From: Snapshot-Content-Location: https://library.fes.de/fulltext/bueros/london/01104.htm Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Values,=20ethics=20and=20New=20Labour=20/=20John=20Lloyd=20-=20?= =?utf-8?Q?[Electronic=20ed.]=20-=20London,=202001=20-=206=20Bl.=20=3D=202?= =?utf-8?Q?5=20KB,=20Text=20.=20-=20(Working=20papers=20/=20Friedrich-Eber?= =?utf-8?Q?t-Stiftung,=20London=20Office=20;=202001,5)=20
Electronic=20?= =?utf-8?Q?ed.:=20Bonn=20:=20FES=20Library,=202001=20

=C2=A9=20Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung?= Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:34:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35----" ------MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35---- Content-Type: text/html Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: https://library.fes.de/fulltext/bueros/london/01104.htm Values, ethics and New Labour / John Lloyd - [Electronic ed.] - London, 200= 1 - 6 Bl. =3D 25 KB, Text . - (Working papers / Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, London Office ; 2001,5) <br>Electronic ed.: Bonn : FES Library, 2001 <br><br><font size=3D-1><i>=A9 Friedrich-Ebert-Stif= tung</i></font>
FES 3D"HOME" 3D"MAIL" 3D"SEARCH" 3D"HELP" 3D"NEW"
3D"[DIGI=
=3D"TITLE


Values, ethics and New Labour / John Lloyd - [Electronic ed.] - London, 200= 1 - 6 Bl. =3D 25 KB, Text . - (Working papers / Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, London Office ; 2001,5)
Electronic ed.: Bonn : FES Library, 2001

=A9 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung

=3D"CONTENTS"


VALUE, ETHICS AND NEW LABOUR

John Lloyd
August 2001

A dilemma haunts New Labour, as it does all of the centre-left gover= nments. It is the dilemma of values. What constitutes a meaning for their = governments? What is the end to which they are tending?

For them, even more than for the governments of the right, there hav= e been two losses of faith =96 the first historical but still resonant, th= e second contemporary. Both losses have been largely benign in effect. But= they pose problems, which the centre-left must now face.

The first is the loss of religious faith in government =96 or more p= recisely, the separation of direct religious purpose from the conduct of th= e state. This happened, in Western states generally, from the 18th century onwards (earlier in Britain). Governments whose authority was = bolstered by that of the Church, and which in turn were under the Church's = influence, were gradually replaced by governments whose object was, at leas= t in part, to perform a secular duty of providing stability, security and e= ven a limited degree of welfare for their citizens.

But the narrow limits of the degree of welfare became =96 once the r= eligious veil had been stripped away - more and more obvious. By the late = 18th-19th century, government had come to be seen as a means for= perpetuating the rule of the rich. At the very least, the starkness of the= divisions in the society became more obvious, and lacked (at least for man= y) the sanction of God. And thus a new faith grew up =96 that of socialism= .

Socialism has for a century and a half solved the problem, at least = for socialists, of what government and the state was for. It was for the a= chievement of socialism. Whether revolutionary or reformist =96 the SPD ha= s been both, the Labour Party only the second of these =96 socialist partie= s assumed that the aim and end of their time in government would be the ach= ievement of socialism or, at the very least, a shift in the institutions an= d values of the country they governed, which would make socialism more achi= evable next time. In practice, this was often elusive =96 governments of t= he left before the war, especially in Britain and France, were meagre and l= ow on achievement. After the war, however, both the totalitarian and democ= ratic versions of socialism enjoyed apparent and/or real successes. Parties= and governments of the right bowed to the necessity of creating welfare st= ates and mixed economies, and the achievement of socialism by democratic me= ans seemed again possible.

But that possibility is, at least for now, over. The collapse of th= e socialist possibility in the eighties and nineties of the last century me= ans that governments of the left have lost their founding ethic. Socialism= is not seen as a goal =96 at best, it is a stock of practice which can be = raided for ideas and rhetoric. Governments of the left do not, in the main= , believe they are putting in place a set of institutions and practices whi= ch cannot be altered, and which constitute one of a series of ascending ste= ps to socialism.

