2003 Archive

2003 Summary

2003 Archive

From 5 December 2003

One hundred years of powered flight; The capture of Saddam; A dark cloud over Constitution Day; Putin the boot in; America's predictable retaliation; A low cost dogfight in Asia; Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth

From 21 November 2003

The Cheap Day return to Baghdad; The Moral Myth; England end 37 year drought; Right cause, wrong approach; the impact of the Istanbul bombings; Concordes' final homes

From 1 November 2003

John Simpson on the BBC and the Iraq War; Thai Air in for a bumpy ride; Being anti-Bush may be fashionable but may miss the point; The truth is out there somewhere (Rupert Murdoch's controlled media); The Unwanted Guest; A right Royal Romp; Oral sex remains an offence in Singapore

From 15 October 2003

My vote - Jeb Bartlett; Don't Blog like Bush !; Rumours and Secrets; Drugs and Sport; Concorde's last flight - the end of an era; The hi-jacking of APEC; Mahathir fans the flames

From 1 October 2003

The first Sinonaut; Something is rotten in English football; Questions too important for the US to ignore; APEC = A pretty expensive conference; California deserves better

From 13 Sept 2003

The distraction of the Hutton enquiry; Wenger's sorry seems to be the hardest word; Now I feel safer!; Why Concorde has to stop flying; Sweden's Euro vote; Two lost years

From 30 August 2003

Two years on from 9-11; One for the people - or political expediency; The view from down under; Starting a week of good news.

From 16 August 2003

Let Freedom Ring...as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. The Inner workings; Why professional golf is so utterly dull; It is time to apologise Mr. Blair; Premiership Predictions; The murky waters of the Hutton Enauiry; A huge cheer for the Episcopal Church

From 2 August 2003

How airlines ruin a vacation; Was the Iraq war justified? (a must read for Gordon!); Toronto - back and booming; the record breaking six years of Tony Blair, The exploitation of Saddam's sons

From 12 July 2003 -

Tung tied, George Bush's too safe safari, Who is the Greatest Briton?

From 2 July 2003 -

Hong Kong's crisis and Beijing's dilemma, The People have Spoken - Hong Kong's truly remarkable protest, Hong Kong's 1 July protest against Article 23 legislation.

From 16 June 2003

Last Orders for Dennis Thatcher, Taking Stock, Same sex marriages in Canada

From 2 June 2003 -

All alone on Fathers day, And So the story goes, Those "Washington Bastards", The gang-rape case in Bangkok, Hong Kong, still not cleaning up its act, One year old.

From 19 May 2003 -

An apology - I was misled; PGA _ Purposeful, grounded Annika; Press-ganged - the role of the right wing press in the government of Britain (a must read): Thailand's less than free media; Good news for babies; Football world cup mess.

From 5 May 2003 -

Free the Guantanamo 600; and the good news from Vancouver

From 14 April 2003

Swimming upstream at Reuters; London - unpleasant and unaffordable; Iraq - this may be a very hollow victory

From 1 April 2003 -

Looking for intelligent life; and now for some good news !

From 24 March 2003

Recommendations for protection from SARS, Hong Kong's flu fears; Canada's misplaced loyalties; Bye bye Anthony Leung; Bye bye CNN; All out of options.

From 1 March 2003

The SCMP shows its true colours; BOCA - a health warning; Hong Kong's shameful tax; The mother of all bombs; All out of options; Bye Bye CNN, Bye Bye Anthony Leung.

From 17 February 2003

Tony Blair - caught between Iraq and a hard place; thoughts from the diplomatic front; Dads Army. The US view - Earning America's Resentment; Tell the truth; Shanghai - brave new world;

Three weeks commencing 27 January 2003

Poor justice in Canada: en support les Francais; No clear and present danger; The Columbia tragedy: The inexplicable and inevitable march to war; clarifying a climb down

week commencing 20 January 2003 -

The entente not so cordial: who is the real villain?: torture debases civilised society; the big freeze; inspired by an ex-colleague; Dragonair's misplaced fire; Hong Kong film critics awards.

two weeks commencing 6 January 2003

Why England should not play cricket in Zimbabwe; Roy Jenkins - a political conscience; Campbell in the soup; war uncertainty in the USA; the Canadian debate over gay marriages; US airline alliances and the trouble with America.

from 25 December 2003

Singapore expected to legalise oral sex

8 January 2004

Singapore Senior Minister for State and Home Affairs has said the the law banning oral sex between men and women is being re-examined as part of a review of the Penal Code and that the review will be completed in two or three months and will give due consideration to social norms.

Of course it would not be Singapore without a few restrictions; the act will have to be between a man and woman (gay people presumably do not have sex in Singapore), in private (pity!!) and by adults over the age of 16.

Take a number - onboard loo queues !

8 January 2004

The most worrying thing about the US security paranoia is just how many people they have sitting around in little cubicles cut off from the real world dreaming up the daftest ideas possible.

The latest directive is for airlines to restrict lavatory queues on all flights into the USA.

Qantas has received a directive from the US Transport and Security Administration that passengers should not be permitted to congregrate in groups on board international flights. The directive includes a ban on passengers queuing to use toilet facilities.

Lets see - the average flight from Australia to the USA must be about 14 hours. There are peak washroom times; after the meal services and before landing. And yes people do queue. They have to. There are only 10 or so washrooms on a 450 passenger 747.

And remember passengers are being told that for their own health reasons they should move around the plane on a long flight to stimulate circulation.

How the USA plans to enforce this latest paranoia is a mystery. Maybe the air marshals can double up as toilet monitors !

Maybe we should all be given an emergency bottle; maybe we should all be chained to our seats as on Con AIr.

Maybe you can use the onboard ife handset (on some carriers!) to signal that you need the washroom and you are given a number and wait your turn !

What will they think of next !

Thaksin is riding high - maybe too high

Philip Bowring IHT
Tuesday, January 6, 2004

HONG KONG "We need a Thaksin" has become a common sentiment in Southeast Asian countries, notably Indonesia and the Philippines, which have weak governments and an uninspiring choice of leaders in upcoming elections. In just three years in office Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand has established himself as the most prominent leader in the region. No one doubts that he will be returned to power in elections a year from now.

Thaksin sees himself as a successor to Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Suharto of Indonesia and Mahathir bin Mohamad of Malaysia, renowned for their authoritarian tendencies as well as their long periods in office. This makes a large minority of Thais nervous that Thai democracy, which evolved painfully in the 20 years after the 1973 revolt against military strongmen, will be in sustained retreat against the forces of populist authoritarianism, a common enough phenomenon in the region and often accompanied by a large measure of cronyism and bypassing of judicial processes.

But is there really an apt comparison between Thaksin and these others? And is there such a position as "leader" of the region - other perhaps than in the eyes of non-Asian media?

Thaksin owes his pre-eminence to four factors: the passing from the scene of the long-established regional figures; Thailand's new economic boom, which has been attributed to "Thaksinomics" and is seen as regional exemplar; his astute use of constitutional changes and the power of patronage to assure the dominance of his coalition in Parliament, and his own policy activism and self-promotion.

The strength of the economy owes something to government spending and lending by state banks that were at once populist and pro-business. Thaksin has been able to take the credit, however, for the recovery made possible by three years of austerity under his Democrat predecessor, following the Asian financial crisis, plus the stimulation of low global interest rates.

The Thai economy has long been the most open and broad-based in southeast Asia, so a strong recovery was always likely. The danger now is that Thaksin will be carried away by his own ambitions. Not content with 6.5 percent growth in 2003, he is looking for 8 percent in 2004 and 10 percent in 2005, a goal which if achieved would almost certainly be followed by another bust.

His eyes are on the 2005 election, in which he hopes that his Thai Rak Thai party can gain an absolute majority and no longer have to rely on a coalition. Critics fear that if he and his allies get 400 of the 500 seats, Parliament will be powerless to curb his authoritarian instincts. Their fears are justified. A can-do philosophy of "the end justifies the means" was evident in Thaksin's campaign against drugs, in which 2,500 suspected drug dealers were killed extrajudicially. In the short run, methods that bypass corrupt institutions and slow-moving procedures are popular.

The long-established pluralism of Thai politics, however, makes it unlikely that Thaksin can replicate the Malaysian or Singaporean systems of one-party dominance. His party is based on his personality, while the main opposition Democrat Party has an institutional base - and strength in liberal Bangkok, where a governorship election this year will test the depth of support for Thaksin's party.

State powers of patronage are also much less in Thailand than elsewhere in the region and the diversity of business interests has its counterpart in politics. The press has been partly brought to heel by Thaksin's use of commercial pressures, but the Thai news media is seldom cowed for long. Even when the generals ruled, the Thai press was freer than its counterparts in "democratic" Malaysia and Singapore.

Crucially too, it is the king - who has delivered homilies to Thaksin - who is the focus of national identity, rather than the political leader. Even military men have mostly had brief careers as leaders in the roughhouse of Thai politics.

Thailand's geography and economic strength have always given it a key role in southeast Asia. Thaksin has built on that through promoting good relations with both China and the United States, recently by sending troops to Iraq. Despite his nationalist rhetoric he has pushed for the freer trade among the members of Asean, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, from which Thailand particularly benefits. He has promoted regional financial cooperation and made overtures to South Asia.

Thailand has usually thrived, however, on high-quality, low-key diplomacy, not grandstanding. The Vietnamese reckon they are the equal of Thailand and resent Thai assumptions of regional leadership. Indonesians know their nation is by far the most populated and extensive in Southeast Asia.

Thaksin is riding high, but like many a businessman with a long string of successful gambles, overconfidence may be his biggest danger. For good or ill, there are finite limits to his power at home and his influence abroad.

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

Air marshals - a modern day necessity?

6 January 2004

The USA is demanding that all foreign airlines flying into the USA or over USA airspace carry air marshals on each flight.

Singapore Airlines looks like leading in compliance. Certain British based carriers are strongly against this requirement.

A spokesman for Thomas Cook Airlines, formerly known as JMC, has criticised the UK government for "rushing in" requirements "without proper consultation".

"Our view is that the skipper of an aircraft must be in overall command," he said. "We have a general concern about guns in aircraft cabins."

British Airways is known to be sceptical and the BALPA (British Airline Pilots Association) is meeting the government's transport secretary.

One thought keeps coming to mind. If there had been air marshals on the flights on September 11, 2001, then the World Trade Center tragedy would probably not have happened. The hijackers were armed with box cutters.

Safe air travel requires multi level security; it requires good intelligence about possible security threats; intelligence that is shared among all relevant authorities; it requires secure airside facilities at airports including secure id checks and background checks on staff who service the airplanes. It requires baggage screening. It requires passenger and hand baggage screening. It requires secure cockpits. It probably now requires greater on board security.

But let's do this properly. Let's consult with the airlines and the pilots. Let's find another name for air marshals, this sounds too much like John Wayne with a six gun riding up and down the aisles. Let's use lower impact bullets that should not pierce the airplane fuselage; lets ensure that "onboard safety officers" receive consistent international training. Lets ensure that crews are fully briefed on the security measures for their flight so that they can co-operate as a team.

Terrorists should not be stopped on the airplane. They should be stopped by painstaking intelligence on the ground and by sensitive and effective security measures.

The USA's aviation market is too big to be ignored. It seems inevitable that the airlines will meet the US demands for onboard security. But bullying the airlines to do this is not the solution. Engaging the airlines to co-operate will provide a far more effective long term solution.

Raise a finger to finger-printing

6 January 2004

Personally I find the US plans to finger print visitors offensive. The USA of course has a sovereign right to take whatever security measures it wishes to try to keep terrorists out of the country.

The Fear of Fingerprints

By Paulo Pontoniere, Pacific News Service
January 5, 2004

Among European foreign correspondents based in the United States there is an uproar. Returning from their homelands after their end-of-the-year vacations, for the first time in history many had the unsavory experience of being asked at the border to provide their fingerprints and their pictures.

Most European countries are among the 28 nations whose citizens are theoretically exempted by the Homeland Security Department from having to comply with U.S.-VISIT, the just-introduced program of finger-scanning and photographing foreign nationals coming to the United States.

When going through customs at John F. Kennedy airport in New York, Enrico Pedemonte, U.S. correspondent for L'Espresso, Italy's leading newsweekly, was curtly asked to put his index finger onto an electronic scanner. Pedemonte then had to turn his head toward a hidden camera to have his mug shot taken.

"I don't have anything to hide and I don't fear any particular retribution from this request. It was, however, very unsettling to have to be fingerprinted like a criminal after life-long honesty and compliance with the laws both in my home country and here in the U.S.," Pedemonte says, when reached at his office in New York. "In addition, wasn't this supposed to be the land of the free speech?"

Pedemonte says he finds it "discriminatory" for the rest of the world that 28 countries are being excluded from the provision. And, he adds, finger-scanning journalists, even if only foreign correspondents, "may be the first step of an initiative directed at muting the freedom of press."

Pedemonte's reaction isn't unique or peculiar. Phones have been ringing off the hook at foreign media offices in the U.S. In the countries in which journalists are represented by trade associations, like in Italy, trade representatives are being asked to put pressure on the State Department to see that the fingerprinting program for foreign journalists is put to an end.

However, the problem isn't only with journalists coming from those 28 countries. Inquiries directed to the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department by some Italian correspondents in the U.S. revealed that other categories of citizens from other countries coming on a visa to the U.S. will be fingerprinted and photographed regardless of their country of origin. This means that scientific researchers, students, businesspeople, as well as journalists – basically anyone who has a visa – coming from those exempted countries will be asked to comply with the new tracking program.

The visa-waiver program only applies to nationals from those countries who come to the United States for less than 90 days on work or as tourists.

"This will affect the ability of the U.S. to keep its leading position in science, business and technology if foreign professionals coming to or dealing with the U.S. have to fear for their welfare," says another European foreign correspondent living in the United States who did not wish to be identified.

Many media professionals, some foreign journalists note, were fingerprinted in Italy and France during the fascist era. That practice led many to self-censor for fear of retaliation if they wrote anything critical of the regime. Some ended up in jail. Others, in a bid to save themselves, turned into the regime's rubber-stampers, or worse, into spies for the fascists. Today, some journalists fear that the new finger-scanning and photographing could have a similar chilling effect.

Paolo Pontoniere is the U.S. correspondent for Focus, Italy's leading monthly magazine.

However, US intelligence is something of an oxymoron. No one can or should trust US security. It has become a bureaucratic budget-hungry monster. And it is beginning to infringe dramatically on individual and civil liberties.

When I was a kid playing cops and robbers we would catch the bad guy, finger print him using the ink pad in the play kit and attach the handcuffs.

Finger-printing is what you do to criminals charged with an offence. There is something disturbing about doing it to ordinary citizens whose only intent is to go to the US for business, vacation or to see family.

Some countries are hitting back. Brazil requires US visitors to be finger printed and photographed. This is only fair. I hope other countries take the same measures.

I know for a fact Michael Moore is Swiss

I wish I had written the following! Many years ago my old company decided to run its global sale operations from Switzerland. It was the beginning of the end. This is about a nation and a people that frankly do not want to take a decision about anything. It is a nation so concerned at not offending anyone while they continue to stock pile their anonymous fortunes that they have forgotten what it means to fight for something that you believe in.

Is Canada going the way of the Swiss. I hope not.

Leaders defend their beliefs. You may not agree with George W Bush; but at least he stuck to what he believed was right and did something about it.

Euan Ferguson
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer

I used to wonder why Britain really went to war, back in 1939.

We were then, just as now, a nation not given to snap judgments nor strong beliefs. Best stay out of it, went the mantra. There's another side to every story and the truth, as ever, lies somewhere in between. Judge not lest ye be judged, and what would it be like if everyone did it, and I don't really understand the ins and outs but there's probably a very reasonable explanation, and who do you think you are with your fancy attitudes, and best leave well alone, and I don't think I'd like to try that thank you very much, tea's quite good enough for me; and then, astonishingly and rather wonderfully, the Third Reich was toppled by the kind of people who would drive to the seaside of a weekend to sit in the car in the rain with a hankie on their heads and read the Sunday Express and think it fun.

And almost 60 years later, on Friday, a man died chasing kids who had run through his hedge, because it was his pride and joy and had won awards, and it's hard to believe that the kind of country in which hedges can win awards can ever have won anything (except, obviously, hedge awards); and then, a couple of festive films and one news story later, you remember a couple of crucial factors, which are that a) we had John Mills, and b) the Swiss were, are, a thousand times worse.

The Swiss, cursed with all of Britain's deplorable sense of even-handed fairness but without even the redeeming historical quality of sudden stark yeoman violence when threatened, have just - just on Thursday - decided to pardon citizens who helped Jews to escape the Holocaust. Read that again: the Swiss, with their idiot hearty stews, pigtails, cowbells and greed, fined and jailed and shamed hundreds for having compromised the country's famous neutrality in order to save people's lives, and it's only now that they seem to think that might all have been another Bad Swiss Idea, like that town which fined you for having the wrong colour of chrysanth in your window-box, or just generalised execrable tweeness.

To hell with neutrality, I say. Let's say a fat No to even-handedness and step bravely into this new year with prejudice, passion and a handful of beliefs, no matter how ridiculous, and the strength to stand up for them.

I can still remember, on strike 14 years ago, the disgust I felt for the strike-breakers who refused to justify their actions. There was grudging respect for those who would come to the brazier with a curious mix of shame and dignity to explain why they had to go in because of the third child and the wife's illness; but I still feel volcanic contempt for those who wheedled and mimsied their way past with 'I don't believe in politics' and 'I just want to stay out of this' and the rest of their scabbing Swiss nonsense.

Postmodern relativistic judgments can, frankly, go hang. Some things are just unutterably good things - wolves, socialism, the works of Steely Dan, to name an obvious few; and some - golf, death, the insufferable smugness of Michael Moore and the like - are, and always will be, hell on a pikestaff, and it's time, finally, to learn one lesson from the Swiss, which is to be as different from them as we possibly could be.

Take sides, stand up, and shout, and rant: and the world will be a far better place when we stop coating our arguments with codicils, and cheese, and chocolate.

Terror should not make us illiberal

New Labour must revisit its roots

Leader
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer

The grounding of British Airways flights to Washington and Riyadh because of undisclosed terrorist threats dramatises the emerging relationship between citizen and state.

Personal freedom, individual autonomy and maximum access to information have long been seen as desirable ends in themselves. But terrorism is revealing that we cannot expect total autonomy of individual action. Nor can we expect total knowledge. Our security depends on trusting governments to exercise their authority to save lives. Flights are cancelled with little or no explanation because the authorities judge that this is safer. We have no option but to trust them.

This is a rude challenge to the presumption of the age that individual judgments are always and everywhere better than those of government and state. Even the most ardent advocate of personal freedom and a minimal state would find it hard to devise a system where individual judgment should supersede that of the government over, say, the grounding of an aircraft on the basis of intercepted emails or telephone calls. Plainly, the balance of risk demands that the state plays its cards close to its chest.

Yet even against the menace of terrorism, we have to be vigilant that, in protecting its citizens, the state does not arrogate too much unaccountable power to itself. Already it is clear that the politics of the first decade of the twenty-first century will be about tracing the difficult-to-negotiate boundary between individual freedom and safeguarding our security. The year ahead will test our political establishment to the limit.

If the state is to act, to regulate and to enable in this environment, then it has to become better trusted and be seen as more legitimate. This month, the Hutton report will expose, just as other government inquiries such as the Phillips inquiry into BSE have done, how poor the political process and structure of government decision-making actually is. Action is deferred or postponed; information is manipulated; the prejudices of individual civil servants or Ministers, rather than considered appraisal, too often determine policy.

New Labour, before it took office, was an enthusiastic advocate of transparency and accountability. In office, it has converted to the caricature of the British state - that its vocation is to govern the great unwashed as it deems fit. This was never good enough, and will certainly not work today. It is tragic to watch the Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer - a smart, modern politician - trying to justify an unelected House of Lords.

In opposition, New Labour was also committed to a modernised British state achieving precisely the complex trade-off between individual freedom and collective security that our times now urgently require. New Labour must return to its roots - and quickly.

Why did so many have to die in Bam?

David Aaronovitch
Tuesday December 30, 2003
The Guardian

The Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei yesterday managed to get to Bam, three days after the earthquake which may have killed 30,000 of his fellow Iranians. The president, Mohammad Khatami, followed soon afterwards. Khamenei had words of dubious comfort for survivors when he told them that "we will rebuild Bam stronger than before". Given the collapse of 80% of the buildings, from the old fortress to the new hospitals, the Iranian government could hardly make the new Bam as weak as the old one.

Some will see this as simply a natural disaster of the kind to which Iran, according to Khatami, is "prone". Four days earlier, however, there had been another earthquake of about the same intensity, this time in California. In which about 0.000001% of the buildings suffered serious structural damage and two people were killed when an old clocktower collapsed. So why the polar disparity between Bam and Paso Robles?

This is not a silly question. True, the Californians are much richer than the Iranians. But if you believed everything you read in the works of M Moore and others, you would anticipate a culture of corporate greed in which safety and regulation came way behind the desire to turn the quick buck. Instead you discover a society in which the protection of citizens from falling masonry seems to be regarded as enormously important.

Whereas in Iran - for all its spiritual solidarity - the authorities don't appear to give a toss. The report in this paper from Teheran yesterday was revealing. It was one thing for the old, mud-walled citadel to fall down, but why the new hospitals? An accountant waiting to give blood at a clinic in the capital told our correspondent that it was a "disgrace that a rich country like ours with all the revenue from oil and other natural resources is not prepared to deal with an earthquake".

The reformist Iran News asked on its website, "How many times have we reminded the ruling establishment that the first structures to fall during a major earthquake would be those dealing with emergency management and relief, such as hospitals, police and fire stations? The officials in charge are either deaf or simply don't care."

Iran had the money to do much of what was needed. After the Kobe earthquake of January 1995 a report concluded that most deaths had been caused by the collapse of housing built in the traditional Japanese manner. This style was based on a post-and-beam system, with tiles or thick mud laid on top. The roofs came down easily, and when they did, they crushed everything beneath. And exactly the same thing seems to have happened in Bam, as much to new as to old buildings. The use of corrugated iron roofs would have been much safer.

So why, despite the loss of 40,000 lives in the Gilan earthquake of 1990, had nothing been done? The same question was being asked back in the queue outside the clinic. Fariba Hemati told the Guardian what she thought of official efforts, "Our government is only preoccupied with slogans: 'Death to America', 'Death to Israel', 'Death to this and that'. We have had three major earthquakes in the past three decades. Thousands of people have died but nothing has been done. Why?"

As she was queueing Jahanbakhsh Khanjani, spokesman for Iran's interior ministry, was denying that a team from Israel was coming to help. "The Islamic Republic of Iran," he told the press, "accepts all kinds of humanitarian aid from all countries and international organisations, with the exception of the Zionist regime." The Israelis, of course, have some reputation for rescue work, but it was ideology rather than humanity that was at stake here.

The answer to Hemati is that, after a quarter of a century, Iran is still being ruled by a useless, incompetent semi-theocracy, which is fatalistic, complacent, unresponsive and often brutal. And such a system does not deliver to its citizens one fraction of what the Great Satan, for all its manifest faults, manages to guarantee to ordinary Americans.

Following the fall of the Berlin wall there was, as the philosopher John Gray put it, a "false dawn" of the New Age of Liberal Democracy, in which all problems everywhere could be expected to be solved by a free market and free elections. But this triumphalism has been replaced, in some quarters at least, by the equally vacuous tropes of the anti-globalisation movement and its demonisation of liberal capitalism.

What, I wonder, has Arundhati Roy to say now about the superiority of traditional building methods over globalised ones? Some Iranians might think that it's a shame there wasn't a McDonald's in Bam. It would have been the safest place in town

Time lapse

30 December 2003

Time magazine as usual got in completely wrong in naming their man of the year! I gave up my subscription in September 2002 depressed by their sabre rattling jingoism.

