sir Elton John (who, by the way, is celebrating his 60th birthday with an eloquent blast against gay-bashing worldwide).

In a dramatic sign of the times, the Archbishop of York and two Anglican bishops found themselves criticised by peers who wanted to know what had happened to the notion of Christian love. Baroness Howarth and the former Culture secretary, Lord Smith, spoke as practising Christians and were supported by Lord Alli and my friend Baroness Massey, easily winning the debate. The Anglican hierarchy needs to do some soul-searching about why they joined this doomed cause, placing themselves on the same side as monstrously prejudiced bishops from Latin America and Africa.

Meanwhile in Paris, in a ruling welcomed as a robust assertion of the right to free speech, a French court acquitted Philippe Val, editor of the weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, who was taken to court by Muslim organisations after publishing three cartoons deemed offensive to the Prophet. And the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled against Poland, which has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, after a Polish woman lost most of her sight when she was denied a legal abortion on medical grounds.

The Enlightenment, in other words, is back with a bang. Of course people have a right to their religious views, but they aren't entitled to exercise them in ways that trample on the rights of women, children, gay people and freethinkers. Wake up and smell the coffee: God doesn't rule, OK?

reposted from: independent
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Worldometer

Education / Environment / Food / Water / Energy / Health Stats.

Watch the figures change in Real Time!

reposted from: Worldometer via clipmarks
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Stop taking sides - The term 'with us or against us' should only be used by fringe lunatics.

March 14, 2007 6:40 am

QUESTION: What is the one thing you would most like to see happen by this time next year?

On the internet everyone's a victim. Or to be precise, almost every tribe or grouping has found an outlet and the necessary commentator or statistics to paint themselves as a victim of oppression. Couple that with another trend, that people on the internet seem to gravitate towards those of similar views, and we have a problem.

The problem is that whatever dialogue is necessary to resolve issues of cohesion, tolerance, respect or oppression is becoming increasingly drowned out by those who scream the loudest on either side.

Over the next year I'd like to see more progressive liberals on "one side" building alliances and bridges with progressive liberals on "the other side". I'd like to see people stop thinking about their own tribe alone and consider where "the enemy" is coming from; to consider their fears and insecurity before re-asserting one's own. To have more empathy for everyone, not just their own.

I'd like to see a more progressive discussion on race, faith and gender politics tackling inequality for everyone. A bit vague, I know, but Tony Blair and George Bush will be gone soon. After that I hope most people will realise that the term "with us or against us" should only be used by or apply to fringe lunatics.

For other blogs in Cif's first anniversary series click here.

reposted from: cif - Guardian
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

The first US Congressman to Hold No God-Belief

Reposted from:
http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html


Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) is first Congress member in history to acknowledge his nontheism

For Immediate Release
Contact: Lori Lipman Brown, (202) 299-1091
March 12, 2007

There is only one member of Congress who is on record as not holding a god-belief.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America. Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition's research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.

Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America, attributes these attitudes to the demonization of people who don't believe in God. "The truth is," says Silverman, "the vast majority of us follow the Golden Rule and are as likely to be good citizens, just like Rep. Stark with over 30 years of exemplary public service. The only way to counter the prejudice against nontheists is for more people to publicly identify as nontheists. Rep. Stark shows remarkable courage in being the first member of Congress to do so."

In October, 2006 the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobby representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists, announced a contest. At the time, few if any elected officials, even at the lowest level, would self-identify as a nontheist. So the Coalition offered $1,000 to the person who could identify the highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.

In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass.

Surveys vary in the percentage of atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheists in the U.S, with about 10% (30 million people) a fair middle point. "If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population," Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, observes, "there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one."

If you would like to send a message to Congressman Stark, go to:
http://www.secular.org/activism/thank_stark_070312.html

reposted from: richarddawkins.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Chris Street summary
Michael Portillo says that a politicians religious belief should not play any part in the political decision making process.

by Michael Portillo

When last week David Cameron revealed that he hopes his daughter will go to a Church of England school, his aides rushed to say that he attends Sunday worship in Kensington not as a ploy to help her chances but out of genuine religious conviction. I would be more reassured to hear that the Tory leader goes to church because that is what it takes to get a child into the best of state schools, not because he is a believer.

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_portillo/article1434471.ece
reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,675,n,n
my highlights / emphasis / comments

After Tony Blair's 10 years in Downing Street I am worried. At first I assumed that his attendance at church was simply a way of signalling to the world that he was a man of moral fibre who would bring an ethical dimension to governing Britain. That idea worked quite well for a while. When Blair told Britain that he was a pretty straight kind of guy the country was inclined to believe him. Now we know that going to church has no connection with telling the truth.