Nowhere is this more true than with the New Labour government in the= UK. It has been among the most explicit of the new generation of centre-l= eft parties in its rejection of socialism. It thus finds itself more unambi= guously naked when it comes to the matter of values and ethics. Without so= cialism, it has no transcendent appeal either to the electorate or =96 more= importantly in this case =96 to the party members and activists. To the q= uestion (unspoken but at the heart of political activism) "what are we here= for?" there is only the answer =96 to help the government make life a bit = better for your fellow countrymen. This is much more useful than class war= , but it is not so inspiring, especially for the young. And even for those= who are no longer young, it is easily countered by the observation that, a= fter all, another form of activity =96 as charity work =96 is as valuable.

The search for values and an ethic to underpin the party and the gov= ernment is thus, in Britain, quite intense. It featured a good deal in the= speeches made, especially by Prime Minister Blair and the Chancellor, Gord= on Brown, during the election campaign =96 though there was no fully worked= -out version of what such a system of values might be. In fact, the search= continues. It is a search common to the left worldwide.

Blair's own ethical being is made up of a strong attachment to the A= nglican Church (his wife, Cherie, is a Catholic, as strongly attached to he= r church, in which their children are baptised). This is mixed with an equ= ally strong predisposition in favour of social responsibility. One of his = famous phrases, coined when he was an opposition spokesman for Home Affairs= in the early nineties, was "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crim= e". It is a phrase which, more neatly than any other, summed up his view t= hat, while Labour should retain its traditional sympathy for the circumstan= ces which draw people into crime, it should also see crime as an act for wh= ich the perpetrator should take =96 be forced to take =96 full responsibili= ty.

Gordon Brown is more complex, in this as in everything else. He was= brought up within the household of a Church of Scotland minister =96 that = is, a Presbyterian church, similar to the Lutheran tradition =96 where a hi= gh moral seriousness was encouraged. He was a brilliant student and postgr= aduate; he rose quickly in the Labour Party and became an MP in his late tw= enties. His intellectual journey, much more conscious than Blair's, has be= en from a leftist socialism through to an eclectic position where he will f= ind value and inspiration in a range of thinkers and policy analysts, usual= ly from the US, who give him help in his quest to achieve socialist values = within a capitalist framework.

When, recently, I spent much of a day with him in the early stages o= f the British election campaign, I was surprised to hear him recommend - wi= th great warmth =96 a book by the US political philosopher James Q. Wilson,= whom I knew to be a man of the right. That book is Moral Sense, a = book whose message is closely parallel to that which New Labour wishes to s= ee as the heart of its ethical stance. =20

Wilson's main point is that advanced societies have lost confidence = in the "moral sense" - even though most people still have one. That "moral= sense" knows the difference between right and wrong, between good and bad = behaviour, between decency and indecency. It is the task of those who lead= society =96 above all, governments =96 to reassert it. Wilson writes:

    "Testing limits is a way of asserting selfhood. Maintaining limits is a= way of asserting community. If the limits are asserted weakly, uncertainl= y or apologetically, their effect must surely be weaker than if they are as= serted boldly, confidently and persuasively. How vigorously and persuasive= ly we =96 mostly, but not entirely, older people =96 assert these limits wi= ll surely depend to some important degree on how confidently we believe in = the sentiments that underlie them. Some of us have lost that confidence. = The avant-garde in music, art and literature mocks that confidence." (Mo= ral Sense, p9)

In that quotation, much of New Labour's working philosophy is to be foun= d. It believes, with Wilson, that the testing and breaking of limits, espe= cially by young men, is destructive of society and community =96 and that i= t is up to government in the first instance to re-assert the limits. It be= lieves, with Wilson, that these limits have been or are being asserted too = weakly because many people, especially on the left, have fallen victim to a= habit of relativism. Relativism is a cast of mind which denies the existe= nce of any moral absolute, in favour of an approach which says that everyth= ing is understandable =96 and forgivable =96 when it is understood in relat= ion to its history, or background, or need. As the memories of the great c= rimes of the 19th and 20th centuries recede, the view= that no-one is truly guilty because every deed, no matter how apparently w= icked, has its explanation and excuse, becomes stronger. And New Labour be= lieves, with Wilson, that intellectuals and artists ("the avant-garde in mu= sic, art and literature") do indeed mock the moral approach =96 one reason = why there is now mutual distrust between many intellectuals and artists on = the one hand and New Labour on the other, even though the two sides hailed = each other as friends when Labour first came to government in 1997.