Now they annoint the American Soldier as their person of the year ! This was their justification:

"They swept across Iraq and conquered it in 21 days. They stand guard on streets pot-holed with skepticism and rancor. They caught Saddam Hussein. They are the face of America, its might and good will, in a region unused to democracy. The U.S. G.I. is TIME's Person of the Year".

Now, forgive me, but just for starters I thought this was meant to be a coalition of nations. This is meant to be an influential international magazine not a recruitment ad for the US military.

Lets think of a few other people perhaps more worthy of the (rather bizarre) title of person of the year:

How about "The Ordinary Iraqi"? He's the one "The American Soldier" is supposed to be fighting for.

Hans Blix: who may well have been right all along.

Though I hate to say it - in terms of his impact on the world in 2003, then George Bush.

Dr. Carlo Urbani, the doctor who discovered SARS. And died after alerting the World Health Organisation.

Just a few thoughts; the American soldier deserves credit; most are surely brave young mean and women a long way from home, doing their best to make sense of their hostile environment and the engagement rules of American imperialism.

Do not feel sorry for Rio Ferdinand

26 December 2003

All the bleating from Manchester United is getting tiresome. Their protests at Rio Ferdinand's eight month's suspension suggest that the club believes that it is bigger than the FA and even bigger than the game itself. Perhaps that is inevitable - after all they are a public listed company, responsible to their shareholders not to those who love and defend the game.

Football is business. The rich clubs (and their shareholders are greedy).

As for Rio Ferdinand; his argument that he simply forgot to submit to his urine test simply does not fly. Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt and Danny Pugh, all selected at the same time, filled the requisite bottle. Ferdinand meanwhile drove away past two club check points without anyone noticing. And why did he call the doctor soon after missing his drugs test.

Coincidentally in China a Beijing defender tested positive for the stimulant, ephedrine; he claims that it may have been part of an unauthorized flu medication. China's soccer authority is still investigating. But the player has been banned by his club for three months without pay and the coach, manager and team doctor have all been fined. The player has even apologised.

Meanwhile at Manchester United, there is no hint of an apology from either the player, his club or his sponsors. Ferdinand still play on, his salary paid and his sponsors unmoved.

There is much about this story that is not known other than to Ferdinand and the club. But the whole sorry saga smells seriously bad.

If United take this to appeal then do not be surprised if the FA under pressure from FIFA increases the ban and embarrasses the club further.

Huge Grant does Bangkok

25 December 2003

The big news in Bangkok this week was Hugh Grant running out of Tilac Bar in Soi Cowboy chased by a possee (get it !!) of scantily dressed bar girls.

This was reported by that bastion of fine journalism, The Sun, so the story should be taken with a large pinch of festive salt.

Grant is in Bangkok to film the sequel to "Bridget Jones's Diary."

After one beer, and a little ogling, he was recognised by two dancing girls. As the song "One Night in Bangkok" played they jumped from the stage and went straight for him together with other girls. Hugh was reported to cover up his lower region with his hands and to then rush out of the bar.

Now, lets face it Huge Grant is no stranger to hookers ! Remember Divine Brown in Hollywood. So what did he expect in Soi Cowboy; that he would be quietly ignored.

A nation mourns; Corgi mauled

25 December 2003

A national day of mourning will no doubt be called; there may even be a state funeral. Its not the Queen Mum this time; it is one of her corgis. In this remarkably dysfunctional family even the pets are wacky.

This time Princess Anne's dangerously mad bull terrier (the same one that attacked two girls in Windsor Park) decided to maul one of the Queen's corgis, Pharos. The corgi had to be put down.

The Queen was apparently devastated; she regards the corgis as loyal, faithful and cherished. Which makes them rather better companions than most of her family and her other citizens!

The bull terriers are the nearest thing that has been found to weapons of mass destruction! There are as yet no rumours about Prince Charles and the corgis.

from 5 December 2003

100 years of powered flight

17 December 2003

One hundred years ago the Wright brothers flipped a coin to see who would be the first to fly their fragile wood, wire and cloth airplane for 12 seconds at a height of one meter over Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

66 years later we were on the moon. Now the world's only two supersonic passenger aircraft have already been retired.

In a way that ships could never do, airplanes have genuinely made the world a much smaller place.

I can have dinner in Bangkok and be in London for breakfast the next morning or in Vancouver at almost the same time the same day as I left home; albeit after crossing the date line.

But, airplanes have also brought more devastating ways to kill ourselves. They are at the heart of modern warfare; and they can unwittingly spread disease with unrivalled speed.

They do not fly faster; but they do fly more people and more goods further and cheaper, with astonishing reliability.

What's next; the A380 is basically a conventional plane; just bigger. And do not believe all its supposed luxuries. At its price it will need to get as many people in the air as possible.

The Boeing 7X7 Dreamliner will be the size of a Boeing 757 but with wider aisles. Made largely form composites it should fly further and significantly cheaper than existing jets.

But the excitement is not here - it is what military applications can be used to serve a civilian purpose. Maybe not stealth passenger planes. But pilotless planes guided by satellites and grounded controllers; the wider use of satellites for effective management of navigation.

And in time personal airplanes that are affordable to all. In the same way as Ford brought us the Model T someone will surely do the same with airplanes and lives will be revolutionised. There will be family planes, suv planes, go-faster planes and saloons. Just like cars now; but in the air and navigating by gps.

Space flight will resume with new and regular visits to the Moon as a staging post for a Mars probe. Tourists will head for space at affordable prices.

Blood feud ends in the spider hole

The transformation of all-powerful president to cornered wild man is the stuff of parables and will echo forever

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday December 17, 2003
The Guardian

I know that we are all meant to have moved on, that we are supposed to focus now on high-minded matters of justice and international jurisprudence, but I'm not quite there yet: I am still stuck on the pictures.

The transformation of a man, last glimpsed in a suit or in military uniform, from president into Monty Python hermit is just too shocking to forget. When last we saw him, he was on a presidential platform, waving to the masses below, unsheathing a sword or firing a ceremonial rifle. Now we see him as a wild man, dirty and mangy as a stray dog. And we have to keep reminding ourselves: it is the same person.

It makes sense that the news networks keep playing that footage of his medical examination, over and over in a loop. It remains fascinating each time you see it, prompting new questions. Is Saddam Hussein being pushed and prodded, or is the US military doctor handling him with the gentleness he might show a child or feeble geriatric? What can that experience have been like for the doctor, to touch so intimately a man identified only with wickedness?

But the power of the current crop of images goes rather deeper than that. Taken together - the bearded Saddam and his underground living grave - they are almost mythic, redolent of legends and fables that are hard-wired into the human mind. With this twist, the Saddam story has become a blend of Bible parable, folk tale, Greek and Shakespearean tragedy - and it is unexpectedly powerful.

The tale of a once-mighty leader who evades a conquering army by hiding in a hole certainly has a Biblical ring to it: " ... and the King of Mesopotamia fled unto the city of Tikrit and from there to the village of Ad Dawr which he knew, for nearby was al-Awja where he had been born more than three score years before. And he came to his cook and said: 'Keep me, here,' and it was done. And the King dug a hole eight cubits by six cubits, and there he was tormented by many rats and many mice and his beard grew long ... "

In our own time, dictators do not cower in caves, bedding down with the creatures of the earth. Slobodan Milosevic was taken into custody wearing a blue suit; he testifies in the Hague looking the same as he always did. Saddam and his dugout seem to belong to a much earlier era, the age when David was on the run from Saul, or, many centuries later, the prophet Mohammed was chased out of Mecca - both finding refuge in a cave. (Both men are also said to have been saved by a divinely sent spider, who weaved a web across the cave's entrance: when their pursuers saw the web intact they assumed no one could be inside. How fitting that the US military immediately described Saddam's hideaway as a "spider hole".)

The former dictator's capture should also draw to a close a family feud that is the stuff of Greek drama. Since the first Gulf war in 1990, the stand-off between the US and Iraq has also been a battle of dynasties. Saddam's hatred for George Bush Snr was transferred to the man he called the "son of the viper" or "little Bush". For the American president too, Operation Iraqi Freedom was, in part, a family affair. Last year he reminded an interviewer of Saddam's 1993 assassination attempt on his father: "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad." Now the Bushes have their revenge: Saddam's sons are slain and he is their captive. As one Bush family associate told the New York Times yesterday: "It's a psychologically nice moment." A theatre full of ancient Greeks would understand that perfectly.

And what would Shakespeare have done with the scene played out on Sunday afternoon in a US military base, when Saddam awoke on his metal army cot to find he had four visitors: opponents, some of whom had paid a desperate price for their dissent, now installed as leaders of the new Iraq? The men had been brought there formally to confirm the identity of the prisoner, but rather than simply peer at him through a window, they demanded the right to see him up close - and confront him.

One, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, had been in Saddam's torture chamber in 1979. Now he faced his persecutor with not a bodyguard between them. He asked what Saddam would say on the day of judgment. How would he account for the lives lost in the Iran-Iraq war, for the gassing at Halabja, for the mass graves? "What are you going to tell God?" Apparently, Saddam's response was defiant and foul-mouthed.

Everything about this story seems designed to endure, even as a parable that future generations might teach their children. What better illustration of the cowardice of the bully than the story of Saddam Hussein, who strutted and threatened - only to surrender meekly? In the end, when there were no henchmen at his side, he showed none of the bravery of the Arab heroes he had so frequently invoked but put his hands in the air and asked to cut a deal. He had a pistol, but did not fire a single shot, neither at his pursuers nor at himself. For months, the Iraqi rumour mill had spoken of a Saddam of seven masks, secretly directing the resistance, disguised sometimes as a Muslim woman, sometimes as a taxi driver, sometimes as a nomad. Peasants would take him in for the night; when they awoke they would find their guest vanished and a vast bundle of cash under the bed. Now, though, we know the truth: Saddam was cowering, saving only his own skin. So listen well, children, and learn the moral of the story.

The combination of all these elements is a potent one. On the Arab street, those few seconds of footage will be humiliating to some, but exhilarating to others, keen to see the back of their own tyrants. In the US, the imagery will be no less powerful. Alongside the shots of President Bush with the Thanksgiving turkey for American troops in Baghdad, these are surely the pictures that will secure Bush's re-election.

Why? Because we are not as sophisticated as we like to think we are. We like to imagine that, in the 21st century, our politics is all about systems and institutions and legal frameworks. But the Saddam episode proves that international relations is still a pretty elemental business: tribes do battle and the battle cannot end until the opposing chief is brought low. This is how we remember wars - the Battle of Hastings was over when, we're told, Harold took an arrow in the eye - and probably how they have always worked. Look at Saddam's wild eyes and scraggy beard and realise: it is still true.

How the powerful fall - the capture of Saddam

15 December 2003

It is almost a sad site to see a powerful leader humbled. And I imagine that there are many in the Arab world who find the humiliation of Saddam distasteful.

A man who built palaces and monuments. A man held in awe and great fear was found in a whole in the ground looking more like a tramp than a feared tyrant,

Care needs to be taken here. A thoughtful and transparent court process is required. My preference would be for a trial under the United Nations following the lines of the Slobodan Milosevic trial. I am less happy with the prospect of a show trial in Iraq.

I also dont want to see the death penalty invoked. The last thing we want is for Saddam to be a martyr.

The surprise is that he allowed himself to be captured alive. There appears to have been no one to protect him and no fight left in him. He was all but deserted.

For all his bravado that neither he or his troops should be taken alive he acquiesced, and was seen on worldwide television being examined for lice and having swabs taken for dna testing.

His capture will not stop the terror attacks in Iraq; but they may lessen in frequency. His shadow loomed large; and maybe it was his capture that truly signalled the end of the war and the beginning of the rebuilding of Iraq.

He will be subject to a lengthy and testing interrogation. It will break him down in time. Maybe we will know at last whether there were or were not weapons of mass destruction and whether Saddam had connections to al-Qaida. Saddam has a lot to say about Iraq's past. His full and uncensored testimony should be heard and published. And that will include revelations about links to and support from the West in pre 1990s Iraq that will cause embarrassment.

A dark cloud over Constitution Day

11 December 2003

Yesterday should have been a day worthy of commemoration in Thailand. It was a holiday for Constitution Day. It was also International Human Rights Day.

The Constitution of Thailand is a wonderful document of which the country is rightly proud. It contains some of the most comprehensive human rights provisions regarding human rights in the world. The responsibility of the government and its people is to live up to those principles.

But at long last the country has woken up and acknowledged that the deaths of over 2,500 people earlier this year in the government's so called war on drugs" needs investigation and accountability.

It is clear that these people had their constitutional rights abrogated and their human rights destroyed.

There was no trial; there was no evidence presented.

The catch here is that for the most part people simply shook their heads and said that these people were doubtful characters and probably got what they deserved. If the government said it was OK then the people accepted that it was OK. There was little public outcry or comment. Even the press was largely quiet.

Until last week that is. In his birthday speech to the nation the King called for further investigations into the deaths. At last the nation's conscience had been heard.

The government is now scrambling to explain how these people died and at whose hands.

How many people died is unknown. Some were clearly on police blacklist; others were killed who had no history of links to the drugs industry.

Constitution Day has been celebrated as a turning point in the history of Thailand. Without a full and impartial investigation and accounting of the anti drugs campaign the country may as well abolish this holiday and tear up its constitution.

America's predictable retaliation

11 December 2003

I have in the past tried to give the USA the benefit of the doubt with respect to its intentions in Iraq. But yesterday's Pentagon announcement was all too predictable and lends ever more evidence to those who believe that the US motives are entirely founded on self interest.

The Pentagon has barred French, German, Canadian and Russian companies from competing for US$18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying it was acting to protect "the essential interests of the United States."

So if you failed to help in the destruction of Iraq you certainly may note help in its reconstruction. And pray tell what are those essential security interests that are jeopardised by issuing contracts to rebuild electricity, oil and water supplies and to equip the Iraqi army.

This hardly reflects a policy of engagement or co-operation. Internationalising the rebuilding of Iraq would help the US to gain wider support for the rebuilding efforts. It sounds too much like that depressing Bush message that you are either for us or against us.

Putin the boot in

11 December 2003

Democracy was a short lived experiment in Russia. Its demise should be lamented. And the west should be concerned.

Putin was ex KGB. He understands the two fundamentals necessary for absolute control. Control of the media and controlling the political sourcing and use of money. Putinism has all the trappings of Communism without some of communism's almost more appealing ideology.

Putin has an iron fist control of Russia's media, television, radio and the published media. Putin's media stated that this week's elections to the Duma were from a "free, honest, open and democratic process." How does this reconcile with observors' comments on the regression in the democratisation process.

Lets look at Russia for what it is. It is the same old country wearing newer clothes. Its falling population is now only one half of that of the USA. Yet is retains imperialist pretensions and is still a nuclear power!

Putin is popular. He is seen as a strong leader and he can control the message. The democratic process can only work where there can be criticism and credit. And where the people have the means and the information to affect change should they want to.

Concentration of power by a ruling government through the media and through control of money in politics allows a political clique to take long term control. Democracy does best by permitting change and protecting diversity.

A low cost dog fight in Asia

10 December 2003

It is getting hard to keep track of all the serious contenders for low cost airlines in Asia. But one thing is guaranteed; it will be good news for the consumer; and I suspect it will tap into a whole new market of air travelers. The aviation pie gets bigger and it is unlikely that existing businesses will be cannibalised in any significant way.

The existing players are well known and are slowly expanding from domestic to regional businesses.

Malaysia based Air Asia has just started its first international route, from Kuala Lumpur to Phuket. Australian Virgin Blue has started Virgin Pacific to manage flights to New Zealand.

And now the deep pockets of Singapore Air have joined the party. And by its very nature Singapore Air cannot fly domestically so it will be especially interesting to see how this model works across international routes in Asia. The full story is here

In Thailand, Orient Thai's One-Two-Go operation from Bangkok to Chiang Mai is proving popular. Thai Air Asia has been capitalised by Shin Corporation and Air Asia. And Thai International will likely set up its own low cost carrier, perhaps in co-operation with Richard Branson's Virgin Group; although naming an airline Virgin Thai might raise a few eyebrows !

Singapore based Valuair has also announced its plans to start up in 2004 and has commenced recruiting. And it is Valuair that must be most threatened by the new Tiger Air Venture.

Just a thought - but instead of Singapore Girls maybe we will now have Tigresses....

SQ has certainly thought this through. They have the right partners. And it will allow SQ to bring in new single aisle equipment that better suits certain high frequency routes. SQ's smallest plane is now a 777; this is not ideal for 45 or 75 minutes flights to KL and Jakarta respectively. What will probably happen is that SQ will reduce their capacity on the short haul routes; redeploy the 777s on longer and profitable services such as the Australia routes. Then Tiger can add high frequency and fast turnaround no frills flights; probably with A320s and A321s; planes that are familiar to SQ Engineering as they are used by Silkair.

The fare reductions will be very welcome; for instance a flight on SQ or Thai from BKK to SIN will cost around US$200 for discounted economy fares; full fare economy is nearly US$500. There are cheaper fares from the likes of Swiss and Finnair but they fly one round trip a day and are heavily booked by tour groups.

The problems confronting low cost carriers in Asia have not gone away. There are no obvious secondary airports to reduce landing fees and air travel is still regulated through bilateral agreements.

But this is all getting very interesting !

Why Zimbabwe needs the Commonwealth

8 December 2003

Today we should all feel sorry for the people of Zimbabwe.

The club of Commonwealth nations agreed that Zimbabwe should continue to be suspended. Predictably, Zimbabwe's autocratic ruler withdrew his country from the club.

The Commonwealth is a strange group of nations. All (bar England) are or were British colonies; they are and were the subject of absentee rule. It is a curious reminder of what for many countries is an inglorious past; and it brings back many memories of racist divides and deeply undemocratic institutions.

"Has the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe got worse? What began as a food crisis in Zimbabwe in 2002 has grown into a major humanitarian emergency, with people suffering the effects of a deteriorating economy, HIV/Aids, depleted social services, and policy constraints. The HIV/Aids pandemic is central to the crisis. Recent estimates indicate that around 34% of Zimbabwe's 15-40 age group is infected, and more than 2,500 people die every week of Aids-related causes Malaria, tuberculosis and cholera cases are on the rise. Zimbabweans face a severe food security crisis in 2003-04. An estimated 5.5 million people will require food aid during the coming year. The country has enough food to feed its population for just four to five months."

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, November 18

But, it is one of few world forums where smaller nations have a significant opportunity to be heard. It is one of few forums that gives African nations a voice. It is a forum where a common agenda can be set. And its basic values of democracy and tolerance are sound.

For Mugabe leaving the Commonwealth is less of a humiliation that continuing suspension. He has tried to drive a wedge between white and black members and between richer and poorer. Incidentally, and rather predictably, the Malaysians bought into this scenario.

The Commonwealth wants respect for democracy. This is the reason for Pakistan's continuing exclusion. Mugabe has rigged elections and violently muzzles critics and opponents. He knows what he needs to do to secure Zimbabwe's re-admission; but it would almost certainly mean the loss of office for him.

For the people of Zimbabwe their exclusion is further bad news. They are in danger of becoming one of Africa's forgotten peoples. Food and fuel shortages, AIDS, uncontrolled inflation all take their toll.

The trouble with suspending a country is that it really does not hurt that country financially. The Commonwealth is of little value. It is too poor to offer Aid on any scale.

What is worrying is that by suspending a nation the Commonwealth simply fails to take on its responsibility to tackle real issues and to try and change the peoples' lives for the better.

There are other Commonwealth nations that show scant or limited regard for Human Rights ( as detailed by Amnesty International in an article reprinted below. But Mugabe's regime stands out for its gross abuse of the institutions of democratic government and its abuses of civil liberties.

The real victims are the oppressed, sick and impoverished people of Zimababwe. Mugabe could have done much for them; instead he has made them more isolated than ever.

The Zimbabwe issue hijacked the Commonwealth conference in Abuja; the Commonwealth needs to find a way to engage the issues that affect all 53 member nations; not to be hijacked by a pariah state; and to move all member countries further down the paths of democracy and tolerance from which a number, including post 9/11 Britain, appear to be retreating.

Why pick on Robert Mugabe?

Human rights are being abused in many Commonwealth countries

Kate Allen
Friday December 5, 2003
The Guardian

The Commonwealth's combined population of 1.7 billion people make up 30% of the world's population. It should be a beacon for the protection of human rights in a globalising world. The Commonwealth took a stand against apartheid in South Africa, and now is not the time to debase this precedent by turning a blind eye to the undermining of basic human rights in many member states.

The spiralling human rights crisis in suspended member Zimbabwe will grab most of the attention of Commonwealth leaders at the heads of government meeting in Nigeria this weekend. This is to be expected when there were more than a thousand reports of torture at the hands of the police and security services last year. President Mugabe must be sent a clear message that arbitrary detention, torture and systematic repression are at odds with the Commonwealth's vision of democracy, the rule of law and good governance.

However, leaders must also look at how other members have trampled on basic freedoms in their rush to join the so-called "war on terror", have attacked the right to seek asylum, and still permit cruel punishments and executions. Is it any wonder that Mugabe has got the message that human rights violations will not be challenged?

It is important that Commonwealth members do not use the "war on terror" as an excuse to erode human rights. Unfortunately, many have introduced legislation allowing them to arrest suspects and detain them without charge, and to deport those they deem a threat. The right to a fair trial has been undermined.

In India, the Prevention of Terrorism Act has granted the police much wider powers of arrest than previously, and allows them to detain "political suspects" for up to six months without charge or trial. Police in Gujarat are using the legislation to arbitrarily arrest and imprison men from the Muslim community. Almost 400 men were detained between March and May, and there are reports of Muslims being held incommunicado, with incontrovertible evidence of torture. The legislation has provided a convenient vehicle for discrimination and persecution.

Our own government made the UK the only country in Europe to derogate from the European convention on human rights in order to rush through the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. It has used it to imprison 14 foreign nationals for up to two years without charging them or bringing them to trial. They face the prospect of remaining in detention indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence that they have not been allowed to see and therefore cannot challenge. These "security measures" are undermining the credibility and viability of basic legal safeguards.

The clampdown on the right to asylum has seen the Australian government's "Pacific solution" set of policies enable it to hold for months scores of people, who have been recognised as refugees, in detention centres - a policy branded by a UN delegation as "offensive to human dignity". Similarly, the new asylum bill in the UK threatens to criminalise those seeking asylum.

Despite all Commonwealth members' theoretical commitment to protect individuals' human rights, member states including Jamaica and the Bahamas hand down death sentences, while Nigeria permits punishments that include stoning and flogging. When I was in Uganda in October, where torture is endemic, I heard about a worrying increase in the use of torture by the police, including battering suspects' knees and elbows, precisely to do long-term damage. A commitment to protecting individuals' rights would see President Museveni using the same leadership to eliminate torture as he has been recognised for showing in tackling the Aids epidemic.

In 1991, members of the Commonwealth signed up to the Harare declaration, which pledged all governments to work for "just and honest government" and to protect "the liberty of the individual under the law [and guarantee] equal rights for all citizens". When the government of Zimbabwe sees the flagrant disregard for basic human rights protection in other countries, the message it gets is that the Commonwealth is not serious about these commitments - and there will be no consequences if you disregard them. The result is that Mugabe believes he is safe to continue his crackdown on all critics of the government.

The heads of government meeting in Abuja must deal honestly with these human rights questions. Leaders should make concrete commitments to draw up human rights action plans. The meeting is a chance for Zimbabwe's closest neighbours, South Africa and Zambia, to commit to putting sustained pressure on Mugabe's government. This is essential if Zimbabwe is to understand that the Commonwealth is serious about what it said in Harare.