For Blair, worship in church was always more than a political tool or a lifestyle issue. He is apparently serious about religion. Reportedly he takes on holiday 12th-century theological texts for poolside reading. A year ago he told us that he had prayed to God about his decision to join the American invasion of Iraq and that, since he is a believer, it is how God will judge his actions that most concerns him.

I worry because men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics. Blair is filled with a self-confidence and self-satisfaction that are dangerous. They were evident last week as he refused to take responsibility for anything that has happened in Iraq since America and Britain occupied it. Those who look for judgment not from the electorate or parliament or a free press but from God release themselves from the constraints of democracy.

In Britain the problem may seem more theoretical than real because Christianity in this country today is by and large a gentle thing. We should remember that it was shaped that way for good political reasons.

At one time religion was the greatest threat to the integrity and safety of the realm. Under the brief reign of Bloody Mary 300 Protestants, including bishops, were burnt at the stake for refusing to accept Catholicism.

Mary's Protestant successor, her half-sister Elizabeth I, was determined that religious struggles would not wreck her kingdom. She dismissed most religious controversy as "disputes over trifles" and forbade clergymen from straying from their biblical texts into questions of rite or politics. She crafted a Protestantism that created as few problems as possible for Catholics — for example, one that tolerated candles and crucifixes.

If today the Church of England is wishy-washy and middle-of-the-road, that is no accident. It is the long-term result of Elizabeth's design. Britain has benefited enormously from a weak clergy that has mainly remained aloft from politics. Britain's established church, headed by the monarch, has made few demands of our leaders or people.

When Blair correctly cites tolerance as one of Britain's defining virtues, he should recognise that we owe it to those wise rulers who over centuries insisted on separating religion from politics.

Blair understands the British distaste for mixing belief with power. Rightly, he once said: "I don't want to end up with . . . American-style . . . politics with us all . . . beating our chests about our faith." But that was a year before he revealed that he looked to the Almighty rather than us to judge him on Iraq. Alastair Campbell, Blair's former spokesman, once told an American interviewer, "We don't do God." But Blair is tempted to.

He was deeply uncomfortable when Jeremy Paxman asked him whether he and President Bush prayed together. If the answer was "no", the prime minister was open to a charge of hypocrisy. Why wouldn't two practising Christians share a moment of communication with their maker? If the answer was "yes", the British electorate would be terrified. Not surprisingly he refused to answer.

Britons should worry that religion and politics could again be bound together. If moderation and secularism have been overturned in parts of the Muslim world, why should not the same thing happen in Christian societies? Bush aroused that fear unwittingly when he referred to the war against terror as a "crusade". The remark evoked a return to religious warfare by Christians under the banner of the cross. The idea is not so farfetched given that the president has also said that God had told him to "end the tyranny in Iraq".

Bush has suggested, too, that in American schools children should be taught both Darwinism and so-called "intelligent design" (which is creationism by another name) "so people can understand what the debate is about". There is no debate. Darwinism is backed by an enormous quantity of scientific evidence, while intelligent design is a religious belief and under the US constitution belief cannot be taught in state schools.

There is a danger, too, that climate change will become a subject for religious zeal. The Bishop of London has said that flying on holiday is a sin. The remark hopelessly muddles religion and politics. There is of course scientific evidence of global warming (but then is not a religion that teaches the creation an opponent of science rather than its ally?). What may need to be done about climate change is a political matter because it can involve bans, taxes and big spending, all of which will be hotly disputed. If the bishop wants to enter political debate he could say, with as good reason, that not to advocate nuclear power is sinful. His remark about flying is acceptable only in a society where people pay bishops no attention.

In other societies theocrats, religious leaders or fanatics citing holy texts dictate violent actions. That constitutes the greatest threat to world peace today. For the first time since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, mainland Britain is menaced by religious violence, now committed at the behest of Al-Qaeda.

I do not regard myself as a militant secularist. For example, I see no need (as the government does) to drive Catholic adoption agencies out of business because they will not place children with same-sex couples. I recognise that teaching religious belief may be a good way, perhaps the best way, to impart a sense of right and wrong to children and it is fundamental to our society's survival that most people should distinguish good from bad.

Many fine things are done by people because of their faith. As an MP I saw a number of examples. And as we mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade we are reminded that William Wilberforce, who brought it about, was a man driven by religious conviction who eschewed political ambition.