Thus Labour seeks to construct its value system on a kind of balance= =96 between rights on the one hand and responsibilities or duties on the o= ther. Good citizenship depends on having the first on condition the second= are well observed. A good citizen is one who knows that society is exhaus= ted if he simply claims as many rights as possible from it and fights again= st fulfilling his responsibilities. It will ultimately disintegrate, or be= come a police state.=20

=20

On this basis, New Labour believes that people as a whole know well = enough that there is a decent way to live. They must therefore be protecte= d from the minority who do not share this view, and who deliberately or cas= ually wreck community and society. A large task of government must thus be= to construct institutions, to shape the justice system and to re-order the= welfare state in such a way as to reward virtuous behaviour and punish =96= sometimes severely =96 evil and/or criminal behaviour. It is this which l= ies behind Labour's much discussed 'hard line' policy on crime: a belief th= at decency has suffered in the past by not being adequately protected by th= e state. But it is also this which informs its policy on, for example, edu= cation, health, discrimination, and social security =96 where one can see a= n effort to work against the more obvious inequalities, and to bring up the= condition of the poorest. =20

Already, after the election, two initiatives have been launched whic= h illustrate this approach. The first, causing a growing revolt among the = members of parliament and Labour activists, is a measure which subjects tho= se receiving 'disability benefit' =96 that is, payment for a chronic illnes= s or injury which prevents them from working =96 to periodic tests in order= to ensure that they really are disabled. If it found that they are fit to= work, the benefit will be stopped and they will be asked to present themse= lves for a job.

The fierce polemics around this measure show 'old' and 'new' Labour = values in the clearest of terms. For 'old' Labour, the disabled are practi= cally untouchable: the victims of work-related injury or sickness, who shou= ld be subjected to no more than the checks they receive from their doctors.= For 'new' Labour, the fact that many who receive this benefit either exag= gerate its severity or produce fake medical certificates is an outrage, whi= ch must be stopped, both because it wastes money and because it confers a r= ight with no reciprocal responsibility. =20

The second is a series of moves made by David Blunkett, the remarkab= le man who, though blind, had made a generally-agreed success of his job as= Education and Employment Secretary and now has the more senior job of Home= Secretary. Blunkett has accelerated moves already being made to 'de-crimi= nalise' cannabis use =96 that is, though it is still nominally illegal to p= ossess cannabis, it is now unlikely that anyone will be arrested for using = it or having small quantities of the drug in their possession. A significa= nt part of the prison population is in jail for cannabis use and sale; it i= s now increasingly believed that to be punished for taking a drug less harm= ful to oneself than alcohol or tobacco is anomalous.

On the other hand, Blunkett has highlighted the fact that the majori= ty of crimes are committed by relatively few =96 less than 10,000 =96 habit= ual criminals. These people, he has said, should be removed from circulati= on and put into prison for longer sentences. These sentences may increasin= gly be coupled with efforts to bring the criminal face to face with his vic= tim(s) and to work out a programme of reparation which the criminal could p= erform.

The project is presented as one in which fairness =96 no longer disc= riminating against soft drug users =96 is mixed with discipline =96 using m= ore severe legal punishment against those who habitually offend. In this w= ay, New Labour's leadership believes, it is serving the construction of a r= obust social morality in which justice is seen as reasonable, not arbitrary= , and responsibilities are shouldered, or sanctions applied where they are = not.