· Kate Allen is director of Amnesty International UK

from 21 November 2003

The Cheap Day return to Baghdad

Monday 1 December 2003

"Hey, Donnie, fancy a day-trip to Baghdad," said George; "but I'm not taking you, I want to take Condie, she will be better company on two eleven hour flights!"

The conversation probably started something like that. And like a chapter from a Tom Clancey novel, the US President took his private jet and a few gagged reporters to Baghdad for Thanksgiving supper.

Forget all the cheap comments; The London Independent wrote "The Turkey has landed"; a French paper called it an "Electoral Raid on Baghdad".

This show balls. And there were many other messages as well.

It is only a week since a DHL freighter landing in Baghdad was hit by a ground to air missile; the threat to Air Force One was very clear. The secrecy of the trip was paramount. The execution was remarkable.

But Baghdad is not safe. The President did not leave the confines of the airport. That shows just how far the Americans and Iraqis have to go to achieve a safe and stable city and nation. And it shows just how little success there has been to date.

Was it electioneering. Sure. The TV pictures will have played on national TV in the US just as folks were sitting down to their stuffed birds.

But then; he is also President of the USA and the Commander-in-Chief of the US troops. The reaction of those troops to his presence was entirely unscripted and genuinely warm. Other candidate can campaign 100% of their time. He is both campaigning and running a country. If that means he can do both in one trip then good luck to him.

I don't like him. But I think this trip showed some class. And I love the fact that the media, camped outside Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch were left eating cold turkey and complaing about how they had been misled.

The US media reaction is covered in the following Washington Post commentary.

Some Understand Covert Journey; Others Fear Bad Precedent
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 28, 2003; Page A44

Although the White House lied to much of the press to conceal President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, many journalists and analysts yesterday were willing to give the administration a pass.

"In this case, it's justified," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "It was extremely important for the president to demonstrate that he's willing to go where those young men and women he sent over there have gone." If the reporters "were going with a military operation in Baghdad, they'd keep it off the record."

But Philip Taubman, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, said that "in this day and age, there should have been a way to take more reporters. People are perfectly capable of maintaining a confidence for security reasons. It's a bad precedent." Once White House officials "decided to do a stealth trip, they bought into a whole series of things that are questionable."

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, criticized the White House correspondents who made the trip without spilling the secret. "That's just not kosher," he said. "Reporters are in the business of telling the truth. They can't decide it's okay to lie sometimes because it serves a larger truth or good cause."

The deception was so complete that White House officials had not only said the president would be spending the holiday in Crawford, Tex., but they also announced a free-range turkey menu. The Associated Press carried a report Wednesday, based on a "senior administration official," that while in Crawford, "President Bush will spend part of his Thanksgiving Day calling soldiers to express his and the nation's gratitude for their service in Iraq."

Although journalists routinely keep secret details of military operations, as they did during the war in Iraq, it is highly unusual for them not to reveal a major presidential trip overseas.

Former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, who worked for President Bill Clinton, said: "There's no way to do this kind of trip if it's broadcast in advance, for security reasons. My problem with this is not that he misled the press. This is a president who has been unwilling to provide his presence to the families who have suffered but thinks nothing of flying to Baghdad to use the troops there as a prop."

But Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of National Review Online, called the trip "a political masterstroke," saying: "This wasn't lying about an 18-minute gap on a tape or lying under oath. If they had announced the trip and there were attacks and people had died, everyone would be screaming bloody murder about how Bush put people in harm's way. I'm sure the press corps has their dresses over their head about it, but I sincerely doubt anyone in the real America will have any concern about it whatsoever."

Rosenstiel, however, said the trip "was much bigger news on a slow news day if it was unexpected. What reporters have done by going along with this is to help Bush politically."

The 13 pool correspondents summoned for the trip included Jim Angle of Fox News, the AP's Terence Hunt, Mike Allen of The Washington Post, Richard Keil of Bloomberg News, a Reuters reporter and photographers from Time, Newsweek and three wire services.

The White House uses a rotating system for a pool that includes newspaper, wire-service and television reporters when the president travels, but even news executives were uncertain yesterday whether the standard procedures had been followed.

Mike Abramowitz, The Post's national editor, said Allen did not tell his editors of the Baghdad trip in advance. "I'm glad Mike was on the plane. He had a great file," Abramowitz said. But, he added, "I am concerned that no one on the desk knew where a White House reporter was."

Kim Hume, Fox's Washington bureau chief, who knew that Angle was going, said White House officials "obviously made a decision that this was more important than the flak they were going to take from it." She said the administration took a network pool crew, as it was supposed to, and "we didn't get any competitive advantage from it." Had more journalists been told, Hume said, "the story would have leaked in about two seconds" because "news people are the biggest gossips alive."

Kathryn Kross, CNN's Washington bureau chief, said a two-person crew from her network was dismissed from the White House pool Wednesday, with the understanding that no further news would be made. "We're all for the president boosting the troops however the White House feels is appropriate," she said. "But apparently the White House put together its own group of people to accompany the president on this trip, and we're real interested to learn their reasons for doing that."

The surprise visit produced upbeat, sometimes gushing coverage on the cable networks, which kept rerunning video of Bush with a turkey platter and his pep talk to the troops. "This is a show of power. . . . This has significance in terms of showing the power of the presidency," Fox anchor David Asman said.

Time's Vivian Walt said on CNN that "an electric shock went through the room" and that for Bush, crying and trembling, it was "a taste of victory."

The message, retired Col. Ken Allard said on MSNBC, is that "you underestimate George Bush at your peril. It was a gutsy call, a Hail Mary pass, and he pulled it off."

Past official deceptions have tended to involve military matters. In 1983, then-White House spokesman Larry Speakes told a reporter a day before the United States invaded Grenada that the idea was "preposterous."

Howard Kurtz hosts CNN's weekly media program.

The moral myth

Superpowers act out of self-interest, not morality, and the US in Iraq is no different

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 25, 2003
The Guardian

It is no use telling the hawks that bombing a country in which al-Qaida was not operating was unlikely to rid the world of al-Qaida. It is no use arguing that had the billions spent on the war with Iraq been used instead for intelligence and security, atrocities such as last week's attacks in Istanbul may have been prevented. As soon as one argument for the invasion and occupation of Iraq collapses, they switch to another. Over the past month, almost all the warriors - Bush, Blair and the belligerents in both the conservative and the liberal press - have fallen back on the last line of defence, the argument we know as "the moral case for war".

Challenged in the Commons by Scottish Nationalist MP Pete Wishart last Wednesday over those devilishly uncooperative weapons of mass destruction, for example, Tony Blair dodged the question. "What everyone should realise is that if people like the honourable gentleman had had their way, Saddam Hussein, his sons and his henchmen would still be terrorising people in Iraq. I find it quite extraordinary that he thinks that that would be a preferable state of affairs."

I do believe that there was a moral case for deposing Saddam - who was one of the world's most revolting tyrants - by violent means. I also believe that there was a moral case for not doing so, and that this case was the stronger. That Saddam is no longer president of Iraq is, without question, a good thing. But against this we must weigh the killing or mutilation of thousands of people; the possibility of civil war in Iraq; the anger and resentment the invasion has generated throughout the Muslim world and the creation, as a result, of a more hospitable environment in which terrorists can operate; the reassertion of imperial power; and the vitiation of international law. It seems to me that these costs outweigh the undoubted benefit.

But the key point, overlooked by all those who have made the moral case for war, is this: that a moral case is not the same as a moral reason. Whatever the argument for toppling Saddam on humanitarian grounds may have been, this is not why Bush and Blair went to war.

A superpower does not have moral imperatives. It has strategic imperatives. Its purpose is not to sustain the lives of other people, but to sustain itself. Concern for the rights and feelings of others is an impediment to the pursuit of its objectives. It can make the moral case, but that doesn't mean that it is motivated by the moral case.

Writing in the Observer recently, David Aaronovitch argued in favour of US intervention, while suggesting that it could be improved by means of some policy changes. "Sure, I want them to change. I want more consistency. I want Bush to stop tolerating the nastystans of Central Asia, to tell Ariel where to get off, to treat allies with more respect, to dump the hubristic neo-cons..." So say we all. But the White House is not a branch of Amnesty International. When it suits its purposes to append a moral justification to its actions, it will do so. When it is better served by supporting dictatorships like Uzbekistan's, expansionist governments like Ariel Sharon's and organisations which torture and mutilate and murder, like the Colombian army and (through it) the paramilitary AUC, it will do so.

It armed and funded Saddam when it needed to; it knocked him down when it needed to. In neither case did it act because it cared about the people of his country. It acted because it cared about its own interests. The US, like all superpowers, does have a consistent approach to international affairs. But it is not morally consistent; it is strategically consistent.

It is hard to see why we should expect anything else. All empires work according to the rules of practical advantage, rather than those of kindness and moral decency. In Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, Rubashov, the fallen hero of the revolution, condemns himself for "having followed sentimental impulses, and in so doing to have been led into contradiction with historical necessity. I have lent my ear to the laments of the sacrificed, and thus became deaf to the arguments which proved the necessity to sacrifice them." "Sympathy, conscience, disgust, despair, repentance and atonement", his interrogator reminds him, "are for us repellent debauchery".

Koestler, of course, was describing a different superpower, but these considerations have always held true. During the cold war, the two empires supported whichever indigenous leaders advanced their interests. They helped them to seize and retain power by massacring their own people, then flung them into conflicts in which millions were killed. One of the reasons why the US triumphed was that it possessed the resources to pursue that strategy with more consistency than the Soviet Union could. Today the necessity for mass murder has diminished. But those who imagine that the strategic calculus has somehow been overturned are deceiving themselves.

There were plenty of hard-headed reasons for the United States to go to war with Iraq. As Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, has admitted, the occupation of that country permits the US to retain its presence in the Middle East while removing "almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia". The presence of "crusader forces on the holy land" was, he revealed, becoming ever less sustainable. (Their removal, of course, was Osama bin Laden's first demand: whoever said that terrorism does not work?) Retaining troops in the Middle East permits the US to continue to exercise control over its oil supplies, and thus to hold China, its new economic and political rival, to ransom. The bombing of Iraq was used by Bush to show that his war on terror had not lost momentum. And power, as anyone who possesses it appreciates, is something you use or lose. Unless you flex your muscles, they wither away.

We can't say which of these motives was dominant, but we can say that they are realistic reasons for war. The same cannot be said of a concern for the human rights of foreigners. This is merely the cover under which one has to act in a nominal democracy.

But in debating the war, those of us who opposed it find ourselves drawn into this fairytale. We are obliged to argue about the relative moral merits of leaving Saddam in place or deposing him, while we know, though we are seldom brave enough to say it, that the moral issue is a distraction. The genius of the hawks has been to oblige us to accept a fiction as the reference point for debate.

Of course, it is possible for empires to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and upon this possibility the hawks may hang their last best hopes of justification. But the wrong reasons, consistently applied, lead at the global level to the wrong results. Let us argue about the moral case for war by all means; but let us do so in the knowledge that it had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

· Monbiot.com

England end 37 year drought

24 November 2003

What a heart-stopper; England has not won a world title of significance since 1966 (yes I was watching that one as well); and England has to do it the hard way - extra time again. As Wilkinson's majestic, scripted, drop goal sealed the win for England you could almost hear Kenneth Wolstenholme calling out - the crowd are on the pitch; they thinks its all over; it is now.

Australians are used to sporting success. England has been starved of it for too long.

Rugby has come a long way; a minority sport, only professional for the last eight years or so, is now truly on the map. A hooligans' game played by gentlemen. Articulate on and off the field and with a code of behaviour that must put their footballing counterparts to shame.

Wonderful !

The right cause; the wrong approach

21 November 2003

The first wave of bombings in Istanbul last Saturday were targeted at the city's Jewish population; yesterday's deadly attacks were on the British; and indiscriminately many Turkish people of diverse faiths.

The predictable rhetoric from Bush and Blair came in reponse. They will "defeat this evil". There is little sign that the "war on terror" is being won by anyone other than the terrorists.

The terrorists can strike almost anywhere; there is no shortage of targets; and there appears to be an unending supply of suicide bombers. That may be at the heart of the issue. What drives a man or woman to be willing to blow themselves to pieces.

Since 9/11 the terrorists have struck in Bali, Djerba, Mombasa, Jakarta, Karachi, Riyadh, Istanbul and of course in Iraq. This is not a weak enemy. This is a well financed and well organised global threat.

Al - Qaida's attacks in Istanbul follow a well established pattern. Istanbul is at the heart of a modern, secular, democratic nation. It is this sort of modern islamic and secular state that the Americans and British would like to see in Iraq and elsewhere. Al - Qaida, through fanning fear and anger, seeks to change this balance; to turn moderates into hard-liners; to turn Muslims against Christians and Jews; to escalate a confrontation between Islam and the West. We should not underestimate how dangerous their intentions are or the potential depth of their support.

An unwaivering battle cannot be the answer. That's like the great war. We will kill them before they kill us. It just becomes a battle of attrition.

There are deeper questions that need to be answered; who is the enemy; what are the causes of their remorseless hatred; can this war genuinely be won; are western policies in the Middle East (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria etc.) helping or harming this war on terror.

Britain and the US chose to respond by armed confrontation; to match violence with violence. And violence (even organised and ) breeds greater random acts of violence. To many in the Muslim world I fear the aggressive reactions of Bush and Blair and their invasion of Iraq, has given greater legitimacy to the terrorists.

What must be needed is an engagement of mainstream Muslim opinion and a rapid resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This is a conflict that al - Qaida cannot be allowed to win; the West cannot walk away. Submission to terrorism is not a resolution of this crisis. But to win, the west will have to find new ways to identify the terrorists and to appease (not to win over) the hearts and minds of the moderate muslim world. The west needs to engage the east and to agree a less confrontational and more intelligent approach.

The Threat of Rupert Murdoch

Polly Toynbee in the Guardian

21 November 2003

This week Rupert Murdoch menacingly rattled the prime minister's cage with a bullying warning that he might shift the allegiance of his mighty newspapers to Michael Howard - and disgracefully Tony Blair said nothing. If ever there was a time for all that jaw-jutting pugnacity, this was it. But he said not a word in protest at the arrogance of the man. Here is a clear and present threat to democracy itself, when one magnate controlling 40% of Britain's newspaper readership and an ever greater slice of television plays cat-and-mouse with our elected government. He is a terrorist, too, operating by striking terror into the heart of politicians, forcing them all into craven subservience to his whims.

Universal soldier

Leader
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

Conscious that he has a bit of catching up to do, George Bush piled on the charm yesterday. The US president lavished praise on Britain, America's "closest friend in the world". He stressed the shared bonds of history, values and belief; the key importance of the transatlantic relationship; and the two countries' common cause in pursuit of global freedom and democracy.

His forceful defence of military action and post-war policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, his support for multilateralism and his recognition of the centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict will both delight, and give political reinforcement, to Tony Blair. But while Mr Bush's message was rendered palatable, even attractive, to his British audience, his methods remain problematic. Mr Bush may be a better leader than he is given credit for, as Mr Blair maintains. But in the dangerous, divided world beyond invitation-only Whitehall audiences, far more troubling discrepancies between Mr Bush's high-flown words and his administration's actions persist.

Mr Bush's father struggled during his presidency with the "vision thing". His son evidently entertains no such confusions. This Mr Bush's philosophy is nothing less than revolutionary - his own word yesterday. He sees a world in which the forces of liberty, democracy, free speech and free markets, underpinned by shared moral imperatives, are steadily advancing. He sees a choice, for every nation and every people, between the sort of values he espouses and the old ways of tyranny, oppression and social and economic failure.

As he made clear earlier this month when speaking in Washington, Mr Bush believes the ultimate triumph of these values in the Middle East and across the globe to be all but historically inevitable. All can share in this deterministic vision; but it has to be fought for. It will be opposed every inch of the way, he warns, by the enemies of freedom, loosely defined. To win this struggle, Mr Bush in effect summons all the world's democracies to arms, military and figurative. It is a simple manifesto, some would say simplistic. But it does not lack raw power. In a sense, Mr Bush is re-fighting the American War of Independence, this time on a universal scale.

Yet like that much-misrepresented conflict, today's struggles are very much more complicated than is freely admitted. Mr Bush promotes the use of force, the "violent restraint of violent men", when diplomacy fails. But his government's actions since September 11 have directly and indirectly increased levels of aggression and counter-aggression on all sides, while sometimes ignoring non-violent alternatives.

Mr Bush recognises that in the Middle East, "the stakes could not be higher". But the laudable demands he makes of all parties - Israelis, Palestinians, Arab and European governments - ignore his own administration's lack of peacemaking rigour. Mr Bush admits the violence in Iraq is serious. But he makes the old mistake of underestimating opponents, vowing to meet fire with more fire and thereby encouraging an ever greater conflagration. Mr Bush's vision may encompass a world liberated by a fair, rules-based trading system, by respect by all for international law, by an end to great power hypocrisy over WMD and arms control, and by a more effective focus on poverty, ignorance, dispossession and the other roots of terror - but he did not say so yesterday.

Perhaps the greatest disconnection between Whitehall words and real-world actions was evident in Mr Bush's ideas about multilateralism, exercised via the UN and other institutions, which in theory he supports. In practice, as all the world knows, his administration continues to subvert or bypass collective decision-making whenever that suits its purpose. No amount of sugar coats this bitter pill. No amount of folderol, flummery or flattery makes it easier to swallow.

Its official - BA name final resting places 30/10/03

The definitive Concorde web site

Aircraft & Location	Recent Picture
G-BOAA (206) Scottish National Museum of Flight East Fortune Will be shipped by road and barge in early 2004 and go on display by the Summer
G-BOAB (208) Heathrow Display location TBC
G-BOAC (204) Manchester Departed 10:25 Friday 31st Oct Arrived 10:50 am Friday 31st Oct Flight BA9020C
G-BOAD (210) Intrepid New York Depts Nov 10th
G-BOAE (212) Grantley Adams Airport, Barbados Depts 17th Nov
G-BOAF (216) Filton Depts Nov 26th Nov
G-BOAG (214) Museum of Flight seattle Depts 15:00 Monday 3rd Nov Arrives 15:00 Wed 5th Nov
G-BBDG (202) BA are still in discussion about the future of this airframe and are working with Brooklands museum at Weybridge, where large parts were constructed.

From 1 November 2003

Facing friendly fire

Veteran reporter John Simpson defends the BBC's reporting of the Iraq war. By Frank Kane

Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer

In his 34-year career at the BBC, John Simpson has witnessed - and been involved in - many scraps between the Corporation and the Government, but the confrontation between Labour and the BBC over the war in Iraq has been a defining moment.

'I'm proud of the way they've behaved - Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies, and the whole of the news management team. Over the years, the BBC has been accused of arrogance in not owning up to mistakes, so it's important in this case for us not to hide the truth, that what we said was 98 per cent right and 2 per cent wrong. We cannot be accused of being craven in this,' he says.

The 59-year-old broadcaster is recovering from an operation on his ear, a result of the 'friendly fire' attack by an American aircraft in northern Iraq. He has lost the hearing in one ear, and has shrapnel in a leg.

'My hearing will come back,' he says, almost nonchalantly, but he has used the enforced recuperation time to do some serious thinking about the war, the BBC's role in reporting it, and the Government's motives in pursuing it.

'Nobody will come out of this unmarked, there will be no pats on the back,' he says of the inquiry by Lord Hutton, who is finalising his report into the Kelly affair. 'But I don't think we can be condemned for bringing something to the public's attention that was overwhelmingly right. Whatever the detail, it is important that we told the people the anxieties that existed within the system about going to war with Iraq in the first place. We may have our knuckles rapped over the detail, but nobody can say we should have stayed silent on such an issue. I know it was right from my own experience in talking to great swathes of the offices of government,' Simpson says.

'I'm sure that Saddam had WMDs, because I saw the effect of them at first-hand in Halabja, but I think what Hans Blick said was right - they were destroyed some time in 1993-94. Saddam went on bluffing the world, and it worked, but not in the way he wanted."

This is a forceful argument, coming from a man who has, in broadcasting terms, seen it all. So his reluctance to blame Tony Blair for leading Britain into an unjust war is all the more convincing. 'I think Blair believed there were WMDs, but it's not my job to say if a war is justified or unjustified. I certainly think Saddam is one of the nastiest dictators of the late twentieth century, and I'm glad he's gone. It's hard to find anybody in Iraq who isn't glad he's gone.'

It is also hard to find anybody - inside or outside the BBC - who would disagree with these sentiments, but why then have we had the Hutton inquiry? 'Hutton is looking at what went wrong. A man is dead, so clearly something went badly wrong. I think the BBC's 2 per cent of error crept in because Gilligan indicated that Kelly was involved in intelligence, which wasn't right. He [Gilligan] did it to muddy the waters about his sourcing, but it laid us open to all sorts of accusations. I don't think Gilligan deliberately revealed his sourcing, but he did speak to an awful lot of other journalists,' he says, before quickly adding, 'but look, it's terribly difficult to sit in judgment on somebody who's spoken at 6 o'clock in the morning.'

The repercussions for the BBC and for its news reporting methods are just beginning to be clear, says Simpson. 'It is a good and sharp reminder to us all at the BBC. We have to go back to basics and ask what our function is. I think you have to say that our job is to provide people with a wide range of balanced and sensible information in order to help them make up their own minds.

'And yes, of course the Today programme should be breaking stories and doing investigative work. We should never be just reporting Reuters or PA,' he adds with finality.

There will always be problems, he says, with unscripted interviews with correspondents. 'It's an art, and I know how hard it is to do it when you're tired or uncertain of the questions, but I don't think there's any mileage in having a licensing system whereby some can do it and some can't. We have to go through a process of self-re-examination.' Likewise, he believes there is nothing to be gained from banning senior BBC journalists from writing for newspapers.

As for the longer-term effects, Simpson is more uncertain, but hopes the Government will put the Kelly affair to one side. 'I'm sure Tony Blair understands that - it would be so cheap for the Government to wait and then hit back with something like the licence fee, but it would be to the long-term detriment of the BBC.

'The BBC needs the licence fee at a level where it can maintain its existing activities, or we'll face the downward path that that has happened in Canada, Australia and South Africa. There, the licence fee for the state broadcaster was pegged below the level they needed, and it immediately undermined the way they operated. They are still good services, but broadcasting in the UK is in a different league.'

He believes ultimately that the BBC will have to stand up for itself, and is heartened by its resolution during the Kelly affair. 'The BBC has always been under attack by government. You first saw it with Harold Wilson, then with Margaret Thatcher. I had first-hand experience during Bloody Sunday in 1972.

'My report from Derry immediately attracted criticism from some Tory backbenchers, and I was called in by my boss and shown a grovelling letter of apology to them. I remember how my voice was cracking with emotion when I told him that if he sent that letter, I couldn't work there any more. It was never sent, in that form anyway.'

What happened when Simpson confronted his American 'attackers'

The incident that left John Simpson with a damaged ear and shrapnel in his leg also killed his interpreter, Kamaran Abdurrazaq Mohammed, and 15 other people, but he doubts it will ever be publicly investigated.

'Seven out of 10 of the journalists killed in Iraq were killed by Americans, but there will be no official probe.

'It's the same with the innocent civilians killed. Nobody in America wants the fuss.'

Simpson was with an American convoy in northern Iraq when a US ground observer called in aircraft support against some Iraqi tanks in the vicinity, but the pilot hit the wrong vehicles with a guided bomb. The moment was captured on some of the most dramatic footage to come out of the Iraq war, and shown last week on Panorama.

'When I asked for an explanation from the Americans, they were as decent and sympathetic as you could imagine. I cannot tell you which building I went to but I suppose I can tell you it was in Washington.