But if our political leaders cite faith as their political guide, then how do we distinguish ourselves from the religious extremists who wreak havoc in our world? It may seem harmless to "do God" a little in an essentially moderate country like ours. But once you claim that He is judging you or telling you what to do, there is no logical defence against another who claims that his God is instructing him to blow up discotheques or fly planes into buildings. If one God sent the Americans into Iraq, why shouldn't another insist that by every means it be defended against infidel attack?

My guess is that historians will look back on the early 21st century in puzzlement. How was it possible, they will ask, that man had such deep scientific understanding but clung so tenaciously to his gods? Why did western politicians think that doing God (even a tiny bit) was an electoral or strategic asset?

It would be good to know from Cameron that for him going to church is just a metaphor for wanting to be a good man and a good leader, and that he hears no voices, receives no divine instructions and looks only for the judgment of his fellow citizens. We could then sleep more easily at night.

Michael Portillo left the House of Commons in 2005 after a 30-year career with the Conservative Party, which took him from MP for Enfield Southgate to transport and local government minister to the Cabinet, where he served as Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence. Since leaving politics he has written weekly for The Sunday Times and made a number of documentaries for BBC2

michael.portillo@sunday-times.co.uk

************

Britain needs a declaration of independence from America

Tony Blair's successors will have to fashion a foreign policy less obsessed with the US and more concerned with the rest of the world

Andrew Rawnsley
Sunday February 11, 2007
The Observer

reposted from: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
my highlights / emphasis / comments

'This sucks,' says the American pilot of an A10 Thunderbolt tank buster when he realises that he has just unleashed a devastating cannon burst on a British armoured patrol. 'We're in jail dude,' chokes his wingman as they return to base, streaming expletives about their deadly mistake.

Jail is not where these dudes landed after they fatally strafed their British allies in Iraq in a tragic case of blue-on-blue just after the invasion. The senior officer was subsequently promoted to colonel, awarded the bronze star and now trains other American pilots in ground-attack. The recording is chilling. Gung-ho American reservists on their first combat mission are misled into thinking that there are no 'friendlies' in the area. Eager for action, they talk themselves into thinking that the orange panels marking the tanks as their British allies are enemy rocket launchers. They retch and curse when they are told that they have made a horrific blunder.

The incident itself was terrible enough, but this is not what has done most damage to Anglo-American relations. The Pentagon obstructed the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull. His widow has had to wait four years until someone leaked the cockpit recording to find out how her husband was killed. The Ministry of Defence appeared unwilling to stand up to its American counterparts and dissembled about whether video footage of the attack existed. Not for the first time, Britain is made to look like a subservient satellite taken wretchedly for granted by the country that is supposed to be its closest ally.

Opponents of the war in Iraq get daily vindication that the invasion was a terrible mistake. Supporters of the removal of Saddam feel betrayed by the appalling mess the divided and incompetent Bush administration has made of the aftermath. Tony Blair is an increasingly lonely voice when he pleads that Britain and America must remain each other's indispensable allies. 'We shouldn't give that up in any set of circumstances,' the Prime Minister declared when he appeared before senior MPs last week. 'The relationship with America is what opens lots of doors everywhere.' He did not make his case more persuasive when he selected climate change as an example of what he had got out of his closeness to George W Bush. When he leaves Number 10, his successors will have to fashion a new foreign policy for Britain which recasts its relationship with America and reorients its approach to the rest of the world.

The United Kingdom and the United States will remain firm friends. Their histories, economies and cultures are too entwined for it to be otherwise. They will continue to co-operate in the struggle against Islamist terrorism. Often, they will have mutual interests which will put them on the same side in global arguments.

That said, the relationship will never be the same again. And Tony Blair is one of the reasons why it will change. He has not been the Prime Minister he expected to be. He entered Downing Street as an instinctively pro-European leader who thought it was his destiny to settle Britain's relationship with Europe. He ends his premiership with it most defined by his relationship with the United States. The guiding principle of Mr Blair's foreign policy has been to get as close as he could to the American President, whoever he was. He was Bill Clinton's closest chum, then George W Bush's best buddy. As Mr Blair acknowledges, he has paid a high 'political penalty' for that. What he or Britain got in return is not clear, even to some of his closest colleagues. 'Iraq has been a total disaster,' says one minister who can be normally counted as a great Blair loyalist.