Complementing these values =96 of the reciprocity of rights and resp= onsibilities =96 is one which New Labour, as with the New Democrats in the = States, has made particularly its own. It may be described as the value of= multiculturalism =96 that is, that all traces of discrimination, racism an= d racial disadvantage caused by deliberate acts should be eradicated as a m= atter of urgent policy. A report into the murder of a black teenager whose= murderers, though known, could not be arrested for lack of evidence became= the occasion of a wide ranging examination of racism, conscious and uncons= cious, in the police force. A further inquiry into racial disadvantage in = employment has been ordered by the Prime Minister.

Overarching these actions and analyses is the beginnings of a theore= tical-cum-ethical framework which assumes that community does not reside in= ethnicity, or in nation: that it must be created by adherence to common in= stitutions and values. It opposes the view =96 put most starkly by Samuel = Huntingdon in his The Clash of Civilizations =96 that the wor= ld is composed of potentially hostile, mutually excluding religious-politic= al conglomerates of states or "civilisations" (as the western-Christian, th= e Orthodox, the Muslim) which have their own geographical entities. Agains= t this, the centre-leftists pose a model in which religion, race and cultur= e matter less than standards, law and values. The best example of this in = recent practice has been, not in the UK, but in Germany. The all-party com= mission on immigrant labour, chaired by the Christian Democrat Rita S=FCssm= uth, has recommended the entry of some 50,000 skilled workers from abroad e= ach year - on condition that they submit to at lest 600 lessons in German, = and are given a series of civics lessons in order to acclimatise them quick= ly to the do's and don'ts of German life.

The liberal-social ethic which these efforts are aimed at constructi= ng is one which is partly articulated in speeches, partly emerges in practi= ce, partly is still being constructed. No political world simply switches = from one age to another. In the UK, as elsewhere, there is a lingering (bu= t very minor) attachment to religious values in public life; more strongly = within the Labour Party, there is a reluctance to give up "real Labour" pos= itions in favour of the New Labour ones. However, the latter are now domin= ant.

But they face strong challenges. A new system of values must prove = itself to be robust, rather than simply a dressing on political speeches or= legislation. New Labour =96 or new centre-left =96 values have already ru= n into criticism or rejection in three areas, where they must either show t= hemselves to work or must retreat.

First, there is the problem of equality. A values system for a cent= re-left government finds it hard to ignore the growing distance between the= rich and the poor. This is true on a number of levels =96 the gap between= rich countries and poor ones, the gap between the very rich individuals (b= illionaires and multi-millionaires) and average incomes, and the gap betwee= n the relatively comfortable and the very poor or socially excluded. Not a= ll of these gaps are widening in all respects: for example, as the UN Devel= opment Programme report for 2001 shows, the advance in developing countries= ' incomes over the last decade has been very marked, while at the same time= leaving behind a "tail" of desperate states which are getting worse. =20

However, there is no doubt that the possession of wealth, and of pos= itional goods like advanced education, put increasing distances in some are= as between citizens as between states. To demand of all that they adhere t= o a common ethic in which some benefit much more than others is to lay open= the government to a charge of hypocrisy: of creating a society in which th= e poor are subject to disciplines and the rich can buy their way out of the= se same disciplines. In practice, the centre-left has recognised that it c= annot do much =96 or only a little, through the tax system =96 to curb the = growth of income inequality of this kind, and that it must concentrate on c= reating publicly-available education, health and social security systems wh= ich provide at least reasonable services for all, so that the basic needs a= nd props of life are there for all.

Second, the multicultural ethic, fundamental to the new centre-left = for both moral and practical reasons, is far from being accepted. Part of = this =96 the easiest part to oppose =96 is racism, the desire of the member= s of one racial group to keep down and out the members of others. Though t= he most vicious in practice, it is also the easiest to oppose because there= is presently wide acceptance of its inadmissibility across a left-right sp= ectrum which includes police and other agencies. The more difficult questi= ons are raised in the areas of national and cultural identity: whether or n= ot people will take the risk =96 as it seems to them =96 of distancing them= selves from the cultures into which they were born and brought up in order = to attach themselves to civic institutions and values which may be wholly o= r partly alien to them.