'Before I went in, I asked the cameraman to set up outside, so he could catch me full of anger after I came out. I expected not to get a decent hearing, and wanted to give it full force. But they did it superbly. They weren't acned youths with crewcuts, but decent people who answered my questions honestly. They came clean, at least in private,' he says.

'It is a very badly flawed system of control. I wouldn't sue the US forces - it's not my style - and anyway it's impossible. But if there was some hot-shot New York lawyer who could sue them, he'd rip them to shreds. If the families of the dead civilians ever get the right to sue, they could do the same.'

Thai Air in for a bumpy ride

17 November 2003

The major share offering due from Thai Airways in December is in for a very bumpy ride. The cause - an airline that does not even exist yet! Air Asia - Thailand (AAT) is due to launch in mid December. It will fly domestically and to Kuala Lumpur at fares significantly lower than those charged by Thai. Why might this hurt Thai? This could be the first Thai airline start up that is well financed, well managed, successful, and most importantly of all that can compete head on with Thai.

The trump card; the airline will be 51% owned by Shin Corporation, the telecoms empire established by current Thai Prime Minister Thaksin before he went into politics. The company is still controlled by his family. Thaksin has previously been critical of Thai describing the airline as lumbering and slow to innovate. Thai are themselves planning a low cost carrier form next April under the banner "Sky Asia". This initiative may well be too little too late.

In December Thai is due to sell 385 million shares to the public as government ownership is reduced from 93% to 70%. Investors should be cautious. Thai has enjoyed a lucrative near domestic monopoly. They are a lazy, bloated company; a shake-up will do them good.

Meanwhile Orient Thai is due to launch its domestic airline in December flying between Bangkok and Chiang Mai under the banner "One-Two-Go". At a single fare of Baht 999 (US$25) this will be half the Thai air fare and only US$10 more than the ten hour motor coach ride.

All this, and the launch of Thai Pacific Airlines, flying internationally, should all be long overdue good news for the Thai consumer if not for the Thai Airways shareholder.

Being anti Bush is fashionable but may miss the point.

17 November 2003

The USA is truly a soft target right now. It is all too easy to be anti-American. We can be anti-Bush and his neo-Conservative entourage, and we should be anti-war; we do not need to be anti - American.

We need a deep breath here. The last thing the World needs is for the US to retreat into its shell and to disengage herself from the global responsibilities that it has taken on in the post World War 2 world.

It is a measure of how bad things are when the US with a straight face send armed secret service men to England to protect their President and then asked for diplomatic immunity should they kill a protester. Bill Clinton was greeted with genuine affection and cheers as he walked central London and traveled to Eire. He waved and smiled despite his great errors of judgment was and is widely respected. Put simply, no one likes GW Bush. And he will be given that message in spades this week.

But GW Bush will not care to much whether he is liked. He may care a little whether is is respected. He will certainly care long term about his legacy and about being proven right.

Post 9/11 Bush has consistently stated that terrorism is the prime threat facing the west. He has pursued a resolute strategy of defeating it. Where possible the US has tried to forge alliances to tackle this threat. But these alliances are fraught with bruised egos and personal and governmental agendas. Just check with the French if you are in any doubt of that.

Do not underestimate Bush and those around him. They believe they are acting in American and global best interests. The threat of terror is huge; the Americans know that; the Australians are rightly still hurt by the Bali bomb, in the middle east terrorists strike near daily; now in Turkey synagogues are attacked. We will be fighting a long and difficult war on terror; it is in the world's interests to do so. History will judge how this fight was led, how committed we were and did we make the world a safer place as a result.

This week's visit comes at a time when both Blair and President Bush are being reviled in Europe for joining forces to overthrow a dangerous tyrant. It is true that finishing that job is costing more in blood and treasure than was foreseen. But it is a job that has to be finished; to leave to soon is to invite catastrophe for a nation. It is too easy to still question the evidence that led us into war; the issue must now be how to ensure that Iraq and the region are at peace and that there is a stable representative Iraqi government.

The anti-any-war crowd is up in arms. The anti-American crowd is up-in-arms. They are joined by many rationale, mild and middle of the road ordinary people who feel that government needs to be more accountable.

Blair is having none of that. Though under fire from many in his Labor Party, he has made certain that the visit will proceed with all the trimmings that are safe. He is determined to underscore what Churchill called "the special relationship" between the U.S. and its mother country. And that relationship should be more important than the either events of the last 6 months or the individual leaders. When Blair and Bush are consigned to history the USA and the UK will still have a unique bond.

Bush remains clear in his position that a necessary global war on terror cannot be separated from the political struggle to extend human freedom. It is hard to disagree with the goal. We may disagree with the way he sets about it.

My guess is that Bush is more rational, articulate and idealistic than the cowboy caricature of the leftist, Eurocentric press. He does not have the presence of Clinton - but who does. That was a mighty tough act to follow.

Bush, like Blair, usually tells it as he sees it. History may well respect their steadfast commitment. Later this week two elected leaders will try to make the best of difficult times. We do not have to like Bush; we may have lost faith in Blair; but they took the harder course of action, doing nothing is always easier, and they deserve some respect for sticking to their beliefs.

Call Me a Bush-Hater

By Molly Ivins, The Progressive
November 14, 2003

Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president.

Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his 44 years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine as though he had never before come across a similar phenomenon.

Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to – our last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse.

For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts – all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity.

And these folks didn't stop with verbal and printed attacks. From the day Clinton was elected to office, he was the subject of the politics of personal destruction. They went after him with a multimillion-dollar smear campaign funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the rightwing billionaire. They went after him with lawsuits funded by rightwing legal foundations (Paula Jones), they got special counsels appointed to investigate every nitpicking nothing that ever happened (Filegate, Travelgate), and they never let go of that hardy perennial Whitewater.

After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else's business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this country through more than a year of the most tawdry, ridiculous, unnecessary pain. The day President Clinton tried to take out Osama bin Laden with a missile strike, every right-winger in America said it was a case of "wag the dog." He was supposedly trying to divert our attention from the much more breathtakingly important and serious matter of Monica Lewinsky. And who did he think he was to make us focus on some piffle like bin Laden?

"The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Mr. Krauthammer. Gosh, what a puzzle that is. How could anyone not be just crazy about George W. Bush? "Whence the anger?" asks Krauthammer. "It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy."

I'd say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. But I also remember thinking, as the scene became eerier and eerier, "Jeez, maybe we should just let them have this one, because Republican wing-nuts are so crazy, their bitterness would poison Gore's whole presidency." The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it.

One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal – milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese – is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago – attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there."

To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally, we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only president we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election," well, good. I don't think we should forget that.

But, onward. So George Dubya becomes president, having run as a "compassionate conservative," and what do we get? Hell's own conservative and dick for compassion.

His entire first eight months was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, and he lied and said the tax cuts would help average Americans. Again and again, the "average" tax cut would be $1,000. That means you get $100, and the millionaire gets $92,000, and that's how they "averaged" it out. Then came 9/11, and we all rallied. Ready to give blood, get out of our cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the President. And more tax cuts for the rich.

By now, we're starting to notice Bush's bait-and-switch. Make a deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education and then fail to put money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow!) but it turns out to be a cheap con, almost no new money. Bush comes to praise a job training effort, and then cuts the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy? We go along with the war in Afghanistan, and we still don't have bin Laden.

Then suddenly, in the greatest bait-and-switch of all time, Osama bin doesn't matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11. But he does have horrible weapons of mass destruction, and our president "without doubt," without question, knows all about them, even unto the amounts – tons of sarin, pounds of anthrax. So we take out Saddam Hussein, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed to see us.

By now, quite a few people who aren't even liberal are starting to say, "Wha the hey?" We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to hell, we're stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Mr. Krauthammer is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a President.

Chuck, honey, it ain't just the 2.6 million jobs we've lost: People are losing their pensions, their health insurance, the cost of health insurance is doubling, tripling in price, the Administration wants to cut off their overtime, and Bush was so too little, too late with extending unemployment compensation that one million Americans were left high and dry. And you wonder why we think he's a lousy president?

Sure, all that is just what's happening in people's lives, but what we need is the Big Picture. Well, the Big Picture is that after September 11, we had the sympathy of every nation on Earth. They all signed up, all our old allies volunteered, everybody was with us, and Bush just booted all of that away. Sneering, jeering, bad manners, hideous diplomacy, threats, demands, arrogance, bluster.

"In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will," says Krauthammer.

You bet your ass it was. We attacked a country that had done nothing to us, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and turns out not to have weapons of mass destruction.

It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred.

Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies.

If that makes me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

Molly Ivins, a syndicated columnist out of Austin, Texas, is the co-author of "Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America."

The truth is out there somewhere

17 November 2003

One of the biggest attractions of working for Reuters for so long was that I truly believed in the steadfastness of the news culture and how that pervaded every aspect of the Company's activities. Independence, Integrity and Freedom from Bias. Those values were key to the news reporting and the Trust Principles were at the heart of the companies activities. Those trust principles can be read online at this address: http://about.reuters.com/investormedia/company_info/rindep.asp

But where are the values of integrity and freedom from bias in the consumer media. At the weekend Rupert Murdoch hinted that his newspapers (Times, Sunday Times, Sun and News of the World) might switch from "new" Labour to the Conservative Party at the next election.

It would be nice to think that this does not matter; that people can make up their own minds; but it does matter and people like to have their minds made up for them! If Murdoch's papers say Vote Tory people will do just that. Remember that in the last two elections the Sun has said vote Blair.

At issue is New Labour's support for Europe; Murdoch is hostile to the European Union; he talks about "our economic interests" as though he was an elected official or a royal spokesman; it is a considerable cheek really in that he is an Australian who turned into an American so that he could take ownership of US business interests.

Sadly of course this means that his journalists will follow his lead or seek alternative employment. What is written and the views expressed by the paper are not the result of normal journalistic considerations or judgment but are orchestrated by the owner. The Guardian's leader on the subject follows.

Media puppet master

Leader
Monday November 17, 2003
The Guardian

There are only two people in modern life who regularly use the royal "we". One, appropriately enough, is the Queen. The other is Rupert Murdoch. As the weekend papers reported, Mr Murdoch has granted the BBC an extraordinary audience in order to impart the latest shifts in the News Corporation view of Britain's destiny.

First, he used the "we" in the sense of what view we - British citizens - should take of such matters as Europe and national sovereignty. But, of course, Rupert Murdoch is no more British than George W Bush. Once upon a time, it is true, he was an Australian with Scottish antecedents. But some time ago he came to the view that his citizenship was an inconvenience and resolved to exchange it for an American passport. He does not live in this country and it is not clear that he is entitled to use "we" in any meaningful sense of shared endeavour. To be lectured on sovereignty by someone who junked his own citizenship for commercial expediency is an irony to which Mr Murdoch is evidently blind.

The second sense in which Mr Murdoch used the royal "we" was in suggesting which way he would use his block vote at the next general election. "We" are apparently impressed by Michael Howard and wearying slightly of Tony Blair - though "we" continue to back him on war in Iraq. "We" would never stand for the Euro and "we" insist on a referendum on anything to do with Europe.

Who does he mean by this "we"? He means the Sun, the News of the World, the Sunday Times and the Times, three of them market leaders, one aspiring to be. If regulation did not impose obstacles of ownership or impartiality, that influence would extend to BSkyB and, doubtless in time, Channel Five. In other words Mr Murdoch seeks to impose a homogeneity of view on approximately 8 million Britons who buy one of his papers. Multiply that figure by three to get some thing approximating to the actual readership of his titles, and you have an audience of well over 20 million each week.

At such times one feels some sympathy for anyone editing a Murdoch title. Of course, some of them will protest that the gaffer never intervenes and that they are free to reach their own views in their own way. Sadly, a number of editors freed from any longer taking Mr Murdoch's money have put pay to that beguiling fantasy. So there is something deeply humiliating for professional journalists to watch impotently from the sidelines as the boss announces so publicly how he - sorry, "we" - intend to exercise his block vote. It requires a redefinition of what we - that's the rest of us - mean when we talk of the freedom of the press.

Three things follow. One concerns readers, one voters, one rulers. Readers have been put on notice that the views expressed in Murdoch titles have not have been freely arrived at on the basis of normal journalistic considerations. They may well be there simply because the proprietor - an American businessman - believes them and insists upon them. Both readers and voters are thus entitled to take anything the Murdoch papers have to say - especially on British politics or Europe - with a giant pinch of salt.

More testing is how politicians will respond to Mr Murdoch's teasing hints of patronage. Both Mr Blair and Mr Howard may be tempted to sup with the old devil. The endorsement of such papers as the Sun and the Times counts for much - or used to. But both party leaders should pause and reflect on the demeaning and dangerous nature of any unspoken pact with Citizen Rupert. It would be refreshing if both men united this week in repudiating any suggestion that one foreigner might have such disproportionate influence on British politics. Mr Murdoch is entitled to his views. The moment he starts talking about "we" is the time to stop listening.

The Unwanted Guest

12 November 2003

There are guests coming to stay with the Blair family. They are coming from overseas, they want to be entertained and shown around for a few days and it is far too late to cancel.

It is also horribly inconvenient and very bad timing.

Yes, George W Bush will be in London from 18-21 November. The most unpopular US President in living memory is coming to England to see his old pal Tony. Worse still, it is a State Visit with pomp and ceremony. It is not a working visit. He is staying with the Queen. I hope he is careful of the butlers!

No one even knows who invited him; but one thing is for sure; it will not help Tony Blair. He has tried to move the political agenda back to domestic issues. Instead he has to make speeches defending the war in Iraq and for three days has to stand side by side with the American President.

The real beneficiary of the trip must be the Bush re-election campaign. Bush can show that he does have friends outside the USA; that he is not isolated. And a bit of pageantry with the Queen is worth far more votes than a photo-shoot at APEC.

Frightening though this may be, London is now being used as a movie lot for the Republican ad campaign for next years elections. The Americans asked for and were given the State visit. Tony Blair has done more than enough to nurture the so called special relationship. The special relationship looks more than ever like a master and a puppet.

A Right Royal Romp

1 November 2003

I think I will declare this the sex and scandal week on this web site. Might help boost my site visits. Good job Prince Charles has not been in Singapore recently.

Another day, another scandal from the Windsors. The British Media would be dead without them; what would they write about. The Windsors go on for generations; the Beckhams will be yesterday's news in two or three years.

My regular reader will know that I am something of a republican; so watching the palace squirm is all rather amusing; but who advises these people. A dignified silence this week would have helped Charlie. Instead his public denial of something that we cannot be told about, is just too bizarre and just poured fuel on the flames.

As an indication of the global interest in this story the best summary of the mirky individuals who make up this story appeared in yesterday's Hindustan Times from New Delhi; their report is shown below.

To be honest, I really dont care who Charlie has slept with. He wont be the first or last member of a royal family to have batted for both sides. Indeed, in an increasingly open world it might almost be better if the allegations were true. You see I dont think the Brits are worried that he might have slept with another man, it is the fact that he slept with a servant that they find distasteful. The class divisions are still at large in Blighty.

"More mystery surrounding Prince Charles. They are not sure if the butler did it or if he did the butler. Rumors are swirling all of England that Prince Charles was caught by a staff member in an alleged homosexual encounter with another man. But Prince Charles says the whole thing was a misunderstanding. The guy was just bowing to him over and over. If he really is gay, those ears will sure come in handy." —Jay Leno

The curse of a disappointed wife

Beatrix Campbell The New Zealand Herald

Last week's battle of the injunctions between a royal favourite and the press was less about the privacy of the royals and their staff than about the nature of knowledge and power.

It was to do with who is allowed to know what about the most powerful people in the land. And, of course, it concerned sex and corruption.

Prince Charles has unprecedentedly denied an allegation that cannot be published or broadcast in the British media.

Some salute his vigour for that. Others lament his breach of the royal mantra: never complain, never explain.

Ever since the "floral revolution" ignited by Diana's death, the royals have been unable to avoid our curiosity and our criticism. This is despite the protection given them by our craven, royalist, party-political system.

Power, sex, secrets and lies are the stuff of the royals' present troubles. The first revelations were that Charles duped Diana and the 750 million people who watched his wedding.

While she, on the one hand, expected a candid, companionable and exclusive partnership, he thought otherwise. The droit de seigneur enjoyed by princes would, he believed, prevail.

Charles may have expected her to suffer like Alexandra, Edward VII's sad and silent wife who, according to Rebecca West, provided him with a "torrent of children". For the Windsors assumed that Charles' marriage - just like those of previous Princes of Wales - was an institutional rite in which the future was to be secured.

It was definitely not an alliance or a commitment that might interfere with his life, his family, friends, his lovers or his staff.

Many of the rest of us recognised Diana's expectations of the more democratic deal won by women in the 20th century.

The ingenue knew more about how the world works than her husband did. In death, she has been as disturbing - as much of a nuisance to his family - as she ever was in life.

Her butler, Paul Burrell, took it on himself to safeguard her secrets. His trial was supposed to discredit the uppity presumptions of pantry people like him, while simultaneously silencing a source.

Instead, it put Charles' household at serious risk of exposure. No wonder the Queen was encouraged to call a halt to the trial.

Burrell knew Diana had taped an alleged victim. That he might be able to point to sexual crime and corruption around the son and heir was a potential Exocet missile. He knew, too, about allegations of bullying and impropriety by Charles' favourite, Michael Fawcett.

He also knew the rumours about a royal person engaged in sexual activity with a servant. And he knew about Diana's inlaid mahogany box of dangerous secrets.

So serious were the suspicions released by the trial that there had to be an investigation by someone, somehow. The royal family conceded that they would have an in-house inquiry by Sir Michael Peat, Charles' private secretary.

This scandal is not so much about libertinism in royal households, nor about whether a member of the royal family was involved in sexual activity with a servant, witnessed by another person.

Rather, it is about whether the Prince of Wales allowed a suspected sexual predator to work in his children's household; whether he neglected his duty of care and his duty as an employer to protect his other servants.

Diana, says Burrell, was alarmed that the perpetrator of an alleged homosexual rape of the valet George Smith "was still at large, working for her husband". She went further, "begged" Charles, "trembling with exasperation", to sack the man.

We are entitled to wonder whether Diana also suspected that her husband used his power to protect the alleged attacker from the criminal justice system.

Peat's inquiry has already criticised Prince Charles for not calling in the police to investigate the rape allegation.

Now, out of all these simmering scandals and the injunctions used to try to keep them out of the press, we are seeing the development of an historic collision between democracy and autocracy.

This is a battle over what can be seen and known about the institution that presides over British society. The monarchy's success, indeed the survival of its sovereignty, depends on it being seen. Being visible and spectacular is the performance of its supremacy. The monarchy is most at risk from republicanism when it sulks in the shadows, scared of its own secrets.

That was the lesson learned by Georges I, II, III and IV, and by Queen Victoria. It was then bequeathed to the modern monarchy.

Today, there is a sense that the Windsors are Jacobeans, busy with horses, dogs and sex. Burrell reports coyly that palaces are jolly party places, where the royal family - however stupid, dutiful and emotionally deprived - retain power, borne out of money and sex.

We in Britain have been duped by the aura of our great Queens. From Elizabeth I to Anne, Victoria and this second Elizabeth, they have been royalty's redeemers.

These women have reigned over an unreconstructed patriarchal system with sex at the centre. Patriarchy - paradoxically - requires the monarchy to be (mostly) male, although neither monogamous nor necessarily heterosexual.

It also requires that the heir to the throne is not just a private person but a public institution. All royal relationships are inscribed in the public performance of power, from squeezing paste on to the toothbrush, attending the Cenotaph, opening Parliament and indulging in sex.

Despite democracy, despite the erosion of deference, the royal system has prevailed. Now it is under threat from the legacy of a disappointed wife and from vengeful servants.

What is it about servants? Royal bodies are both omnipotent and dependent. An army of servants feeds them, walks their dogs, holds their pee bottles, and - Burrell's book tells us - fastens their seat belts for them, too. They know everything.

Charles reckoned he could manage without everyone except his personal assistant, Fawcett. As the Queen told Burrell in their tete-a-tete after Diana's death, he knew more about her family than anyone did.

Any relationship with a servant, whether it be sexual like Queen Victoria's romances, or emotional like Diana's adhesion to Burrell - her "rock" - are prisms that refract the truth of all royal relationships: they're predicated on power.

Charles is a grown man who has to submit to his mother. He makes other grown men submit to him. Just as a princess could be excited by "the normality" of a cup of Nescafe with her butler, so a prince may get pleasure from submission to a servant. Sado-masochism is inherent, it seems.

Royals have lived neo-polygamous lives with their servants. The proximity of those servants produces intimacy, and their craft demands self-effacement and huge empathy.

Burrell is eloquent about the servants' agency in this relationship: royals are totally dependent on others to function, the "need to be needed and the knowledge that you control can be almost addictive", he says. The royals' only experience of equality is in their addictive neediness.

All of this was endangered by the intrusion of Diana into their world. The posh ingenue plucked from the fields of England to provide the son with heirs, brought a sense of society - however slight - that seems to escape the self-absorbed royals.

It took Diana to stand up for gay people with Aids, despite the fact that gays were serving in the palaces. Now gay rumours swirl about those very palaces, threatening the people whom those servants are meant to protect.

Today Charles, a pointless prince who has loitered so long on the threshold of absolute personal power, must surely know that he can't have the prize for which he, poor man, was made. He cannot be king.

And six years on from her death, much of the cause lies with the woman who famously declared that she would never be Queen.

INDEPENDENT

Charles Sex Scandal gets Queerer

Hindustan Times, New Delhi, November 10

There’s a nip in the air, so it must be Royal Scandal Season again. Here’s a quick run through the list of characters who’ve made the Windsors prime camp gossip once again:

Paul Burrell, Diana’s butler, got his hands on (stole) a mahogany box in which the princess kept her letters and a tape. After writing A Royal Duty, Burrell’s a rich man. The tape contained the ‘secret’ about the rape of a royal servant. One ‘final secret’ was left hanging. That secret is out now, which is where…

George Smith enters the picture. This former royal valet told Diana on tape that he was raped by a royal servant. And that he saw Prince Charles involved in an ‘incident’ with another palace servant. If Smith is to be believed, the prince is a homosexual — the first royal to be ‘accused’ of more than just not being terribly heterosexual. Smith has a history of mental health problems. So nobody would’ve really believed his ‘royal accusation’ were it not for…

Mark Bolland, a former adviser to Prince Charles, who on Monday announced that the prince’s private secretary had asked him a year ago: “Do you think Charles is bisexual?” Bolland said no. Michael Peat, Charles’ secretary, was the gent who had asked the question. Peat, who is gay, admitted that he talked to Bolland before approaching the prince on this tricky matter.

So why don’t we know the exact nature of the accusation? Blame…

Michael Fawcett, former royal servant and now freelance aide to the prince, for the hush-up. He prevented the publication of the claim made by Smith in British newspapers. This is the same man that Diana had mentioned that she hated for his "unhealthy influence over Charles".

It can’t get queerer. Or can it?

Oral sex remains an offence in Singapore

10 November 2003

Singapore continues to modernise in many ways. Even "Sex in the City" will be shown on local TV. But lets hope the girls do not discuss the vexatious subject of oral sex.

In Singapore oral sex (even between consenting partners) continues to be an offence under the penal code....the penal code is an interesting word to use in this context !

A policeman (27 year old Annis Abdullah) was jailed for two years last week after a willing teenager, whom he had known for one year, had performed oral sex on him; a few days later she reported the act to the police station and the officer was arrested. The Penal Code, Section 377, states that 'whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals' can be fined and jailed up to 10 years, or even for life. Basically in Singapore, sex is supposed to be for procreation not recreation !! Maybe Singapore is just paying lip - service to its image as an opening, welcome, cosmopolitan society.