One of the unintended consequences of his adherence to America is to make it more likely that his successors will put some distance between themselves and Washington. Gordon Brown talks coolly, if imprecisely, about adopting a stance which puts 'Britain's interests first'. David Cameron has described himself as 'a liberal conservative rather than a neoconservative' who would be 'solid but not slavish in our friendship with America'. A Conservative government would not join those who believe in 'recklessly poking the United States in the eye', but nor would it be 'America's unconditional associate in every endeavour'. Mr Cameron is not anti-American. Neither is Gordon Brown. But they do sense the demand in Britain for our own declaration of independence from America.

Globescan regularly conducts a massive poll of attitudes towards the United States by sampling the opinion of 26,000 people across 25 countries. The latest survey finds antagonism towards America at an intense pitch. Even in countries such as Poland which are traditionally warm towards the US, public opinion has turned very sour. Britain is becoming almost as anti-American as France has historically been. Just a third of Britons now regard the United States as a force for good. Even if a future Prime Minister could convince himself that it would be sensible to do another Iraq, he would have huge difficulty persuading his colleagues or the public that he had not gone mad.

Tony Blair has been fixated with Washington because his guiding belief is that Britain maximises its global influence by flying as wingman to America. That role will seem less attractive to his successors for several reasons. One is that American power is going into decline. Sure, for the foreseeable future, the United States will remain a colossal military force, but its relative global clout will diminish as this century gets older. Iraq has already made the United States look much weaker in the eyes of the world. It has been a sanguinary lesson in the limitations of 'hard' power. Even some of the architects of the 'surge' plan don't believe that George W Bush's last throw is going to pacify Baghdad. Even under Tony Blair, American and British priorities are diverging. As the United States pours more troops into Iraq, Britain is desperate to get its soldiers home.

Immense damage has also been done to America's 'soft' power - the capacity to influence the world by example and persuasion. Uncouth Nation is a new book which explores rising anti-Americanism. Its author, Andrei Markovits, a professor at the University of Michigan, deplores the phenomenon, but that doesn't inhibit him from detailing its increase and its consquences. 'It matters that teenagers in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, South Korea, Mexico, China, Taiwan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria and Argentina have come to despise America and the American people despite - or precisely because of - their being eager consumers of American culture.' The greatest antipathy is directed at the American President. As Markovits has it: 'Bush represents to Europeans the quintessential ugly American: arrogant, uncouth, uncultured, ignorant, inconsiderate, and aggressive.'

The departure of George W Bush may soften some of the hostility towards America. What it won't do is change the deeper, underlying trends which will demand a British foreign policy that is less exclusively concentrated on the relationship with the White House. Masked by the narrow and furious focus on the Middle East of the last few years, the tectonic plates of geopolitics are shifting. For a brief period after the fall of the Berlin Wall, American was an unchallenged hegemon, the only superpower - 'the hyperpuissance,' in the phrase of a French Foreign Minister.

The world is becoming increasingly multipolar and more reminiscent of the competing Great Powers of the 19th century. Russia has just announced that it is going to exploit its economic revival to rebuild its military strength. China is constructing a blue-water navy, demonstrating the capacity to shoot satellites out of space and buying up vast tracts of Africa in order to use the continent's oil and minerals to feed Chinese economic growth.

Brazil and India are also achieving the growth to enable them to become the world powers that their geographical and population size say they should be. In this new world order, America will be less focused on its old friends across the Atlantic and more geared towards making alliances and confronting threats in the Pacific and Asia.

The world's most powerful economic group has been the G7: America, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada. Sometime around the middle of this century, it is very probable that the G7 will be surpassed by the combined economic power of the BRICs - Brazil, Russia, India and China. That will be a decisive shift of global clout from the old West to the new powers of the South and the East. Gordon Brown talks readily about the challenge of India and China, but he has yet to provide details of how he would recast British foreign policy to deal with it. All the effort he has put into debt relief and good governance in Africa is undermined when China is supplying huge loans with no human rights strings attached.

Both he and David Cameron will have to think about how to re-energise Europe as a world player and reinvigorate Britain's relationship with her closest neighbours. On the Chancellor's recent trip to India, there was a telling moment when the Indian Prime Minister greeted him as a 'leader of the EU'. That is not how Mr Brown, who has a reputation as a grudging European, is accustomed to thinking of himself. The Tory leader's attempts to build relationships in the EU is handicapped by his party's atavistic hostility to everything European.

Global institutions which reflect the balance of world power as it was in 1945 will have to be radically overhauled. It will become ever harder to justify Britain's possession of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council when Brazil and India do not have one. The big issues of this century - none of them more important than climate change - cannot be addressed by a foreign policy obsessed only with hugging Washington. The challenge for Tony Blair's successors will be to embrace the whole of a rapidly changing world.