Indeed, within the left, there exists a strong challenge to the mult= icultural ethic. Within the UK, nationalist parties =96 in Scotland, Wales= and Northern Ireland =96 all oppose the continuation of the multicultural = state which is the UK. All of these parties base themselves to the left of= New Labour. While none, apart from the Irish republican group Sinn Fein, = embraces any kind of violent means, they argue that the British form of mul= ticulturalism or multinationalism has failed. Beyond that, there is a stro= ng movement which holds that different cultures within the UK must be allow= ed to express themselves fully, even where that expression runs counter to = any sort of national consensus. Indeed, this argument would dispute the exi= stence of national consensus. Brian Barry, a critic of this strand of argu= ment from a left perspective, argues in his Culture and Equality tha= t it "undermines a politics of redistribution" because it assumes that cert= ain groups must be treated unequally.

Third, the essay into an overtly ethical area =96 the announcement o= f an 'ethical dimension' to foreign policy =96 has had mixed results so far= . In particular, critics of it point to a steady stream of weapons =96 in = which Britain is highly competitive =96 exported to states which may well u= se them against local insurgents, or to fight with or put pressure on neigh= bouring states. They point to a continuation of realpolitik measure= s to increase the power, wealth and security of the UK, even as it preaches= a new ethic. Against this must be set the advances =96 the successful int= ervention in Kosovo, with the effect of bringing down the Milosevic regime;= the working of the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, to which Milosevic, w= ith other alleged war criminals, has been brought; and the creation of the = International Criminal Court. But anomalies =96 sharp anomalies =96 remain= .

The proponents of the new ethics argue that these are early days; th= at no ethic can be perfect in execution; that the ethic itself is still a w= ork in progress. These arguments are correct. However, the project remain= s a tentative one, lacking as yet a strong champion and a prey to realist b= ehaviour which usually returns to classic considerations and manoeuvres of = power. Both religion and socialism had their prophets =96 outside of the p= olitical system. The new ethic has prophets =96 but they are often within = the system: politicians and policy developers groping for a new basis. Thi= s does not condemn the project to futility, but it points to the need to br= oaden the base and engage a wider participation, as well as a wider audienc= e.


John Lloyd is a former foreign correspondent for the Financial= Times and Associate Editor of the New Statesman

The opinions expressed in publications of the Friedrich-Ebert-Sti= ftung London Office are those of the author(s) and do not necessaril= y represent the views of the Foundation.


Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
London Office

Director: Dr Gero Maass

The Chandlery
Office 312

50 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7QY
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7721 8745
Fax: +44 (0)20 7721 8746
email: feslondon@dial.pipex.com
web: www.fes.de/london=20