No wonder there are so many male Singaporean tourists in Thailand ! Typically the Straits Times took the subject very seriously and consulted four sexual health experts who stated that oral sex was commonplace (they had to ask experts!!!!) and should be decriminalised. At least 60 per cent of married couples engage in it, one expert estimated. So few !! The question on everyone's lips in Singapore is what happens when a man performs oral sex on a woman, is it the man or the woman who commits the offence? Why is it that only the man gets prosecuted ?

The right answer must be that if oral sex is consensual, it should not be an offence, unless the party who commits the act is underaged.

It may be hard to swallow, but it is time for the Singapore authorities to accept that how intimacy is expressed between consenting adults in private is entirely up to them.

My vote - Jeb Bartlett for President

31 October 2003

"The West Wing"; consistently humane, thoughtful, intelligent and grounded in reality. It is just how I imagine the inner workings of governing should be; intelligent, argumentative, desperately hard working, and always looking at every angle. But this is a TV show !

It is an intelligent TV show presenting a mostly compassionate government. Occasionally flawed. But soundly aware of the impact of their actions and of their place in domestic and international affairs.

So how about changing fiction to fact. Could this team of writers and actors run the nation; could they represent the USA on a global stage in three dimensions rather than in edited two dimensions.

Me - I would vote for Jeb Bartlett tomorrow !

from 15 October 2003

Don't blog like Bush

Simon Waldman
Tuesday October 28, 2003

Life is short. Time is precious. We work hard and we don't spend enough time expanding our horizons or just enjoying being with friends and family. Therefore, let me reduce the number of pointless things you do this week by one. There is absolutely no need for you, or indeed anyone you know, to visit the new blog - or online journal - on Bush's website (georgewbush.com/blog if you really want to know).

The Bush Blog is a collection of diary updates ("President Bush travels to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, this morning to deliver remarks to the New Hampshire Air National Guard") and links to stories from various media organisations - or their own press releases - that prove without doubt that a) the US economy is actually in fantastic shape and b) things are going really, really well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is nothing inherently good or bad about the fact that Bush has jumped on the blog bandwagon. The manner in which he has done it, however, is a wasted opportunity. Politicians' early use of the net feels as stilted, guarded and formal as their first use of television. The Democratic contender Howard Dean has used the medium better than anyone to date for raising funds and mobilising support. He was the first to set up a campaign blog (like Bush, he has a team to write it for him). But while his blog - and indeed his site - tell you what he stands for, it doesn't tell you who he really is.

Just as politicians eventually realised that the best way to use TV was to have intimate conversations with the people at home rather than deliver a lecture, so they have to learn the same about the net, and blogs in particular. At the moment, you sense they see a blog like a live manifesto, or an endless TV ad. They should think of it as the modern equivalent of knocking on doors, pressing the flesh and kissing babies. Superficial and stage-managed, yes - but also intimate and incredibly effective.

And for politicians, there is a real beauty here. To get yourself across on your website or blog, there's no need to subject yourself to endless interviews with journalists or months of "intimate" fly-on-the-wall filming. Nothing but a keyboard stands between you and the world.

The first politician - of whatever political hue - who uses a blog to reveal humanity, warmth, humour and intelligence (and it is not being overly optimistic to assume that there are politicians with all of the above) will truly be seen as a leader for our times. It will never be enough to secure election, but it might do a bit to remove some of the cynicism with which most of us view politicians.

I imagine someone on one or other side of the Atlantic will soon make this conceptual leap. The big question is whether they'll be able to type.

Rumours and secrets

28 October 2003

There is nothing more frustrating that someone telling you that they know something really important that may or may not impact your life but that they cannot tell you what it is.

If you cannot tell me what the big secret is then don't tell me that there is a big secret. It is as simple as that. This applies at a personal level but also in the way the media presents news to us.

Paul Burrell, erstwhile butler to the Royal Family and the late Diana, Princess of Wales, is busy talking to the press and TV media as part of the blitz pre Christmas sales of his tell-tale and no doubt best selling book.

According to the Mail on Sunday and most of the UK dailies, the reason Princes William and Harry urged the former butler to withhold publication of his book wasn't (as we were previously led to believe) that they were wounded by him tarnishing their mother's memory but that they feared he would disclose a royal secret so "shocking" and "disgusting" that it would cause irreparable damage to the monarchy. The secret evidently concerns a sex act involving a Palace servant and a high-ranking royal - supposedly attested to by the valet George Smith on a tape which Princess Diana made shortly before her death.

Of course "for legal reasons" not even the boldest tabloid can disclose the details. But that hasn't stopped the headlines - William's Rape Tape Plea to Burrell - and nor has it prevented privileged insiders from gloating that they, unlike us, know what the terrible secret is. "Those in the know about Smith's allegation, myself included, believe the monarchy could not survive the allegation," Anthony Holden wrote in yesterday's London Evening Standard. We infer from this that the offender in question must be very near the top of the royal pile. But Holden can't or won't say more - it's left to us to join up the dots.

It is rather laughable to hear the British monarchy and its supporters crying of Mr. Burrell's betrayal. Remember it was only a year ago that the Windsor's were hanging their loyal servant out to dry in a London courtroom, (see article). It was only the Queen's sudden recall of a three hour conversation with Burrell that saved embarrassing revelations under oath in court. Burrell not unreasonably felt that he had been betrayed. His financial reward and personal vindication are this book and its revelations. The more the Windsors round upon him, the more damage he could potentially cause them. Personally I think he is a smarmy creep. But the Windsors started this; they could have ended it and did not.

PAUL BURRELL: THE BOOK OF THE CENTURY:

Sue Carroll on why this week has vindicated the brutally used Diana

The Daily Mirror

Oct 24 2003

WE are, it's said, masters of our own destiny. This week Paul Burrell's book makes that belief hard to accept. Princess Diana's former butler paints a sinister picture of life behind palace doors. A secretive dark world of smoke and mirrors where fate, it seems, is something that can be controlled.

Prince Charles did not marry Diana by chance but design. It was a calculated, cold-blooded arrangement and clearly Diana, a 19-year-old starry-eyed teenager, was expected to play second fiddle to her husband's mistress while publicly fulfilling the position of dutiful wife and child-bearer.

The roots of destruction were sown right there, in that lie. Diana did not, could not, understand she was a mere chattel to the Royal Family. For a woman, whose parents' divorce had robbed her of self-esteem and self-worth, the realisation that she'd been brutally used was an insult she spent a lifetime avenging.

Now we can see how brave she was to try. Any woman, who's ever felt crushed by the office politics of Machiavellian men, will relate to the litany of assaults unleashed on Diana when she refused to play the game.

As one, the sycophants and lackeys of Prince Charles's court conspired to tarnish her as someone mentally unhinged, paranoid and unbalanced. She feared her children might be taken from her and worse, she'd be disposed of. Her home was watched and movements reported by an unseen enemy.

There were moments, reading Burrell's words, when I felt like weeping with rage. Diana did her utmost to rail against an abusive system which left her she says "battered and bruised''. But what clearly damaged her completely, as it would any wife, was the cruel, cold indifference she faced from a loveless husband.

"You look like a British Caledonian stewardess,'' he once told her in front of an audience when asked if he liked her dress.

She'd have got more comfort from an iceberg than the man who should have protected the girl he plucked from the shires and threw into a lion's den. We've learned this week the full extent of Diana's vulnerability and loneliness but something else shines through - her implacable determination not to be sidelined and a sense of humour, which appears to be completely absent in the serious business of monarchy.

She coped with rejection not merely from her husband, lovers, the Royal Family who brutally stripped her of HRH status, but also from her own self-serving, conceited brother. If Diana became paranoid who can blame her? If she developed claws it was to scratch back.

If she was untrusting and suspicious it was because she was betrayed by almost everyone she once loved.

Her respect, it seems, was reserved almost exclusively for the British public, who she believed had a right to know how the nation's most powerful family conducted themselves.

This has, without doubt, been a catastrophic week for the monarchy. But for Diana, who tried so hard to be mistress of her own destiny, it's been a total vindication.

Drugs and Sport

28 October 2003

There is such a fuss about performance enhancing drugs in sport. It is in the nature of man to want to go further, faster, higher; it is in the nature of man to seek new ways to achieve that goal. And increasingly the financial incentives are there; money drives performance in sport; the incentives are there. Amateurism is nostalgic history.

The recently discovered use of LHG shows that you can only test for the drugs you know about. The makers will always be one step ahead.

The answer must be that any athlete should make a sensible, balanced and informed decision about which drugs, if any, he or she wants to use.

Every athletics record of the last decade must be questionable. Don't try to tell me that steroids and performance enhancing drugs are not widely used in the NFL; that they have not been taken by some of the Rugby World Cup teams; that they are not used in soccer.

An honest policy would permit doping, but invite athletes and other sportsmen to disclose whatever substances they have used. Sports organisations could then commission research and advise athletes on what is most effective and in what quantities and at what intervals it can safely be ingested. After all, anti-doping policies were initially designed to protect the health of athletes.

Concorde's last flight - the end of an era

24 October 2003

After 27 years of service with British Airways Concorde makes its last flight today. I have said before that it really is time for Concorde to stop flying. It is expensive, noisy, polluting and potentially dangerous. But, heck, it is beautiful. A real head turner. My generation grew up with this plane; we heard all the controversy, we saw the maiden flight. It was about nationalism. The Americans resented Concorde; they did not build it. And Boeing could not emulate it.

An artform, a social aspiration, a techological marvel. Today, it is a dieing swan; leaving runway 31L at JFK on a crystal clear blue fall morning.

Today's final flight BA 002 from New York is under Captain Mike Bannister; BA's Chief Concorde pilot; the plane is G-BOAG. There will be large, large crowds of well-wishers at Heathrow in 3 hours for its arrival on a chilly day in London.

There are two other Concorde charter flights coming into London at the same time as the JFK flight. Local residents will be deafened for one last time.

And it is, despite the French involvement, seen as something essentially British. Or maybe that is just how the British perceive it. Launched in the 60s Concorde was expected to sell some 300 planes and to revolutionize air travel.

Concorde flew at the same time as the Russians and Americans were fighting it out in space and seeking to be the first to put man on the moon. Concorde was proof of European technology. And it was also an example of European co-operation that was to lead to the formation of the Airbus consortium.

But it was too noisy and oil prices went through the roof; only 20 Concordes went into commercial service ! 50,000 flights and 4 million passengers later it is almost as though we are taking a technological step backwards.

Virgin Atlantic wanted to take over the operations of Concorde. But there is no way that British Airways would give up its premium fare passengers to another airline. BA will look to move its Concorde passengers to its First and Business classes. Concorde, however, did give British Airways an exclusivity that it now loses.

Concorde has simply become too expensive; it never really recovered from the Paris crash in July 2000, followed by the events of 11 September. The accountants have won today. The head rules the heart.

We always think that advances in technology make things better, cheaper, more efficient. But we have not solved how to fly supersonically in a fuel efficient, quieter and economically viable airplane.

What may happen next is that there will be a smaller, supersonic business jet; sold to the elite few. But it is decades away.

Supersonic travel for the masses will happen; but not in the foreseeable future. Not in my life time !!

15.03/15.06/15.08 GMT. Three arrivals into London with BA 002 arriving last. There is a blue sky. The flight's approach over London is lower than usual so that the three planes can be seen over London, The classic London approach; starting over Greenwich and down the river to land on 27R. The BBC (bless them) even have a helicopter in the sky over London.

Oops the first pilot just bounced his landing ! In front of global TV. He will be reminded of that many times !!

The pictures of a Concorde landing and another stacked behind it are remarkable. That has never been seen before !! The second plane just landed; better !! Now for BA 002; the last flight of Concorde.

Strange; it has been a plane for celebrities and the wealthy ! Yet it is a plane of the people, I guess because the people paid for it !

002 just landed. The best of the three. Everyone has stopped at Heathrow to watch. Its just a shame that the last flight could not do a fly past at Heathrow! I guess the airport is just too busy !

Chulalongkorn Day

October 23 is the anniversary of the death of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), one of Thailand's greatest monarchs. King Chulalongkorn ruled Siam from 1868 to 1910. His reign was characterized by extensive social and economic development, including the abolition of slavery and corvee (state labor service).

He is also famed for his ardent Thai nationalism, and for his skill in fending off the threat of European colonialism, despite the fact that large tracts of Siam were ceded to the Europeans during the period. Many Thais show their respects for the great monarch by placing wreaths at the Equestrian Statue, in the Royal Plaza, Dusit District, on this public holiday.

Much of this part of Bangkok was originally built during the reign of King Chulalongkorn and bears the architectural mix of Thai and European styles characteristic of the era.

Editorial comments on Mahathir's recent speech

21 October 2003

'One can only shake one's head in outrage'

Malaysia's PM blames Muslim woes on Jews

Tuesday October 21, 2003
The Guardian

Marwan Bishara Daily Star, Lebanon, October 20

"One can only shake [one's] head in outrage and frustration listening to the Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, accusing the Jews of controlling the world by proxy and asking the representatives of 1.3 billion Muslims at last week's annual meeting of the Organisation of Islamic States to confront the international Jewish menace, albeit nonviolently. Designating the world Jewry as 'the enemy' is deceiving and morally reprehensible. It's also an easy escape from confronting the real challenges stemming from America and the west in general...

"Washington... is home to over 80,000 registered lobbyists. What makes pro-Israeli influence so great is the lack of even a handful of Arab lobbyists and the total absence of a common Arab strategy toward Washington and Israel... If Malaysian or other leaders have an issue with America or Europe, they should have the courage to take it up with their respective governments instead of scapegoating the Jews."

Amnon Rubinstein Haaretz, Israel, October 20

"Mr Mahathir and his ilk are fanning the fires of European anti-semitism... The most recent example of this... is France, whose president, Jacques Chirac, prevented the publication of a harsh condemnation by the EU of Mr Mahathir's statement. While, with respect to Arab-Muslim anti-semitism, we can perhaps console ourselves that it [may] wane when peace prevails in the Middle East, with respect to increasing European anti-semitism, fanned by the encouragement it is getting from the Arab-Muslim world, it is impossible to enlist similar consolation."

Jerusalem Post Editorial, October 19

"Mr Mahathir's version of anti-semitism... has a Hitlerian aspect... Hitler's resort to anti-Semitism came against the backdrop of an economic and psychological crisis... Mr Mahathir's audience, the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, is also living with economic failure, frustrated irredentist ambition, a sense of lost prestige. For this reason alone, [his] rhetoric cannot be ignored by anyone, and particularly not by Europe... Fortunately for everyone, Mr Mahathir's nasty reign ends this month, ... about 22 years too late... One-and-a-third billion Muslims live in relative poverty not because they are shackled by a few million Jews, but because they think they are shackled. The sooner they free their minds from this fantasy, the quicker the progress they'll make."

Al-Vefagh Editorial, Iran, October 20

"Mr Mahathir... declared... a stand based on history, which represents reality in the hearts of Muslims. He spoke about what has been the cause of hatred against [Jews] for many decades... It is astonishing to see Britain... recall its ambassador from Malaysia in protest against the speech, which was not directed against it at all but was the least that can be said concerning the ugly crimes against humanity being perpetrated by various cliques in occupied Palestine."

· Via BBC Monitoring

Tony Parkinson Age, Melbourne, October 18

"There could hardly have been a worse moment for Mr Mahathir to blunder into the Middle East debate. The so-called 'road map' is withering, and Palestinian hardliners have sought to widen the conflict with their attack on a convoy carrying official US peace monitors... The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and [the Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat are caught in a debilitating arm-wrestle, with neither appearing to have a credible exit strategy... This scenario points to many more days of destruction and despair for Palestinians and Israelis. At a time when sane, moderate voices are needed, Mr Mahathir is hardly helping."

The hijacking of APEC

20 October 2003

Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation has been crudely pushed to one side in today's APEC deliberations, which have been hi-jacked by the USA's anti-terror agenda.

This should have been a trade and business meeting. The change of focus is a mistake.

The Americans have no clear cut vision for Asia. They are fixated with the war on terror(ism). The regional pariah, North Korea, is in the focus today as the Americans try to get a co-ordinated approach to deal with North Korea's nuclear program.

Mr. Bush would also like some help to deal with Iraq; money; troops; just do not offer advice.

There are plenty of other pan-Asian issues that demand attention or warrant concern; the growing gulf at a national and personal level between those who have and those who do not, dictatorship and democracy, Taiwan, China's military and regional ambitions, healthcare; these have all disappeared from the agenda.

Indeed Bush has failed to understand the basic economic issues affecting US relations with Asia. His answer to China's boomig economy is to demand that China (and the recovering Japan) raise the value of their currencies against the dollar.

Most economists believe the president's prescription would do more harm than good; it might cause China's boom to bust and halt Japan's latest attempt at recovery while punishing U.S. consumers. Luckily neither Beijing nor Tokyo is likely to take Mr. Bush seriously. They know his proposal is an election-year gesture aimed at hard-pressed industries in Midwestern states.

They also know that the US deficit is of Bush's own making; precipitated by his tax cutting program.

Bush's Asia tour and his presence at APEC shows an empty agenda; and inability to think beyond terrorism and Iraq.

We should not be surprised. The US has no foreign policy. Mr. Bush's trip this year to Africa, a continent struggling with a nearly unprecedented confluence of crises, was equally content-free; his promise of help to war-torn Liberia proved hollow. The president who pledged to make Latin America a top priority has spent a total of five days in the region and so neglected its affairs that even Mexican President Vicente Fox, a onetime friend, has been alienated. Mr. Bush's meeting with Mr. Fox at the summit in Bangkok will be their first in a year.

Bush vowed to dedicate himself to the war on terrorism and has held to that course. But it is not enough. In an area as important as Asia, Mr. Bush, and the USA, ought to be able to offer more substance. If they do not then the region will look elsewhere for leadership; China is counting on that !

Mahathir fans the flames

18 October 2003

Now I am really confused. A week ago I was in Penang singing the praises of perhaps the most multi-cultural city in Asia, if not in the world.

And then Dr. Mathatir, the long serving Prime Minister of Malaysia launches into a remarkable attack on the Jews.

"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," he said. "They get others to fight and die for them." Muslims are "up against a people who think," he said, adding that the Jews "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others."

But it was not just his message of hatred of Jews that was disturbing but also the unanimous applause it engendered from the kings, presidents and emirs in the audience at the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference last Thursday.

When Israeli officials noted that such talk brought Hitler to mind, the assembled leaders were mystified. Yemen's foreign minister said he agreed entirely with his Malaysian colleague, adding, "Israelis and Jews control most of the economy and the media in the world." The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, called the speech "a very, very wise assessment." Even the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said the speech was "very correct."

The importance of his speech is in its wide interpretation. He has shown in a few words how wide the gulf is between the Islamic and Western worlds. The Muslim nations have come to his defence; indeed see little wrong in what was said.

Mathatir's rallying call was to Muslims who he believes have been shoddily treated by the west. That may be, but their own leaders have failed as badly if not worse, absolute power corrupting absolutely and no hint of a transfer of human rights, education and democracy to their people.

Britain summoned the Malaysian High Commissioner. In Bangkok, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs called Mahathir's remarks "totally unacceptable".

"The prime minister of Malaysia used gravely offensive expressions not only towards the Jews — expressions that are strongly anti-Semitic — but also words that ran counter to the principles of tolerance and dialogue between the West and the Muslim world," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said at an EU summit news conference. Italy currently holds the presidency of the European Union

Mathatir's speech was about the need for Muslims to halt terrorism and negotiate for peace. But when he spoke of Jews getting "others to fight and die for them" and of Muslims achieving "nothing" in 50 years of fighting Israel, he was re-stating long held anti-Semite views

John Simpson of the BBC describes Mahathir as a "kind of successful Asian Robert Mugabe, highly intelligent and articulate, deeply embittered by the colonial past, and fully aware that there is no one in his government, and perhaps in the country, to match his intelligence and fire."

The trouble is that Mahathir is so dominant that there is no one left in Malaysian politics who can moderate his bile; who can take him to one side and suggest a re-write to the more offensive parts of his tirades. Anwar Ibrahim filled that role for many years but now rots in a Kuala Lumpur jail.

Dr Mahathir, like Mr Mugabe, is basically an old-style nationalist of the soap-box variety. He has never been able to hide his annoyance with the charming and gentle Malay people, who do not necessarily share his determination to show that they can do better than the colonial power which once controlled their lives and patronised them. Indeed the rapid growth of Kuala Lumpur and the relative prosperity of Malaysia is largely through giving free reign to Malaysia's Chinese population!

His anti-Semite words are damaging; but will likely be largely ignored by people of good sense who see his soap-box rantings for exactly what they are. That said, one can only deplore the inherent racism in his remarks.

From 1 October, 2003

The first Sinonaut

15 October 2003

There are few certainties about today's proud achievements from China. But be certain that the name of Yang Liwei will be long part of China's history as Gagarin is to Russia and Glenn and Shepherd to the Americans.

China today became only the third nation in the world to successfully launch a man into space. It is a massive achievement for a proud and increasingly powerful nation. At 9 a.m. Beijing time Wednesday, the Shenzhou-5 spacecraft, atop a China-made Long March II F carrier rocket, blasted off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest China and sent Yang into the preset orbit in less than 10 minutes.

The first steps were tentative; the scheduled live broadcast of the launch was cancelled, presumably in case of disaster. The launch was shown on news bulletins some 40 minutes after take off.

Don't doubt also the prestige and the puffing out of chests that comes with this launch. "This is the glory of our great motherland," said Chinese President Hu Jintao after China's space program supervisors declared the launch a "complete success" at 9:42 a.m.

It was also probably the world's longest traveled Chinese take-away since On his space menu were typical Chinese dishes like spicy-and-sour shredded meat and sliced chicken meat, traditional desserts like "Eight-Treasure-Rice" and a drink of Chinese herbal tea.

Beyond all the official media hype in China there must be a real sense of joy and wonder among many Chinese that their country, which they have been taught has been downtrodden for 150 years, had joined another elite club.

Yang is only the 431st person to be sent into space. The fact that he is on a Chinese launched rocket must raise anticipation and some anxiety about future space exploration and the purpose of space missions. The US space program has major problems with financing and near obsolete shuttle equipment. The Russian program is in decline. Will China become a partner to the International Space Station program. Are the Chinese truly committed to exploration or are their motives more focused towards military possibilities.

There is at least the tantalising possibility of a new space race as the US seeks to develop a reliable lower costs launcher than the shuttle.

Something is rotten in English Football

8 October 2003

Well done the Football Association; the game has to be bigger than those players who are bringing the game into massive disrepute.

In the last two weeks we have had to endure rape allegations in London and Leeds, in the latter case arrests have already been made. We have read lurid and sexploitational stories of roastings. We have watched ugly brawls on the pitch; and we now have a front page drugs scandal.

So why wouldn't Rio Ferdinand take a drug test? He says he was pre-occupied moving house. Yet he was photographed shopping in the city centre. Drug testing is all about timing. Positive one day can be negative 24 hours later.

The rules are clear in all professional sports. If you fail to take a drugs test when asked then it is treated as a positive finding with a potential two years ban. The FA has no choice but to abide by international rules. Failure to do so would lead to allegations of cover up, cheating, and potentially a wider ban on the England squad.

Comments from Manchester United and from the England manager that fail to support the FA are depressing and misplaced. They should be angry at Ferdinand (who incidentally earns some gbp 100,000 a week !!) not at the FA.

It is time that the players and clubs learn to take responsibility for their actions. The profile of the sport and the players has never been higher. At the top of the game the rewards are huge. With those rewards comes a responsibility. Live with it.

Questions to important for the US to ignore

October 6 2003

In some 15 months time the US voters will probably be re-electing George W Bush for a second term as President.

Before they do; I hope anyone who cares for the truth seeks out answers to the following questions posed by Michael Moore in his new book.

One of the strengths of the free world is that Michael Moore's books are published and widely read. One of the weaknesses of US politics is that it is Moore who is articulating the questions that a forceful democratic opposition should be articulating.

Incidentally, these are all questions that Tony Blair should have asked BEFORE so closely aligning himself to the Bush cause.

Answers please, Mr Bush

Michael Moore fired his opening salvo against George Bush and his rightwing cronies with his bestseller Stupid White Men. Now the president is in his sights again. In this second extract from his new book he asks his old enemy seven awkward questions

Monday October 6, 2003
The Guardian

I have seven questions for you, Mr Bush. I ask them on behalf of the 3,000 who died that September day, and I ask them on behalf of the American people. We seek no revenge against you. We want only to know what happened, and what can be done to bring the murderers to justice, so we can prevent any future attacks on our citizens.

1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?

Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.

The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group.

According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defence giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants.

Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments.

After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.

After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.

And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.

You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one?

Do you think at least a couple of questions might have been asked, such as, "What is that all about?" Be honest, you know the answer. They would have asked more than a couple of questions. They would have skinned Clinton alive and thrown what was left of his carcass in Guantanamo Bay.

2. What is the 'special relationship' between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family?

Mr Bush, the Bin Ladens are not the only Saudis with whom you and your family have a close personal relationship. The entire royal family seems to be indebted to you - or is it the other way round?

The number one supplier of oil to the US is the nation of Saudi Arabia, possessor of the largest known reserves of oil in the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, it was really the Saudis next door who felt threatened, and it was your father, George Bush I, who came to their rescue. The Saudis have never forgotten this. Haifa, wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, says that your mother and father "are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them".

A major chunk of the American economy is built on Saudi money. They have a trillion dollars invested in our stock market and another trillion dollars in our banks. If they chose suddenly to remove that money, our corporations and financial institutions would be sent into a tailspin, causing an economic crisis the likes of which has never been seen. Couple that with the fact that the 1.5m barrels of oil we need daily from the Saudis could also vanish on a mere royal whim, and we begin to see how not only you, but all of us, are dependent on the House of Saud. George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops?

After meeting with the Saudi crown prince in April 2002, you happily told us that the two of you had "established a strong personal bond" and that you "spent a lot of time alone". Were you trying to reassure us? Or just flaunt your friendship with a group of rulers who rival the Taliban in their suppression of human rights? Why the double standard?

3. Who attacked the US on September 11 - a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friend, Saudi Arabia?

I'm sorry, Mr Bush, but something doesn't make sense.

You got us all repeating by rote that it was Osama bin Laden who was responsible for the attack on the United States on September 11. Even I was doing it. But then I started hearing strange stories about Osama's kidneys. Suddenly, I don't know who or what to trust. How could a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of 19 terrorists for two years in the US then plotted so perfectly the hijacking of four planes and then guaranteed that three of them would end up precisely on their targets? How did he organise, communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive attack? With two cans and a string?

The headlines blared it the first day and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists Attack United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time, so, George, let me ask you a question: if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been North Korean, rather than Saudi, and they had killed 3,000 people, do you think the headline the next day might have read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"? Of course it would. Or if it had been 15 Iranians or 15 Libyans or 15 Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have been, "IRAN [or LIBYA or CUBA] ATTACKS AMERICA!" Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline, have you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever uttered these words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"?

Of course you haven't. And so the question must - must - be asked: why not? Why, when Congress released its own investigation into September 11, did you, Mr Bush, censor out 28 pages that deal with the Saudis' role in the attack?

I would like to throw out a possibility here: what if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-storey building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force.

The Saudi air force?

What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family? The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book Sleeping With the Devil, is full of them. So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting us?

4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?

Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government - and with your approval - were allowed to fly around the skies of America, when travelling by air was forbidden, and pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret assembly point in Texas". They then flew to Washington DC, and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the reach of any US officials. They never went through any serious interrogation. This is mind-boggling. Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 Bin Ladens would have possibly known something?

While thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in US history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!

Why, Mr Bush, was this allowed to happen?

5. Why are you protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists?

Mr Bush, in the days after September 11, the FBI began running a check to see if any of the 186 "suspects" the feds had rounded up in the first five days after the attack had purchased any guns in the months leading up to September 11 (two of them had). When your attorney general, John Ashcroft, heard about this, he immediately shut down the search. He told the FBI that the background check files could not be used for such a search and these files were only to be used at the time of a purchase of a gun.

Mr Bush, you can't be serious! Is your administration really so gun nutty and so deep in the pocket of the National Rifle Association? I truly love how you have rounded up hundreds of people, grabbing them off the streets without notice, throwing them in prison cells, unable to contact lawyers or family, and then, for the most part, shipped them out of the country on mere immigration charges.

You can waive their Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure, their Sixth Amendment rights to an open trial by a jury of their peers and the right to counsel, and their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, dissent and practise their religion. You believe you have the right to just trash all these rights, but when it comes to the Second Amendment right to own an AK-47 - oh no! That right they can have - and you will defend their right to have it.

Who, Mr Bush, is really aiding the terrorists here?

6. Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban travelled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends?

According to the BBC, the Taliban came to Texas while you were governor to meet with Unocal, the huge oil and energy giant, to discuss Unocal's desire to build a natural-gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

Mr Bush, what was this all about?

"Houston, we have a problem," apparently never crossed your mind, even though the Taliban were perhaps the most repressive fundamentalist regime on the planet. What role exactly did you play in the Unocal meetings with the Taliban?

According to various reports, representatives of your administration met with the Taliban or conveyed messages to them during the summer of 2001. What were those messages, Mr Bush? Were you discussing their offer to hand over Bin Laden? Were you threatening them with use of force? Were you talking to them about a pipeline?

7. What exactly was that look on your face in the Florida classroom on the morning of September 11 when your chief of staff told you, 'America is under attack'?

On the morning of September 11, you took a jog on a golf course and then headed to Booker elementary school in Florida to read to little children. You arrived at the school after the first plane had hit the north tower in New York City. You entered the classroom around 9am and the second plane hit the south tower at 9.03am. Just a few minutes later, as you were sitting in front of the class of kids, your chief of staff, Andrew Card, entered the room and whispered in your ear. Card was apparently telling you about the second plane and about us being "under attack".

And it was at that very moment that your face went into a distant glaze, not quite a blank look, but one that seemed partially paralysed. No emotion was shown. And then ... you just sat there. You sat there for another seven minutes or so doing nothing.

George, what were you thinking? What did that look on your face mean?

Were you thinking you should have taken reports the CIA had given you the month before more seriously? You had been told al-Qaida was planning attacks in the United States and that planes would possibly be used.

Or were you just scared shitless?

Or maybe you were just thinking, "I did not want this job in the first place! This was supposed to be Jeb's job; he was the chosen one! Why me? Why me, daddy?"

Or ... maybe, just maybe, you were sitting there in that classroom chair thinking about your Saudi friends - both the royals and the Bin Ladens. People you knew all too well that might have been up to no good. Would questions be asked? Would suspicions arise? Would the Democrats have the guts to dig into your family's past with these people (no, don't worry, never a chance of that!)? Would the truth ever come out?

And while I'm at it ...

Danger - multi-millionaires at large
I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not?

Osama bin Laden has assets totalling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!"

Keeping America safe
The US Patriot Act and the enemy combatant designation are just a hint of what Bush has in store for us. Consider a brainchild of Admiral John Poindexter, an Iran-contra perp, and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa): the "policy analysis market", which the government was to put up on a website.

Apparently, Poindexter reasoned that commodity futures markets worked so well for Bush's buddies at Enron that he could adapt it to predicting terrorism. Individuals would be able to invest in hypothetical futures contracts involving the likelihood of such events as "an assassination of Yasser Arafat" or "the overthrow of Jordan's King Abdullah II". Other futures would be available based on the economic health, civil stability and military involvement in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. All oil-related countries.

The proposed market lasted about one day after it was revealed to the Senate. Senators Wyden and Dorgan protested the Pentagon's $8m request, and Wyden said, "Make-believe markets trading in possibilities that turn the stomach hardly seem like a sensible next step to take with taxpayers money in the war on terror." As a result of the uproar over this, Poindexter was asked to step down.

Giving Saddam the key to Detroit
In Las Vegas, an armoured fighting vehicle was used to crush French yogurt, French bread, bottles of French wine, Perrier, Grey Goose vodka, photos of Chirac, a guide to Paris and, best of all, photocopies of the French flag. France was the perfect country to pick on. If you're a cable news company, why spend priceless reporting time on investigating whether Iraq really does have weapons of mass destruction when you can do a story about how rotten the French are?

Fox News led the charge of pinning Chirac to Saddam Hussein, showing old footage of the two men together. It didn't matter that the meeting had taken place in the 1970s. The media didn't bother to run (over and over again) the footage from when Saddam was presented with a key to the city of Detroit, or the film from the early 1980s of Donald Rumsfeld visiting Saddam in Baghdad to discuss the progress of the Iran-Iraq war. The footage of Rumsfeld embracing Saddam apparently wasn't worth running on a continuous loop. Or even once. OK, maybe once. On Oprah.

· © Michael Moore 2003.

APEC = A Pretty Expensive Conference

5 October 2003

APEC arrives in Bangkok this month - at a time of massively heightened security concerns. Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation; or a pointless and expensive conference.

Security in Bangkok will be intense; and the city will be largely shut down, particularly from the 20th to the 22nd October.

The Thai Prime Minister reassures us that we "should not dance to their tunes. Believe me. We are a safe country because we are taking care of everything. But the AFP report (see below) shows just how concerned the world's security experts and airlines are about security, in particular at the Bangkok airport.

So lets see what the residents of Bangkok will have to deal with during APEC.

	All cars using the Bangkok airport toll road will be stopped and searched for weapons.
	Private planes have been banned from the airport.
	The golf course at the airport will be closed for the month.
	Street protesters have been told that they would have trouble obtaining future government assistance.
	NGOs protesting during the conference will be blacklisted.
	Street vendors will not be allowed on routes used for the delegates.
	Government offices will be closed for the week.
	There are rumours that banks will be closed on October 21 and 22. If the banks are closed then private businesses may have to close.
	Bars, at least the more colourful kinds, will be closed.
	Stray dogs and homeless people are being removed from the city.
	Many of the streets are getting new trees, plants and statues.
	The corner of Rajdamiri and Rama IV at Lumpini Park is being beautified in a big hurry.
	Even humble mice are being put to the security test - they will be injected with APEC food before it is served to the VIPs as a check against poisoning.
	More than 100,000 people have agreed to join a tip-off campaign to watch out for suspicious activities
	To further ensure a quiet and smooth summit, 10-wheeled trucks and trailers will be banned from early morning until midnight in the capital on Oct 17, 20 and 21.
	Garbage bins will also be kept off the main streets and out of sight of delegates as they travel through at least 20 of the city's 50 districts. The bins will be hidden in alleyways

The key meeting dates and locations are as follows: expect a heavy security presence and severe traffic around each location.

October 17-18, 2003	15th APEC Ministerial Meeting		Queen Sirikit National Convention Center / Bangkok
October 18-21, 2003		ABAC	Royal Orchid Sheraton / Bangkok
October 18-21, 2003		CEO Summit	Shangri-la / Bangkok
October 20 – 21, 2003	11th Informal APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting		Bangkok

Security Concerns in Bangkok

AFP - October 2003

BANGKOK (AFP): Thailand's international airport is surrounded by its tightest security yet ahead of this month's APEC summit of 21 world leaders, but airlines and security experts warn there are major gaps in the armour.

Troops have already deployed across Bangkok's Don Muang airport, and Thai Airways International security chief Pricha Sukchai said tanks will roll onto the tarmac next week along with a security contingent of 1,300 personnel. "We are at code red now. Everything is at 100 percent strength," he said as the October 20-21 Asia Pacific Economic Coooperation (APEC) meeting neared.

But despite several publicized security steps, and many more which authorities refuse to discuss in detail, the sprawling facility in suburban Bangkok is seen by industry experts as one of the least secure in the region.

Pricha said Thai Airways remains "concerned", particularly about a series of recent security scares, including reports that surface-to-air missiles smuggled into Thailand from Cambodia were being hunted by authorities.

"There are all kinds of security problems in that airport," said one senior executive at an international carrier who asked not to be identified.

He said the frontline security system at Don Muang is poor, with passengers allowed to breeze through immigration and into a cavernous duty-free hall without going through a metal detector. Easy vehicular access right up to the front doors of passenger terminals was also a concern.

Other risks at the airport, one of Asia's busiest, include an antiquated baggage security system that sends screened baggage back into the temporary possession of passengers before they check in.

Three security experts interviewed by AFP from Singapore last month named Thailand's airport as an area of concern in Asia.

Andrew Tan of Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies said Don Muang was the most obvious target for a surface-to-air missile strike because of its location so close to the city, next to a golf course and with flight paths going over highways and populated areas.

Such opinions do not bode well for this month's gathering of 21 world leaders, including US President George W. Bush.

The dozens of international carriers flying in and out of Bangkok, Southeast Asia's tourism hub, see the meet as an opportunity to highlight Don Muang's security status.

One major concern is an air force-owned golf course abutting the airport's runways. Terrorists armed with missiles could slip onto the fairways for a clear shot at an airliner, industry leaders have pointed out.

With the August arrest in Thailand of suspected terror mastermind Hambali, and his reported confession to interrogators that al-Qaeda planned to attack passenger planes and other targets in Bangkok, the scenario has raised alarms.

"We feel that the golf course is a huge security risk for this airport. We have been asking for a number of years that it be closed," said a spokesman for the Board of Airline Representatives, which counts 65 carriers as members in Bangkok.

"It is a shame the people of Thailand can not recognize the danger of having a golf course between the two runways of a major international airport."

Thailand has debated closing the course for years, and has shut it down during October due to APEC, but Pricha said Thai Airways has been told the air force will reopen the course after the summit.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has bristled at the charges that Thailand is at heightened risk, but he and his administration have also admitted to security scares.

Thaksin last month confirmed that terrorists had plotted to launch an attack on an Israeli El Al airliner in Bangkok, while ministers in his cabinet admitted authorities were on the hunt for smuggled missiles.

Although Thaksin later downplayed the missile concerns, saying such weapons smuggled into Thailand would be too old to be used accurately, the military was taking no chances.

On Thursday they began training thousands of taxi drivers and motorcyclists in how to spot shoulder-launched missiles and the terrorists who could use them.

In a further bid to soothe safety fears, top government and airport officials staged a walk-through at Don Muang on Friday to highlight security efforts.

"These will be the strictest security measures ever applied at our airport and there will be no other security operation as tight as this," its general manager Flight Lieutenant Yom Ngonrath told reporters.

That means intensified random X-ray searches of checked baggage and inspections of catering services for biochemical threats, longer check-in queues, police dogs sniffing passengers, snipers on every rooftop, teams of undercover commandos in the terminals and restricted access for airport staff.

F-16 fighter jets will escort leaders' planes through Thai airspace and police and military forces will man a 16-kilometre (10-mile) security perimeter around the airport, Yom said.

- AFP

California deserves better

4 October 2003

California; on its own something like the fourth largest economy in the world. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, a climate that the we all want to live in; and a lousy government and a wasteful election.

This is a recall election; Governor Davis was elected 11 months ago. His government has run up a US$38 billion deficit; the electricity system collapsed.

Pursuant to Section 11020 of the California Election Code, a qualifying number of registered California Voters signed a recall petition to seek the recall of the governor and elect a successor to that office. According to the Petition: -- "The grounds for recall are as follows: Gross mismanagement of California Finances by overspending taxpayers’ money, threatening public safety by cutting funds to local governments, failing to account for the exorbitant cost of the energy fiasco, aand failing in general to deal with the state’s major problems until they get to the crisis stage. California should not have to be known as the state with poor schools, traffic jams, outrageous utility bills, and huge debts...all caused by gross mismanagement."

The Secretary of State's office has certified that 1.6 million California voters signed the petition to recall Governor Davis.

The ballot is very strange; and is stacked against Mr. Davis. The Secretary of State's office has said ballot would have two parts: Voters would answer yes or no on recalling Davis. So to survive Davis needs a clear majority. If he is removed from office he may not stand for re-election. The second ballot requires voters choose from a list of potential successors. If recall succeeds, the candidate with the most signatures would replace Davis.

And if you think it is complicated already the recall ballot will also include a racial privacy initiative, which would ban government agencies and schools in the state from collecting most kinds of racial and ethnic information; and a proposed constitutional amendment to dedicate an increasing portion of the state's budget to infrastructure spending. Those measures have already qualified for the ballot in California and will appear on the recall ballot because it is the next statewide election.

Past elections have seen less than 30% voter turn-outs. But in this election we now have the Arnie factor. Arnold Schwarzenegger brings violent Hollywood to politics. He has the money; he has assembled a strong group of advisors. He has avoided all but one TV debate. He has no political experience. He is also the front - runner to win the election.

How on earth can the rest of the plant take this election seriously. There are some 135 candidates including Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine. And lets not forget Mary Carey - whose election literature states that :

PLATFORM STATEMENT INCLUDES -- 1.Legalize gay marriage in California. -- 2.Tax breast implants. -- 3. Make lap dances a tax deductible business expense. -- 4. If I’m elected Governor, I will wire the Governor’s Mansion with live web cams in every room. -- 5. I will create a “Porn for Pistols” program to take handguns off the streets. -- 6. As Governor, I will recruit fellow performers from the adult video industry as ambassadors of good will. -- 7. I will coordinate the state’s unemployment and jury systems, so that anyone who applies for unemployment will instantly be called for jury duty. -- 8. I will fight the federal government's attempts to harass the adult video industry.

California is such a beacon for so many people; the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But the state deficit grows by some US$30million a day !

The Democrat dominated Californian media has been having fun digging up whatever mud they can throw at Schwarzenegger. A number of women came forward (with the support of the LA Times) to allege that they had been groped by the Terminator. None had ever pressed charges. He is not a saint. But if that is all they can find then he has a long way to go to match Clinton's exploits so it is all rather hypocritical.

The best we can hope for is that at least a high profile Governor might persuade Californians to get off the beach and out of the coffee shops and to take a greater interest in the affairs of state. California deserves a government that reflects its global importance and influence.

The election is on October 7.

October 5 2003

I wrote the above yesterday; this morning the Washington Post wrote the following:

Wretched Recall
Sunday, October 5, 2003; Page B06

THERE IS A THESAURUS'S worth of adjectives to describe the California recall election, but one in particular sums it up: appalling. The recall is a terrible idea; it is destabilizing to democracy to try to dump a governor who was elected less than a year ago. And the conduct of the campaign has only underscored the folly of the enterprise, with millions in special-interest money -- more than $11 million from Indian tribes alone -- sloshing into the system, a political circus substituting for serious policy discussion and a federal court unwisely intruding into an already chaotic situation.

This soap opera features no attractive characters. Gov. Gray Davis (D) is a remarkably unlikable politician whose only demonstrated zeal seems to be for raising money, lots of it, and who won reelection in large part because he meddled in the GOP primary. His sometimes-desperate efforts now to regain voters' favor -- for example, signing legislation to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, a measure he vetoed twice before -- do not add to his allure. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D) has cemented his reputation as a political mediocrity, and he shamefully exploited loopholes in the state's election laws to take millions from Indian gambling interests. Then there's Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who has trivialized the campaign, offering stale quotes from his movies rather than substantive policies and ducking any real debate with his opponents.

And now comes a Los Angeles Times story that recounts repeated instances of conduct on Schwarzenegger's part toward women that crosses the line from boorish to assaultive. One crew member on a "Terminator" film described how Mr. Schwarzenegger "would pin me against the corner in the elevator"; others described him grabbing their breasts or buttocks. The insulting crudeness of Mr. Schwarzenegger's actions as outlined by the Times seemed designed more to humiliate than to entice, which makes his conduct only that much more disturbing and his apology/explanation -- that this was part of "playful" behavior or on a "rowdy" movie set -- more inadequate.

Mr. Schwarzenegger denounces the report as "trash politics," and some commentators, such as law professor Susan Estrich, who managed Democrat Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign, have accused the Times of launching an unfair, and mostly anonymously sourced, October surprise. But the timing of the report was constrained in part by the combined dictates of the shortness of the recall schedule and the need for thorough reporting of such a sensitive subject. Californians are better off having this information and judging for themselves whether it bears on their vote than having the Times decide to keep it from them.

Californians' dislike of Mr. Davis is understandable. So is their anger about the state's fiscal crisis. But surely a colorless technocrat is preferable to a political neophyte who so far has demonstrated more swagger than substance. Whatever happens Tuesday, Californians of all political persuasions would be wise to turn their attention to excising the recall provision from the state constitution. The last thing the state needs is "Recall: The Sequel."

period commencing 13 September 2003

The distraction of the Hutton enquiry

26 September 2003

The Hutton enquiry concluded 24 days of evidence yesterday; leaving Lord Hutton with some two weeks to digest the evidence, determine his conclusions and publish his report. Few will be spared from admonishment in this sorry episode; but heads appear unlikely to role.

The enquiry has allowed the media and the public an unrivalled opportunity to hear and examine the institutions and workings of government and the civil service.

Maybe deliberately the government set out the Hutton enquiry with the narrowest possible focus. To address the reasons for Dr. Kelly's suicide.

What the government continues to avoid is a full enquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq. The Falklands war, largely supported throughout the country, was the subject of a review by a committee of privy councillors. The Iraq war, which has divided public opinion and has far wider long term consequences, has not been the subject of scrutiny, other than in passing as a result of the Hutton enquiry's limited scope.

The wider public interest is not being served by the Hutton enquiry. Britain needs an inquiry into the war that arguably should never have been fought. The inquiry is into the sad death of one man, rather than into the death of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of the British and American forces as well as the continuing military deaths in the guerilla war now being fought.

The following report from John Pilger was published in the Mirror newspaper on Monday 22, September. The allegations made are very serious; that the attack on Iraq was borne out of September 11, 2001, despite full knowledge that Saddam's military did not pose a regional or international threat.

We will never know the answers without a full enquiry and full accountability. Until then Mr. Blair cannot be trusted again.

Writing in the Daily Mirror, John Pilger reveals that both US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush's closest adviser Condaleeza Rice said, in 2001, that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed and no threat - putting the lie to their own propaganda. : John Pilger : 22 Sep 2003

PILGER FILM REVEALS COLIN POWELL SAID IRAQ WAS NO THREAT

EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."

Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity.

At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London.

An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney.

CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington.

On that day, Bush signed a top-secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."

The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."

It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham. By setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, Blair has ensured there will be no official public investigation into the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they made that decision. He has ensured there will be no headlines about disclosures in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House, only secretive tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the messenger of Blair's misdeeds.

The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true.

Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."

"Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.

"All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)."

The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a personal mission of tearing up missile treaties with the Russians and threatening North Korea, and Douglas Feith, an Under Secretary of Defence, who ran a secret propaganda unit "reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons. I interviewed them both in Washington.

BOLTON boasted to me that the killing of as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the invasion was "quite low if you look at the size of the military operation."

For raising the question of civilian casualties and asking which country America might attack next, I was told: "You must be a member of the Communist Party."

Over at the Pentagon, Feith, No 3 to Rumsfeld, spoke about the "precision" of American weapons and denied that many civilians had been killed. When I pressed him, an army colonel ordered my cameraman: "Stop the tape!" In Washington, the wholesale deaths of Iraqis is unmentionable. They are non-people; the more they resist the Anglo-American occupation, the more they are dismissed as "terrorists".

It is this slaughter in Iraq, a crime by any interpretation of an international law, that makes the Hutton inquiry absurd. While his lordship and the barristers play their semantic games, the spectre of thousands of dead human beings is never mentioned, and witnesses to this great crime are not called.