=A9 Friedrich Ebert Stiftung | te= chnical support | net edition=20 fes-library | Oktober 2001
------MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35---- Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: https://library.fes.de/images/digbib/e_inhalt.gif R0lGODlhaQAPAMQAABBAcCBNefDz9uDm7KCzxnCNqTBZg2CAoNDZ41BzlpCmvLDA0ICZs8DN2UBm jP///wAzZgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAA AAAALAAAAABpAA8AQAX/ICSOZGmeaKqubOu6QnMaD1M6TwE1DwTEONvoIRsxHo5kMrCT/Ro4B4lo OhAQj9zL9RMcRI6GDIdgAgg1Ee9BANcCygdCCTgql7sB2+2AJ+V0aAcAEA4LQlssAWtZAzqFelkC jzs9I3qIEFRGWZ1pYiR6UkNFIguebISJLg4FDAmqIgEJDAcGJAYOtyIAfX53SQC/Sky5uz4OwsB0 PgcMr0yrKw0DKA8KJQdIlU+FaaQkdndMYgEPC96jIptqObHSKwrfvAk7AtEiCAKEPLyRmewgHDkB yocAAdvAjVAnYoAAeBAjSpxIsaLFixMdYPEkpADCTgpUrYkW5AiqLA5MjHKs9IAkEpWo+nzsRKki mnq4IDh8x4Mcm21BppQSaKmEGDRMoghdirFEwIXz3NjoJy5qQJhZpsqQ94dhQAeRBixgWLHBwxN7 SGiT0o+oPIBDB5ooeMQO0xMBBCDACECPgiQFBox5MABWGC2VRmizGhfJuCacEq4bSuSAgwRosDVF pstELrKbE/UKligEADs= ------MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35---- Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: https://library.fes.de/images/digbib/e_titel.gif R0lGODlhZQAPALMAAMDN2YCZsyBNeRBAcDBZg6CzxtDZ43CNqUBmjP///wAzZgAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABlAA8AQASqUMlJq7046827/12QIFUSVABAiRYwIjAygHStxUVywIRk KoKYwRATsFCv2MzGbE5EJIkokVBNUiuqduTajpxgUGyMIAR5ZzJCELQQ1MuwPPSl/CjYZ6KVhMXn gBhQJSd4VlJ7SIGLjI2Oj5CRNF5aAFNVl14BR3iUUZJzg3aFV4cKnFeJoI2iE3elWXxen6tgrT6k EnmIfLWsdUAICQU9sHpkAy7IvszNGhEAOw== ------MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35---- Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: https://library.fes.de/images/digbib/d_digbib.gif R0lGODlhHADoAKIAAP///73e/2Ol/4S1/0KM/yF7/wBj/wAAACwAAAAAHADoAEAD/2i63P4wyjle CWSaEbr/X6ExBQBkAaAMQDW+8HrGUeewAq1HJSAyqdxuKBgYj0jkD1ZgmZ6BpST1rFpnE4HNAAJJ I84OlECgDs9oSU+UUgQ1xaTc+B1xrthhMzCo8/BjdiYKgCYZMVSFAAE0BWR+aTAEJkIkKYyRmZqb k1VRm0NOV5iIhYegGj2AGDoCq3ocfKeotCMlpAs4tbsOlx4mH4a8qVYGa3qPwy+TmC0ylS9bDLrK 1Z1SnRnMEARGK3N0Md2JAQKQECkDZOvswtXv8PEOwCJNT7MQsV2LIfINF1UMdKKxjYsKg9CYdBtg zp+DgjsSKcoTL44JOZRoDNq0R//Wjlu9ACTU0GmUPyeETMmTqAhfvB7lyGhxp4adqxYy052rpQVT l37+ylw05mknEGcpGdCcMnGpw6cTjrXZgFQSIBfxWKp8CnMSwyBGQ2ZgIYYiPIstkmSMsfEjGQXs 4hIIywuckYYwFvXCRHbEzSsVerikhdJAS4d/+ZGjaxDrPLPomkKGSrmy5ctcNX5acHOwBFEz1+oA KLKUZM+YR8dCQ8WMQdQPCk5l4XjERYD2fLQaxTi1mjtXYDuAOac3UVw04hwBJiesVkDCfU9om6sq habGDR+UjkoUlOwGN+c2DrF6bQ2XfpAG750e9xiFD09Y+A0c+NTP8UR/z2MhXh3I+SFH0iJfpEND ClLghp5kk/0j14Nz8SfIQfJJ+FER+y2gykUsnRcZJjep51RkWFE34gP5WZGhhSxaWEBoxkR4IIcH pbCiQHoZJIOHTJVjIxXgkQbMSC02kKKKRZ601TI5IoVgDCBx8QltyalDFBRJ2radeS+0h0d21GV5 HYVL9ncIhMmIGUFTm8FBoAK45UZkA+W5MUOdEEBhRCIiUDmCUFBAc19l8ZWpZi1eupcXJUsAyuMN OT4UZg3WNXBiSE3tp5xdfRz6XgIAOw== ------MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35---- Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: https://library.fes.de/images/digbib/fes-log1.gif R0lGODlhfQBPAPIAAP////f3/4yM/4SE/0pK/wgI/wAA/wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAB9AE8AQAP/ CLrc/jDKSau9T5jNuyGFJxIBMHRkKHKCum6EsBAvV8iBW5SAQNctG4+R68gAPE0tVeMQTKjia+cy HBmnpmgnHUm6WpYiiXJ0d+OqocoEqlc3xW8zmHlAQuT8FdygG2BHZE14WjJvKHtLYFMDQz2CCwFX SJQYXwpKU4wvhS8DiiOPmWU9o4ATAXWXmD1annBxr3urch61mh8OAgKjAb69rBY8YDG/LTEDyooE ygM+HaAdBc7KvNVszgJZMA970Fuj3GuKN7+TzGMQPmpPrkYMtHvU1ZSBWKUN37R2Noh0DPqEA6Yt mJlzvhAq/JUK4Zdr1gxKUvjFIZFt9U4J28ix/6PHj7ncEdExZN64NmvMVKGUawWulTrK+YpBUiU8 JKSc2PQD5s/JM75W6mvCy4OgfxssjQG6M6m6j1Cjqpr0C9SxbRqjBswnSSgSFyj/xIvGwGvObnp4 qV2LkS1bElpxvkPboEotAKF4OuDXUmnIiREYQhCsFViBw4eNYazGOGK9xY2fQY5sTZW2DNUmLVa6 YPIQdB6ocU6zpZmlvmM5SLNBoHVre2ah6NxrZA8suLJXiKwwREUzZe3OOu1Hx/aX2HhDN4OVkt/Q EePInQMnRm7c69iza9/OnfvC7+APnlsKvkT5wecBWQR0jRex9eJPtRxR5bDLkJyMIL2T3N8bKv82 zEVUTYB4NYgfjPWiQ1co/JSNNvc859IC4wDIR2APVqNIJAIW4FprjiAVhwIOTvMhSlbQFsZwX22C oQ2UGSjcbqTpFV0dJTrBWE+uqXEDPwGE9suCoXjYmgoCicVgdcR8eNcYJzYAyomuOULliT5cWVkD Wb4W0JWusQcCYh4+c6JGOz413x37wRUkIXnZEMybYVxlnmZ2EiNRXAd+8J1dmYAFFEXO5ebUdFEc sxASio733XV9rpAfPJMWN80yoXFZinvl9VIeOnzO2JQBd8WppC3+cLXVbD5o5tarr2a1UaT0rWjf Es719MhfkkjmVkS/ysqRsN1p5yqeahHL537/K34gTxMe2mqcikmVw1mFetj6mXCnanoTqpbONlhs J3lTGxD4oKtSDERIEqdeAqZIHKnvkjrSt4bSCK4VfN1i6DRSNkGYdZ1talRq4dL1QIQ1buCLUYXG W8OIBVKaLbRDoDbvagqPqlSl8EZclr89MEsxwcWmrPLKLLfs8sswxyzzzDTXvCyZOFOTM2JeBspz Djsj1kLQPc8QtJHE4PzIAIhQQeYpQAut5ivMppQjH1X72Z8hANS0plEE3sskt24Nqko2UehQtl1q hdJaNMeokWQA5fiKx9weTy3ukmtkfGnaAVZcXcE13AXTxFmdAYGMEgPuh1py47cfwxQuwQsz/5MW cFyzYzfuBMhaXx0Ocv++Yt4/3fLdLIe8ik3ONFdcfSrlLXbChur8jRu4A4y3zrfmAumSr+KCs0h3 aIDWdzproUmEDt7Fy9unvkz1tI3jWDdbh3MtPbEg6FaErTrrqiLhgd+L7Bf8Fo5sjPv5nSEVPNQH o2zzR1dxqhF8+FPmzCSUcZ7/HBPAXQ3wf5nQHygq46pifc0JJhsSnMLwBPDtQH+q6IV7rEIVXmQn UjkLnmvu0BOcvY01JxTCmG7lHz+t5Rmu0mAMXqisS0xvVLUQlPj2VQvK8Ypun/JUp2p4gT7RA0LZ gMUhEvEh6thLOAbY1aZSkYrRzAqKQjKZgv+awLGJnaYUwHpVGH+lr44YkUrFuEa9fqONNa5jU8Ia mBmsKIwbRu8uX+vWN0SYgVJMZYhBJOIwuNUYEbaNEAlyzjxG0TqqDEYCe4IKrW6RtfXdoVAtwaOq sLIQISrEg9gZwgEhEhnCjBIy9mhMry4zR08tZSKRTBn/7keBRXkkhjUE3yyiUa81SKt8W+NX/RwQ HR4wjRCPKMkWOOeEZ0Hrl3ublxPhlS6eFImFn9MbNRm1qsEFs4tlHJk3y0UtYU6omnCYiRPId6ms aIyH09LdOIG5D8RVrhOBMcO8REE4bzrzE66TF4noeS4W8LF0jyPCAFHGDoDGixL/PGfDBJp9L3Ox wDnFjI6c0CmkOE7rnd+M58LIBTDeFRQgEyUEe3hxu4yd7HisGmZIgTm+gOLmYtYkC0e9WE40GDMM fwBpRMM5UUvoMg4iwykLVLEFbNKBGJ3JCzV2hTOIkokdPDvOVRd2zC1IZIUnG8lWx9BVfraLlmhN q1rXytaZJQAAIf4zUmVkdWNlZCAzMSUgQCB3d3cucmFzcGJlcnJ5aGlsbC5jb20vZ2lmd2l6YXJk Lmh0bWwAADs= ------MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35---- Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: https://library.fes.de/images/digbib/lone2.gif R0lGODlh2QEbALMAAAAAABgYGDExMVJSUmtra4yMjK2trbW1tcbGxufn5+/v7/////////////// /////yH5BAEAAA8ALAAAAADZARsAQAT+8MlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsW8lBCEEF7Dwg 7T/fgzcEAovBoO8oRCKJzqOodsvplsPohCmUdhSIAmFg6VG4v223iSZ6QWAx+dxDR9fL5jc8LmPt RnhJM4SFhh0JBgMBeoZvGmYsiYuNhxOTjJaSipkpjx6YlZqjpKWmp6ipqqusra6vV2qwhFBForJO npEtnytSvYMxv7ezxcYPobGDgGvLzbZ3ztDRI8mxbs/MINa41Nq5bc9TnI3D0nd52+R+uHbQtcfx llQ4Afb3+Pn6+/z9/v/4BBA4kEBEnDEDEipcyLChw4QECiBQsEfOw4sYM2KMOBFOAgT+BwyIHEmy pMmTJA8gSECRg4KPIVHKnFlSJUt5OHPq3Mmzp8+fpl6CNKAsF9ALQkP6CQSsqAcFLwvSmdH0A9QE Urs1rfo06tJgR8PK4Bbsm9k6555kwwNPHSV2f9ikowZqHQYodeTSfeMuBFlwbM+67TR1Wt4kccUq rvtWE1d2K/6OkoyT8ojHFywv3jzWLmdE5PKKHk06wAADWTWEIs26teu8plGrqwKwtj6BBEHTts3b Hu7UnxcnpUm8uPHjJm22DHEVq/Pn0KNLhw7VatTp2LNr1149uPfv4MOLH0++vPnz6I++Xs++vfv3 8OPLn0+/vv37+PPr38+/P+v0rDT+VxRmPQl4hVzE0HWCObwkiAKDdzn4YF8AinfQHFohqBc2dJjj xS5qqUGgBRculccwDI443IEXgLhLJDDONcKKhQGWooxPwUTUgTLGuEU3Fer0143nCKagj95IiIFk RmTxIV7iIGIDDi3W0heSRim4zZRWZFjkWltWAReU0nAYJE9D6pXkl5AZSWE1nslippGMEVYlWGzi +Wad5aj5yDd8tvmmGSCeWVmcgInopzgv4ogWYhqWwGQXZSE54qTwuIilLWDC2ZiXSiyaJQeTZvgk kIYe+ukhmKmpgmaGwGqMrB+MSAGtqYqHa3C7xtCrK6vtFxtwS4bG37C5HhOsf8xhAoCsXwbs1htA v+lWz7TYUjsQsRpcqNG3DXG0XLd8gGvuQuIma4y357brrrvpMqcjcsYp98W89OZLnL1wXLfdv9F1 94W/ABeMlcDqztKcwQw37DBL4yYs8cQUV2zxxS1GAAA7 ------MultipartBoundary--AigiWMgV65t7s7Wu8b4JmSA8YzEKnFSaFGedz58A35------