Jo Wilding, a young law graduate, is one such witness. She was one of a group of human rights observers in Baghdad during the bombing. She and the others lived with Iraqi families as the missiles and cluster bombs exploded around them. Where possible, they would follow the explosions to scenes of civilian casualties and trace the victims to hospitals and mortuaries, interviewing the eyewitnesses and doctors. She kept meticulous notes.

She saw children cut to pieces by shrapnel and screaming because there were no anaesthetics or painkillers. She saw Fatima, a mother stained with the blood of her eight children. She saw streets, mosques and farmhouses bombed by marauding aircraft. "Nothing could explain them," she told me, "other than that it was a deliberate attack on civilians."

As these atrocities were carried out in our name, why are we not hearing such crucial evidence? And why is Blair allowed to make yet more self-serving speeches, and none of them from the dock?

First published in the Daily Mirror - www.mirror.co.uk

Wenger's sorry seems to be the hardest word

26 September 2003

Poor old Arsenal; such a finely balanced team that they have a chip on every shoulder.

Cards on the table; I have never liked Arsenal; they used to be dull; they have always been angry and they have always seemed to think the whole world is against them. And in Watford's all to brief flirtation in the first division winning at Arsenal was the most enjoyable win of the year ! To be honest, any win was as enjoyable as it was surprising !

Arsene Wenger sort of apologised for his teams bizarre behaviour at Old Trafford last Saturday. But as soon as he had apologised he then blamed the media for blowing the whole affair out of proportion.

Nonsense; the Premiership is watched around the world; it is high profile and big business. Sure, there will be ugly scenes at Rochdale and Scunthorpe but these will not be seen live on worldwide TV. Arsenal vs Man U is a game that attracts global interest; and the Premiership's image was not helped by a poor game and a spiteful ending.

And it was ugly; and could have been much uglier. It was a feeble game to be honest. But Arsenal should have been celebrating a hard won point with their supporters. Instead all the old animosity and sense of grievance erupted into a quite unpleasant attack on Van Nistelroy which rapidly drew in other players. A rather dignified Van Nistelroy did not react to being hit, shoved and abused. And you can only imagine the language that was being used. It was less than polite. Had he reacted, and the provocation was intense, there would have been the ugliest of brawls.

Arsenal thought Van Nistelroy over-reacted and had Viera sent off. He jumped out of the way as Viera aimed a kick at him. Anyone would have reacted the same way. He did not fall over or feign injury. He was untouched by the kick but it was a kick; as such Viera probably did have to be sent off for a second offence; well actually it was his fifth or sixth offense !! What the Arsenal goalkeeper was doing running fully 30 yards to protest head to head with the referee remains a mystery.

Arsenal's manager is a fascinating man; so articulate; so intelligent in his analysis of the game; and clearly a coach and manager of the highest pedigree. This is made all the more remarkable by the white stick that he regularly carries which allows him not to see fault where fault clearly exists. Arsenal's disciplinary record is shocking; and it is not because we all have a grudge against Arsenal. It is because they carry the grudge and wont let it go.

Football is a competitive, contact sport. The financial stakes are getting higher by the year. But there is a line that should not be crossed. A little more respect between teams, managers, players and referees would be welcome. And a little less misplaced grievance from Mr. Wenger and his team would be a good start.

Now I feel safer!

25 September 2003

On Monday this week the Bangkok Post reported on police initiatives to train taxi drivers to be alert for possible terrorists during the forthcoming APEC bun-fest in Bangkok in mid October. Now we should all feel safer!

I am not sure that my taxi driver on Tuesday will be so happy to help. He has not been invited for training and when turning off the highway onto Rama IV he was immediately pulled over by the police. A Baht100 donation appeared to be the asking rate.

The APEC conference represents a security nightmare for Bangkok; there are apparently 3,000 US security staff accompanying the Bush entourage. I would not even be surprised if Bush chose not to attend; citing security and other issues that need his attention.

Spotting terrorists made easy for cabbies
Silence, gunpowder, wires `tell-tale signs'

Sirikul Bunnag

Police have started teaching taxi drivers how to spot terrorists ahead of next month's Apec summit.

Noppasilpa Poonsawasdi, a Metropolitan Police inspector, advised drivers to start conversations with passengers and carefully make observations.

He said cabbies should be friendly and try to break the ice by starting conversations and asking passengers where they came from.

Drivers should have a note pad and pen handy to jot down details if they had suspicions about a passenger, he added.

``Normally terrorists will keep quiet when you talk to them,'' Pol Maj Noppasilpa said.

Other possible tell-tale signs were passengers carrying batteries and electric wire and smelling of chemical substances and gunpowder, he told 160 drivers receiving security training in preparation of the Apec summit.

The training also focused on possible car bombs in crowded places, like Western fast food restaurants.

``Police need your cooperation to keep your eyes on all foreigners you carry to their destination,'' he said. ``Don't overlook minor details. If you feel your customer is a suspect, please call 191. We'll be there within five minutes.''

All Bangkok police stations will give the same training to taxi drivers and taxi motorcyclists in the next two weeks.

Pol Songthai, president of the Taxi Association with 10,000 members, said his member drivers would be glad to help police ensure no terrorists sabotaged Apec next month.

However, some cabbies interviewed were reluctant to help police.

Lek Chinawong said he would not inform police despite having been trained because police had not impressed him. ``Police give us trouble, especially at their street checkpoints,'' he said.

Two lost years

Leader
Thursday September 11, 2003
The Guardian

Wounds heal, anger abates, memories fade. As time passes, the human impact of even the most gruesome and shocking tragedies gradually lessens. Two years on, the survivors of September 11, and the relatives and friends of those who died, still suffer. Two years on, their pain and loss is not forgotten, and will be recalled again today in countless public and private memorials. But for most ordinary people, in the US and beyond, those dreadful events in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania are now beginning to slip into history. It happened; it was truly awful. But life must go on.

Yet when viewed in political, economic and geo-strategic rather than purely human terms, September 11 is proving to be unique. Far from diminishing as time goes by, its impact is ever more far-reaching - and ever more damaging. It is as if Osama bin Laden had exploded, figuratively speaking, a thermonuclear bomb at the heart of the global order. Two years on, its shockwaves still radiate outwards. Two years on, the fallout still causes daily death and injury, bringing in their wake fresh tears, new horrors and more cries for justice and vengeance. On September 11 2001, the Bush administration was confronted by the greatest, existential challenge to its power and authority that any US government has faced since Pearl Harbor or, perhaps, in the entire post-civil war history of the republic. The nature and manner of its response, as we said at the time, would be critical. Two years on, it must be judged, regrettably, to have failed that test. There have been successes. But overall, George Bush has made a bad situation worse.

How is such a verdict reached? Opinion polls are one guide. Surveys suggest that two-thirds of New Yorkers, for example, feel less secure today than a year ago. All polls agree that Americans' confidence in Mr Bush's "war on terror" is falling steadily. In western Europe, it is all but non-existent. Mr Bush told the nation last Sunday that "great progress" has been made, with over half of al-Qaida's "known leaders" captured or killed. But he could not disguise the fact that in Afghanistan, where the US fightback began, the Taliban and the terrorists are now resurgent. He could not hide the uncomfortable truth that Bin Laden remains at large or that, according to security expert Professor Paul Rogers among others, al-Qaida has demonstrated by numerous post-9/11 outrages an increased rather than a diminished capacity for mayhem. Mr Bush could not ignore the fact that even as he spoke, al-Qaida was issuing its own anniversary pledge to launch more attacks on the US.

If al-Qaida's claim that its ranks have doubled in number is credible (and it probably is), Mr Bush's mishandled, violent interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, his disastrously unbalanced approach to the Palestinian question, and his suborning or bullying of states like Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are largely to blame. From Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and north Africa to Britain and the US, Muslims everywhere have grown increasingly convinced of America's hostility. Just as there is a terrorist threat in Iraq where none previously existed, so the clash of civilisations predicted two years ago is more nearly a reality than it was then. Just as Mr Bush's cynical exaggeration of Iraq's WMD threat and 9/11 links has eroded trust in him at home, so has it shattered European and Arab confidence that the US can be a dependable friend, not a reckless juggernaut.

Mr Bush has broken alliances with the same abandon that he has broken lives, causing permanent damage. Nor is there an end in sight. As pressing global issues of fair trade, poverty reduction and the environment languish unresolved or largely neglected, and as the "war on terror" transmutes into a loose, catch-all justification for all the US does or does not want to do, Mr Bush's divisive policies presage new, avoidable physical confrontations with Iran and North Korea, especially if he is re-elected next year.

And therein lies the rub. Two years on, by these and many other measures too numerous to mention here, Mr Bush and his top officials are woefully failing the American people and America's allies. America can do better than this. But it needs more able, less ideologically-warped people in charge. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, whose judgments have repeatedly proved unsound, should be dismissed. And if matters have not greatly improved by this day next year, Mr Bush should decline to seek a second term. As a more eminent republican, Cicero, might have told this discredited, distrusted crew: "Among us you can dwell no longer."

Why Concorde has to cease flying

20 September 2003

Old, expensive and increasingly unsafe Concorde will soon be making its final commercial flights after 27 years of supersonic air travel.

The final British Airways flight will be the JFK-LHR flight BA002 on October 24. The remaining flights are almost fully booked as people take a last opportunity to fly supersonically. It will be a long time before we see something similar; affordable supersonic air travel is a long way away.

Concorde was built in heady times of national pride without regard for costs and economics. British an American manufacturers were taking a very different approach. In February 1969 the Boeing 747 made its maiden flight; on March 2, 1969 Concorde flew for the first time.

Concorde's first revenue service was on January 21, 1976. Only 14 commercial Concordes were built; there were no overseas sales. Once the effects of the sonic boom became known supersonic flight over land was outlawed. Trans ocean flights are all that any supersonic transport can or will likely be allowed to fly.

The plane is a remarkable tribute to its designers; who adapted military know-how to build a supremely beautiful plane in a largely pre-computer environment. It is a tribute to those who flew and maintained the plane's complex and unique symptoms.

But the Air France crash at Gonesse, near Paris, on July 26, 2000 was the beginning of the end. There have been continuing safety concerns since including a persistent rudder delamination problem.

Richard Branson has indicated that he wants to fly Concorde under the Virgin name and to acquire the plane from BA for a nominal sum. Its a bit of bravado and its publicity for Virgin. But it really is time to retire this head-turning beauty.

I have never flown on Concorde. It is one experience that I will regret not having done at least once.

Sweden’s Euro Vote

20 September 2003

Sweden’s strong referendum vote of no to the euro was a vote not just against the euro but was a of mistrust of political motives and of German and French domination of the euro-zone.

Sweden’s economic life depends upon its exports; it is a country renowned for being moderate, international in perspective and open – minded. But it has basically said that it can be a wealthier and stronger country on its own.

Denmark and Sweden have both rejected the euro. Tony Blair could no have a British euro referendum for the foreseeable future; Britain would follow the Scandinavians.

There are rules in euro-land under the so-called Stability and Growth Pact, these rules set for instance a country’s annual deficit criteria and interest rates. The French and Germans do not meet these criteria while they expect the smaller members of euro-land to comply. France has not had a balanced budget since 1975!

Euro-land looks weak. Their growth targets are only 0.5%; compared to 1.5% in Sweden. The USA offers greater productivity and innovation bolstering the US$. And this will not change while the German and French economies (which dominate euro-land) remain stagnant. Europe’s role in the world is increasingly looking like a matter for the history books; not a role model for the future.

From August 30, 2003

Two years on from 9/11

September 8 2003

Two years on from 9/11; more terrorist threat against America; Iraq in upheaval; the Middle East peace process derailed again; suicide bombings almost becoming an everyday event; airport security still somewhere between offensive and competent; the USA asking the UN to help in Iraq; the UN failing to show a common purpose (again).

The only view that we all hold is that there will be more attacks on US interests; we dont know where or when.

But there are pointers; and they are all ominous.

Firstly, terrorism has changed. Hijacking used to be about taking a plane and hostages; landing the plane in a sympathetic country and negotiating demands.

9/11 changed that. The traditional response was the wrong response. And the first people to understand that were the passengers who downed UA93 over Sharpeville before it could complete its deadly mission.

Terrorists are not afraid of dieing for their beliefs. Suicide attacks are now much more common place.

Secondly, terrorism strikes where it is least expected. As well as the loss of life and property the impact is psychological. The attack on the World Trade Centre had a massive impact on the American sense of superiority and made them a much more vulnerable people.

So do not look in the obvious places for the next attack. The newspapers are full of threats of air to ground missile attacks on aircraft. Airlines are talking of the astonishing costs of equipping their planes with anti missile technology.

It is being talked about so much that it probably will not happen.

So where next; where are rich Americans most comfortable; big cruise ships, holiday spots, behind the wheel of their cars and in front of their TVs. How about a small submarine attacking US cruise ships in the Carribbean. It is what you cannot see or hear than can do you the most damage.

US economic interests; the world's oil supplies are an obvious target. Pipelines through Alaska; power supplies (although the USA seems quite capable of creating their own problems); cinemas, theaters (small targets but easy to create huge disruption and significant loss of life).

It may be that the terrorists will not go for one major strike at this time. More likely they will look to attack many smaller sites; create the greatest possible unease. This works well for the Hammas terrorists in Israel. Imagine the similar level of suicide attacks in the US. On the street, on the buses, on the subway, in the theatres, in the malls.

One for the people - or political expediency

September 5 2003

Tung Chee-hwa has withdrawn the proposed new security law in Hong Kong. We should all be celebrating. This is truly a victory for the will of the people and reflects the huge unease that manifested itself in the massive peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong on July 1, 2003.

But lets look a little deeper. Tung still says that new security legislation is required. But he is clearly now going to wait until after the 2004 Legislative Council elections before he tries to rally public support for the legislation. It has not really gone away - it has been deferred. And it has been deferred in order to bolster the pro-Beijing parties in the upcoming elections.

And I fear that this was not Mr. Tung's decision. He jumps when Beijing says jump. Beijing believes that the demonstrations were more to do with the recession in Hong Kong that with distrust of the legislation or of Beijing. That people simply found this as an issue that they could rally around to vent their frustrations. And Beijing does not want a Hong Kong that is seen as anti the motherland. Their is a bigger prize at stake in the re-unification of China - and that is Taiwan.

So Beijing has been bending over to bolster Hong Kong's ailing economy; individual (as well as group) travel is now permitted, and encouraged, from China to Hong Kong. A free trade has been entered into between the mainland and Hong Kong.

And it will be Beijing that said to Mr. Tung, this is the wrong time to push through the new security law. The hearts and minds of Hong Kong's people are won through jobs and prosperity.

Still, it is a lesson for the Chinese authorities and the Chinese people, wherever they may be; the people do have a voice; and that voice demands attention and if that voice is loud enough then action must follow.

Observations from The Land Down Under

September 3 2003

	At some stage the Australians have to get over Gallipoli and Bodyline !! Every year there must be at least one new book published on both subjects ! Yet for most of the new immigrants to Australia both events are a mystery.
	Career advancement in Australia requires that you smoke. You may not smoke in your office but the extended smoking break out on the streets is a frequent and extended highlight of every morning and afternoon. And the weather even in winter is pleasant enough to make it an occasion to linger. This is where the office gossip is exchanged; this is where your career potential is determined; this is where you become one of the guys who makes the decisions or one of the guys who waits for their fate.
	Sydney has become expensive beyond reason. Property prices are through the roof; basic living costs are high; GST does not help. Restaurants are more significantly more expensive.
	The white man rules Sydney. As he has done since the First Fleet landed. Threatened by immigration the white man has gathered his like around him and erected (rather freudian - sorry!) the barriers that hold back minorities from taking senior corporate, service or political positions. Walk around Sydney; the suits and ties and white and male. The coffee shop and restaurant staff and rail engineers are the newer immigrants. White man has held onto power. It is rather sad.
	Yet Australia could probably take another 20 million immigrants over the next 100 years. It probably has to; it needs to fuel economic growth to be able to offer any sort of competitive to the economic juggernaut that China is becoming. There is no need to grow Sydney; but another three or four new cities of over one million each would be welcome. Develop Broome in the West and Townsville up in Queensland. Create another new city in the North, build another new city between Adelaide and Melbourne. The immigrants will provide the talent that establishes the infrastructure and propels the economy. Will it happen - not while the white man in Australia hides from reality.

	I was asked yesterday what the rest of Asia thinks about Australia; and why it is that parts of Asia feels threatened by Australia? The latter appears to be dreamt up in the media as a justification for sabre-rattling.
	I am sorry to disappoint - but the rest of Asia looks at Australia; says nice place to study or nice place for a vacation; and then we head quickly home !! Frankly, on the world stage, Australia is irrelevant !
	Actually this is a shame. And I fear a lot of it is down to the Conservative Howard government that has been in power in Australia since 1996. It is a government that is resistant to change; and that becomes a nation that is resistant to change.
	Still tied to Britain by a long standing need to hold on to the past and bound to the USA as the new guarantor of its defence Australia has placed itself on the fringes of Asia. Paul Keating was the last leader to recognise that Australia's economic and social future lies in Asia.
	Indeed it would be nice to see Paul Keating back on the international stage. He and Bill Clinton together running the UN ???

Just a few thoughts; and as I said above I am on vacation and will head quickly home !

from 30 August 2003

Starting a week of good news...

August 30, 2003

There have been complaints about my web site being too depressing. Too much bad news. Not enough good news. So for one week I am going to write only good news; no Tony Blair, no Middle East, no Article 23...

There may not be much written this week of course !

But here I am sitting on SQ67 - two glasses of wine, dinner and Michael Douglas and Albert Brookes on the TV screen - "The In-Laws" is mad and quite fun; the sort of movie where everyone seems to be having fun and ideal mindless airplane viewing!!

Actually it was going well until the video jammed !!! And my movie turned into a rather strange Chinese movie that cuts in and out of "The In-Laws"; but I must not complain !!

But it does always make me wonder - if the in flight entertainment system fails so easily on an airplane then what about the other systems that are meant to get us safely from A to B.

Flying in Asia is such a pleasure of course ! Wine and dinner on a flight that is less that 2 hours in length. Compare that to flying anywhere in North America.

Sorry - there is no more good news this week !!

Although I did like the Lorraine Hahn interview on CNNI when she asked Chinese basketball star Yao Ming if there is anyone that he looks up to. He is 7 feet 6 inches tall. He does not need to look up to anyone !

So much for good news week; but that was last week, and this week is back to reality.

from 16 August 2003

As relevant today as it was 40 years ago

August 28 2003

Free at last ! This is still the unfulfilled dream of so many. Forty years ago today this was Martin Luther King's plea on behalf of the black American.

The great words and wisdom of America's founding fathers had been largely ignored for generations. Perhaps this should not have been a surprise. George Washington himself employed hundreds of black slaves.

The dream is that all people would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Forty years later this speech is still relevant. Of course, there has been great progress in America and elsewhere; just look at the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa. But you can take this speech to so many parts of the world - take it to the Middle East, to Tibet, to Australia, to Britain. This is not just about acceptance. This is about integration and understanding. Let freedom ring indeed.

"Let Freedom Ring..."

Martin Luther King

August 28 1963

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, the negro still is not free.

One hundred years later, the life of the negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatise a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of colour are concerned. Instead of honouring this sacred obligation, America has given the negro people a bad cheque which has come back marked "insufficient funds". But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this cheque - a cheque that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquillising drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquillity in America until the negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvellous new militancy which has engulfed the negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the negro is a victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can not be satisfied as long as a negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its viscious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day, right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I come back to the south with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

The inner workings

August 25 2003

The inner workings of the British government are far from pretty and are being revealed like never before; driven by public interest and the reach of the Internet.

This is the url for the official site for the Hutton Inquiry.

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk

The volume of documentation is staggering. If you never knew it before you must now know that in any sensitive role, political or corporate, what you say or do can never be hidden away.

Why professional golf is now so utterly dull -

and its all down to taming a Tiger

August 19 2003

I would like to see the best players in the world win golf tournaments. I would like to see the most exciting players in the world take risks, score rounds in the low sixties, and win golf tournaments. I do not want or need to see complete unknowns winning a tournament because for one week in their life they can hit the ball straight. It is simply not interesting.

Tiger has not won any of the majors this year. And it is down to him that Messrs Weir, Furyk, Curtis and Micheel have cleaned up the four majors. They are all good players; but they are straight and dull. In the case of Curtis and Micheel I doubt that either will ever win another tournament let alone a major.

The TV networks desperate to keep up the ratings tell us how good it is for the game that there are new winners and new emerging talent. Nonsense. We are all asleep by the time there is a winner.

What has happened is quite simple; the powers that be in golf have decided to stop Tiger form winning. They have Tiger-proofed their courses. After all he won the US Open at Pebble Beach by 15 shots; the Masters by 12 shots. the British Open at St. Andrews by 8 shots. Every major course this year has had rough that penalises, to my mind, unfairly; it is tall, thick, clinging and is basically shin deep where it should be fairway.

I don't want to see three woods and irons off every tee. I am much happier seeing a massive five iron bent around the trees from a scrub lie that I am a wedge hacking the ball back onto the fairway while golfers fear that they may break a wrist.

The plodders have taken over; professional golf is becoming dull, dull, dull. I have switched off. And you should do the same.

It is time to apologise Mr Blair

August 19 2003

I still believe that Tony Blair is at heart a decent man. But somehow and somewhere he has become disconnected from the people that elected him.

Perhaps it is a function of being in office for too long; this government show all the signs of complacency and arrogance.

Perhaps it is a function of the ambitions of other members of the Labour Party which seems increasingly divided between Blairites and Brownites (should that be Brownies!!).

Tony Blair is on vacation; the Hutton enquiry is in full flight and is doing perhaps huge damage to the government's credibility.

The Guardian's summary of the weekend's newspaper coverage of the Hutton enquiry was is included below. While the various articles inevitably reflect the political leanings of the proprietors each of the articles shows just how much damage is being done to this government. The BBC looks like escaping relatively unscathed. Its journalists may have been over-zealous; they failed to second source some information. But basically they got the story right and an embarrassed government has been floundering ever since.

In a poll today (Guardian/ICM) half of the voting public believe that the WOMD dossier was deliberately embellished; another quarter declares itself uncertain; and only the remaining 24% believes the government line that there was no deliberate embellishment of the case at all.

Labour voters, who in most recent polls have been resolute in their support for the government's stance, are now split down the middle on this issue.

More worrying was the reply to the question - "In general, who do you trust more to tell the truth: the BBC, the government, both, or neither?" A mere 6% gave their vote to the government (against 34% for the BBC). Among Labour voters, only 13% trust the government in general.

On the other hand Labour continues to lead the Tories at the polls; largely because the opposition is inept and unelectable. But there are forces at work in the Labour Party that would see Blair fall. If Geoff Hoon is forced out of office by the fall-out from the Hutton enquiry Tony Blair will lose another key ally. The likes of Robin Cook must go to bed grinning each night.

It is time Mr. Blair to come back from the beach; to take responsibility for what has happened and to say that you are sorry that your government misled the nation.

It takes a lot of courage to say you are sorry. But do it now, while there is still some goodwill towards you.

You can contact Tony Blair at the following address and fax number.

There are a number of ways to contact the Prime Minister:

	If your message is personal, sensitive or you would like to receive a reply, you should write to the PM at this address: 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA
	You can also fax the Prime Minister on 020 7925 0918. (From outside the UK, the number is +442079250918.)
	A facility to allow you to email the Prime Minister will be made available during August.

'A reckoning will come in the end'

The Sunday papers reflect on the first week of the judge's probe

Monday August 18, 2003
The Guardian

Sunday Times Editorial, August 17

"The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has been running only a week but has already exposed the unedifying entrails of Whitehall and the BBC, and the path that Downing Street chose when it went about making the case for war with Iraq ... Fears that this was a device to kick the Kelly affair into the long grass ... appear unfounded. Lord Hutton and his team seem tenacious in their determination to get at the truth ... Even more difficult for Tony Blair and his inner circle will be to change the impression, now universally held, that this is a government so addicted to spin that it cannot change its ways ... They must fear that it will bring about the demise of their own government."

Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday, August 17

"So now we know why Anthony Blair went white when he heard of the suicide of Dr Kelly. The Great Leader was personally involved in the organised, merciless persecution of a man who dared to tell the truth ... Dr Kelly was treated like a traitor. Yet he had simply said what he knew to be true, that the nation was being rushed into war on dubious evidence ... Thanks to the self-serving lies of our regime, our soldiers are now sweating their hearts out in swampy Basra, taking the blame - and now losing their lives - for a stupid and vain decision based on falsehood and fuelled by propaganda ... But, I promise you, a reckoning will come in the end."

Anthony Sampson Observer, August 17

"Whatever Lord Hutton discovers ... he has done more to light up some dark corners of Whitehall than any parliamentary committee or political textbook ... The BBC emerges less damaged than other institutions, retaining its reputation as the fearless critic of all governments, which is the chief reason for its worldwide prestige ... The role of parliament in the affair already looks much more questionable ... For anyone interested in how British government really operates in times of crisis, Lord Hutton has already performed a valuable service. But his hearings raise the question of why such critical areas have remained so ... unaccountable. The most effective and lasting monument to Dr Kelly would be the reform of the parliamentary system, to ensure MPs can investigate seriously the abuses of executive power, before a national tragedy forces a judge to intervene with the full powers of his office."

Independent on Sunday Editorial, August 17

"The inquiry that began as a sideshow is casting a spotlight on Mr Blair's central justification for taking this country to war. There may well be compelling ethical arguments for removing murderous dictators and, on occasion, supporting the United States in doing so. But the government's argument was that it was necessary to pre-empt the imminent threat of Iraq's WMD - indeed, this was the only legal justification for military action.

"However, as this newspaper reveals, the dossier on Iraq's weapons capability was hardened up in the days before its publication in such a way that it did not reflect the view of senior experts. Dr Kelly was right about this. The death of a senior weapons expert and the conspicuous absence of WMD in Iraq have resulted in a lamentable loss of credibility for Mr Blair. The prime minister must face the Hutton inquiry and answer its questions with the openness and transparency on which he so prides himself. Only then will he regain the trust of the British people."

Max Hastings Sunday Telegraph, August 17

"The balance of probability remains that the government pushed too far its claims about the Iraqi threat. For Mr Blair to get out of this one unscathed, he needs firm evidence about WMD. This may still be forthcoming. In some form, they certainly existed. Downing Street and the ministry of defence will probably be chastised for heavy-handedness in their handling of Dr Kelly, but Lord Hutton might well conclude that no one could have been expected to guess that he might kill himself ...

"The BBC's journalistic procedures and editorial supervision seem certain to receive a mauling. This story started out as a not unusual wrangle between government and the media, which became translated into a major scandal by Dr Kelly's death. All of those who started this fight must wish that they had not."

Richard Stott Sunday Mirror, August 17

"Hutton is unlikely to reveal much more than we knew, or suspected. Mr Blair's government was determined to put the best case possible for war and was piling the pressure on the spooks to deliver ... Meanwhile the real questions, questions that govern the lives of all of us, loom bigger by the day ...

"Bush and Blair's war shows no sign of being won. Indeed, those of us who pointed out that such a war could create the very thing it set out to destroy are in danger of being proved right. It was to silence such opposition that the prime minister was so determined to provide evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Whatever Lord Hutton decides, the truth is that Dr Kelly, a decent man who triggered events that would destroy him, was a victim of the war and the ... decision to fight it."

Premiership Predictions

August 15 2003

The English Premiership gets underway tomorrow. It seems like only a few weeks since the 2002/2003 season ended; it is only a few weeks! But here we go again; football while there is a heatwave in England and while the third cricket test is still underway somehow just does not feel right.

Still it is an intriguing looking season. No Beckham; but plenty of new talent to watch. And it really is a global league now. In Bangkok and across Asia we will all be glued to the live games shown over the weekend and to Star/ESPN's excellent coverage and entertaining analysis.

But by May 2003 who will be the winners and losers, who will be the whiners, and who will be the new heroes.

Some predictions for you; all based upon almost zero knowledge and heavy personal bias!!

Premiership Champions: Manchester United - still have the resources to buy new players and have the depth in their squad. Beckham will not be missed. Keane is not the player or the mouth that he was. But Scholes gets better and better and start to run the midfield.

Second: Liverpool - Kewell may be an inspired buy. And it is time for Liverpool to make a serious challenge. They may need a change in manager to make that happen. A few weeks into the season and I am regretting this choice already !

Third: Arsenal - too many players who are not quite good enough or who have passed their use by date. Financially constrained by the new stadium. Will start well but fade. And as always their will always be someone else to blame or to kick. I like Wenger as a manager but one day he must deal with the lack of discipline in his team.

Not quite there: Chelsea - too many distractions on the Kings Road and in Stringfellows. A bit like watching the Harlem Globetrotters. They will entertain but will not care enough whether they win or lose. And they will lose in all the places they should not lose. Like Birmingham and Bolton !

Relegated: Leicester, Fulham, Wolves.

Managerial Changes: Bobby Robson will retire. Houllier is replaced by mid season. Souness will be replaced at Blackburn; too many naff signings (Cole and Yorke not cut it any more) and too many good players gone. Peter Reid wont last at Leeds, no one does. Micky Adams will be replaced at Leicester. Terry Venables will turn up somewhere. Newcastle maybe.

And Ranieri wont survive at Chelsea. Results are expected too quickly. Expect Ericksson to replace him by Christmas and as usual the FA to flounder appointing Steve McClaren as interim manager.

A few extras: Newcastle and Arsenal will compete for the worst disciplinary records. Bowyer, Woodgate and Bellamy versus anyone in an Arsenal shirt. That should be the red card game of the season.

Tim Howard makes it big as Manchester United's goalkeeper.

Manchester City will win something...I do not know what.

No English team will make the last 4 of the European Champions League.

Phillips alongside Beattie at Southampton should be worth a hatful of goals. A big traditional center forward and a clever opportunist with an eye for goal who happened to play for Watford!

Charlton will be enjoyable to watch. Matt Holland is a good acquisition and Di Canio might prosper under Alan Curbishley.

Of course there is only one club that matters - Watford. Come on you 'orns !!!!

Enjoy the game.

The murky waters of the Hutton enquiry

August 14 2003

Unless you have spent the last month on Mars you will already know that the Hutton Enquiry is investigating the suicide of Dr David Kelly.

Why you may wonder is this investigation necessary? There are some 4,500 suicides in Britain each year. They are all subject to a coroner's examination and report but this is the only one being played out under such fierce and self interested media and public scrutiny.

At the heart of this tragedy are the most senior and influential members of the government, the media and Britain's secretive defense establishment.

At the heart of the story is the fundamental question of whether Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction and were the facts presented accurately and truthfully to the British people as part of the justification for the war.

There are thousands of column inches being devoted to this story. Many of the media, including the BBC, have their own political agendas. The government continues to shore up the clearly very dubious intelligence that led to their conclusion that Iraq represented a clear and present danger.

No-one will emerge from this sad event with anything to be proud of. At least we can hope that the enquiry is conducted with dignity and that more than a few people are able to apologies for their role.

What we could all hope for is a radical re-assessment of the roles of media and government and their relationship with and accountability to the public. But sadly that will not happen.

Suicide is a desperate and violent act. The suffering that it causes the surviving family is huge and unplanned. It appears to be a reaction to a moment of pyschosis arising from a deep depression. Dr Kelly will be the only person who will ever know why he took his life. It is the act of a complex and unpredictable individual, who maybe found himself under pressures that he had not felt before and who just did not know where to turn for support.

The media suggests that Dr Kelly was "thrown to the wolves" (The Mirror). The media are the wolves.

There are attempts to use the Kelly inquiry to investigate the whole reason for the war. This is totally inappropriate. It is simply an attempt to use this very personal tragedy as a much larger political weapon.

I still believe that the BBC had positioned itself almost as the political opposition to the Blair government. This cannot continue. The BBC exists to report and analyse the news. It is not expected to make the news. It is time to admit that mistakes were made and to hold its reporters to higher standards of journalism. I hope you are reading this Jeremy Paxman.

It must also be time for the BBC's reporters to work for the BBC and only for the BBC. When it comes to "sexing up" (incidentally this is a dreadful expression) a story no - one does it better than the English newspapers as they twist a story to fit the political leanings of the proprietor. And we all know where the Mail on Sunday's politics lie; this was Andrew Gilligan's vehicle for elaborating on his story.

The government similarly has to hold its hand up. The people do not believe or trust their government. The death of Dr. Kelly is honestly a tragic side-show. But the judicial enquiry lends it a gravitas that people believe will lead to a sound and impartial assessment of the events that led to his death.

More critically the government does need a separate and wide ranging PUBLIC enquiry into the reasons for the war. Knowingly or otherwise did the government use false information to send the country into war. Was intelligence information distorted; was it reliable? Were there other undisclosed reasons for Tony Blair to commit to the war in Iraq.

There was a public enquiry after the Falklands War; and in many ways the reasons for war were much clearer then than they were in Iraq.

Politics and politicians are hardly held in respect right now. You have to earn respect. The British establishment, whether it is the venerable BBC or the ruling government has rarely looked so out of touch with its people.

The following extracts from the Guardian give more details on the events leading up to Dr Kelly's death and the participants in this drama. Polly Toynbee, as ever, provides her own incites on the forces at work in this drama.

The timeline.

On May 29 in a report on Radio 4's Today programme, the BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan quotes an unnamed source alleging Downing Street wanted the government's dossier on Iraq "sexed up" with a reference to Saddam Hussein's ability to launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes.

On June 1 Gilligan repeats the allegations in his column in the Mail on Sunday, giving more details of the secret meeting at a central London hotel with his source.

"We started off by moaning about the railways. Only after about half an hour did the story emerge that would dominate the headlines for 48 hours, ruin Tony Blair's Basra awayday and work the prime minister into a state of controlled fury," he wrote.

Gilligan said his source "knew, better than anyone," that evidence of a weapons of mass destruction programme in Iraq "didn't amount to the 'imminent threat' touted by ministers".

He described the source as "gently despairing" about the way Downing Street had exaggerated the case for war. And he quoted him saying that while conventional missiles could be launched in 45 minutes, there was no evidence for the government's claim that this applied to weapons of mass destruction. "I asked him how this transformation happened. The answer was a single word. 'Campbell.' What? Campbell made it up? 'No, it was real information. But it was included against our wishes because it wasn't reliable.'"

Gilligan went on to accuse the prime minister and his staff of having "spent the past few days denying claims that no one has ever actually made - that material in the dossier was invented".

But he says they have failed to deny several of the claims the BBC's source had made, including the allegation that the dossier was rewritten the week before publication and that the line about the 45-minute deployment of weapons was inserted at a late stage.

On June 19 Gilligan gives his evidence to the Commons foreign affairs select committee investigating the decision to go to war with Iraq. In it, he describes his source as "one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier".

"I can tell you that he is a source of long standing, well known to me, closely connected with the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, easily sufficiently senior and credible to be worth reporting," he adds.

On June 25 Relations between the BBC and the government hit a new low when Mr Campbell, No 10's communications director, speaks out publicly against Gilligan for the first time, effectively accusing the reporter of broadcasting "lies".

During a three hour televised grilling by the Commons foreign affairs select committee, Mr Campbell says:

"The allegation made by the BBC defence correspondent, repeated in large parts of the media here and other parts of the world, is that the prime minister put to the country and to parliament a false basis for putting at risk the lives of British servicemen.

"That is an accusation against the prime minister, the foreign secretary, the cabinet, the intelligence agencies, against me and the people who work for me. That is why I take it so seriously."

"I know we are right in relation to that 45-minute point. It is completely and totally untrue. It is - I don't use this word lightly - it is actually a lie. I simply say, in relation to the BBC story, it is a lie ... that is continually repeated, and until we get an apology for it I will keep making sure that parliament and people like yourselves know that it was a lie."

The BBC hits back, saying it stands by Gilligan and his "senior and credible" intelligence source. "We do not feel the BBC has anything to apologise for," it says in a statement.

On July 6 the BBC board of governors meets to discuss the growing row between the corporation and the government. At the end of the meeting it issues a statement defending Gilligan's report and calling on Mr Campbell to withdraw allegations of bias against the BBC and its journalists.

"The board considers that the Today programme properly followed the BBC's producers' guidelines in its handling of the Andrew Gilligan report about the September intelligence dossier, which was broadcast on 29 May. Although the guidelines say that the BBC should be reluctant to broadcast stories based on a single source, and warn about the dangers of using anonymous sources, they clearly allow for this to be done in exceptional circumstances. Stories based on senior intelligence sources are a case in point," it said.

"We note that an entirely separate story was broadcast by an unconnected BBC journalist on Newsnight on 2 June. This story reported very similar allegations to those reported by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme, but the story has not been singled out for similar criticism by government spokesmen.

On July 8 at 5.55pm the government reveals a staff member at the Ministry of Defence has come forward to admit he met Andrew Gilligan at a central London hotel before the war. The MoD does not know if this is Mr Gilligan's source, but says that it if is, then Gilligan has exaggerated the meeting's content.

"The individual is an expert on WMD who has advised ministers on WMD and whose contribution to the dossier of September 2002 was to contribute towards drafts of historical accounts of UN inspections. He is not 'one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier'. He is not a member of the intelligence services or the defence intelligence staff," said the MoD.

"He says that when Mr Gilligan asked about the role of Alastair Campbell with regard to the 45 minute issue, he made no comment and explained that he was not involved in the process of drawing up the intelligence parts of the dossier.

"He says he made no other comment about Mr Campbell. When Mr Gilligan asked him why the 45 minute point was in the dossier, he says he commented that it was 'probably for impact'. He says he did not see the 45 minute intelligence report on which it was based. He has said that, as an expert in the field, he believes Saddam Hussein possessed WMD,"it added

On July 9 Defence secretary Geoff Hoon names Dr David Kelly, a Ministry of Defence microbiologist and weapons consultant, in a letter to the BBC, asking the corporation to confirm or deny whether he is the source of Gilligan's story. The BBC dismisses the demand and says the situation is descending into farce. Although Dr Kelly's name has not been made public, in the course of the day lobby journalists become aware of his identity, and Downing Street confirms his name to the Times political reporting team. By 11.40pm, Dr Kelly has been named on the Press Association's newswire.

On July 15 Dr Kelly gives evidence to the foreign affairs select committee in which he denies that he was the main source for claims that Campbell "sexed up" the September dossier. MPs on the committee back him in a statement saying they do not believe he is the sole source and accuse the government of treating him as a "fall guy".

On July 18 Dr Kelly is reported missing by Thames Valley Police and a major search operation is launched in the vicinity of his home in Abingdon, Oxfordshire. The police say they are "very concerned for his wellbeing". Donald Anderson, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, says he is "shocked" by the development. At 3.00pm police confirm the clothes on the body matched the description of those Dr Kelly was wearing when he left home at 3pm the day before, when he was wearing jeans, a white cotton shirt, a brown leather belt and brown shoes. However, Thames Valley police say they are conducting two separate investigations - one into Dr Kelly's disappearance and another into the identity of the body - and there is no official confirmation yet the body is that of Dr Kelly. Police later say there will be no formal identification until a postmortem is completed on Saturday.

The government says if the body is identified as Dr Kelly's it will launch a judicial inquiry into events leading up to his death.

On July 19 police confirm the body found in woodland two miles from the village of Southmoor is that of missing scientist Dr Kelly. Superintendent of Thames Valley police David Purnell says the scientist took his life by cutting his wrist with a knife possibly after taking powerful painkillers. Purnell says a knife and a packet of Coproxamol, a paracetamol-based pain killer, were found at the scene.

Hours later the grieving family of Dr Kelly issue a statement appearing to blame both the government and the BBC for his death: "Events over recent weeks made David's life intolerable and all those involved should reflect long and hard on this fact

The key figures

Andrew Gilligan

BBC defence correspondent who began the "sexed up" dossier row. He reported, on the Today programme, that an unnamed source had told him the intelligence agencies were unhappy about some "dubious" information within it, especially claims that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

He was subsequently told by the prime minister to reveal his source, accused by Alastair Campbell, the Downing Street director of communications (see below), of reporting a "lie" and, yesterday, brought before the Commons foreign affairs select committee and branded an "unsatisfactory witness" who had changed his story.

David Kelly

Ministry of Defence scientist and biological weapons specialist who told his superiors that he had met Gilligan. He denied, before the foreign affairs select committee, that he had been the reporter's main source because, he said, Gilligan's account of the conversation was so very different from the one he had had with him that it could not be the same one.

The MPs said he was "most unlikely" to be the source. But the weekend after he was found dead with a slit to his wrist the BBC admitted that he was and Gilligan denied he had misquoted or misrepresented him in his report. Also spoke to Susan Watts.

Susan Watts

Science editor of Newsnight. Reported that her source - Dr Kelly - said that the government's insistence of an imminent WMD threat from Iraq was a Downing Street interpretation of intelligence conclusions.

Alastair Campbell

Downing Street's director of communications, and one of the prime minister's closest aides. In a piece in the Mail on Sunday, Gilligan said his source had told him that only one word was needed to explain the changes made to the dossier: Campbell.

Mr Campbell was then called before the foreign affairs committee (who provisionally cleared him of "sexing up" the dossier) and accused the BBC of lies, failing to correct its false claims - despite numerous private demands to do so - and went on the offensive against Gilligan.

He also broke a self-imposed rule of never becoming the story to make a personal television appearance. Barely able to control his anger, Mr Campbell told Channel 4 News: "Let [the BBC] just accept, for once, they got it wrong."

There is considerable animosity between the Mr Campbell and the BBC - who he accused of taking up an anti-war stance - and especially Gilligan. He referred to him as "Gullible Gilligan" two years ago in press briefings when he was the prime minister's official spokesman, and was last month accused by Richard Sambrook, the BBC director of news (see below), of intimidatory tactics and pursuing a "personal vendetta" against the defence correspondent.

Lord Hutton

Law lord chairing the judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death. It is expected to examine two crucial points - how Dr Kelly's name was made public, and what exactly he said when he met Gilligan and Watts - but not the wider issue of the government's use of intelligence before the Iraq war.

John Reid

Cabinet minister who claimed that "rogue elements" in the security services were responsible for spreading allegations that Downing Street had hardened intelligence service reports and exaggerated the scale of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Geoff Hoon

The secretary of state for defence. Wrote to the chairman of the BBC governors, Gavyn Davies (see below), naming Dr Kelly as a potential source for Gilligan's story and asking him to confirm or deny it. An MoD statement the previous day, which first acknowledged that an individual had come forward, had, however, added that, if this person was the source, the report was then exaggerated. Dr Kelly's name subsequently entered the public domain.

Gavyn Davies

A New Labour economist and chairman of the governors of the BBC. He read out a statement from the board of governors after Mr Campbell said the report was a "lie", standing by the story.

"The board is satisfied that it was in the public interest to broadcast Mr Gilligan's story, given the information which was available to BBC news at the time. We believe it would not have been in the public interest to have suppressed [it]," he said. The statement also called on Mr Campbell to "withdraw allegations of bias" against the BBC and its journalists.

Richard Sambrook

BBC director of news who robustly defended Gilligan's report, as well as his right not to divulge sources. Also received a letter from Mr Campbell asking him to answer a series of questions over the corporation's coverage of the war, and engaged in correspondence with the communications chief. Threatened to resign if he did not get the governors' backing.

Greg Dyke

BBC director general. Several weeks into the row between the government and BBC, he says the corporation will not be apologising and urged Mr Campbell to bury the hatchet. He said the two sides will have "to agree to disagree".

Andrew Mackinlay

Labour MP and member of the foreign affairs select committee. Aggressively questioned Dr Kelly, in particular attacking him for refusing to say, without checking his diary, which other journalists he may have met in the month of May. He later said that the scientist had been used as a "fall guy" by the MoD.

Lewis Moonie

Armed forces minister during the war in Iraq (he lost his job in the last reshuffle) who said that it was the government's "duty" to spin intelligence on Iraq.

"You act on the information that you have and it is our duty then, having decided on a course of action, to persuade people that that is what we ought to be doing," he told the Today programme. "People seem to equate spin with lying. It is not. What we are talking about here is trying to put the best gloss on your case to ensure people accept it."

Donald Anderson

Labour MP and chairman of the foreign affairs select committee. His committee has been accused of using bullying tactics for party political gain.

Hutton seeks certainty in a world of wobbly truths

What journalist would survive the harsh glare of the courtroom?

Polly Toynbee
Thursday August 14, 2003
The Guardian

A dead man from beyond the grave talks with terrible authority. No one can question him now, yet his recorded words hang there in the air. Lord Hutton's investigation unfolds excruciatingly for the BBC, the government and Kelly's memory alike. It will be an endless ferreting down holes of irrelevance as each side tries to pull out definitive rabbits in a warren of half-truths.

In the past couple of days, the BBC's journalism has fallen under a courtroom scrutiny all journalists shudder to contemplate. Whatever Andrew Gilligan's particular failings (not great), which of us would escape a walloping if asked to open our notebook scribbles to the searchlight of prosecution interrogation, every word examined for absolute clarity and veracity? The smug words in some of the BBC-hating newspapers defy even their usual standards of hypocrisy. The Sun (Gilligan: The big lie) and the Times pursue Murdoch's commercial interest in sabotaging the BBC. Too many pots and kettles are flying about here to count.

Lord Hutton - dry, concise, forensic - may never quite grasp the various worlds of swirling greys and uncertainties he has tumbled into. British journalism is imprecise, often to the point of downright dishonesty. It is in the business of loud front pages, hot stories, finding something new every day, and overwhelmingly slanting it all towards the political predilections of its owner. Truth is a random sideline. This is not a profession, it is a low trade. Even the best journalism dreads the white-light scrutiny of a courtroom. We live under dark stones, yet we clamour for the bright light of ethical standards to be shone on everyone else.

In the same way the world of politics also comes off badly under the hard eye of a judge. Spin - putting the best shine on things - is an absolutely necessary part of political riposte to the poisoned sea of an enemy press that puts the worst interpretation on everything. Overemphasising good facts and tucking away the unhelpful ones is part of the political trade. Where exactly is the wobbly line of truth that politicians and journalists step over in sexing up dossiers or sexing up stories?

And then Lord Hutton has to penetrate the very grey world of intelligence, its acquisition, its interpretation and the rightful uses made of it. It has been a curious spectacle to watch the anti-war left suddenly find a touching new faith in every word and deed of the noble spying fraternity whom they usually accuse of conspiracy, sinister motives, empire-building and threatening liberty. Now the left acts outraged at anyone who might question any word they say. In that grey underworld, will we know if Kelly killed himself because he was bullied, or because he was ashamed at being caught lying, or even, ashamed at having overstated what he knew? Is Lord Hutton really expected to deliver clear judgment in all these worlds of inherent uncertainty?

After this, there will need to be strict BBC self-examination. The Six O'Clock News has slipped so far downmarket as to be no longer a recognisable BBC news brand, while task forces have sought ways to sex up political coverage. Sexing up politics in this climate has meant more attack. Who to attack? The dead-sheep Tories? Poor sport. It has to be the government, joining the general press assault. It asks a lot to expect the BBC to stand back, lag behind the pack, be responsible, fair and duller. But that is what public broadcasting is partly for.

One sign of slippage was when BBC presenters and correspondents began writing in ferociously politically partisan papers and magazines, mostly of the right. I left the BBC 10 years ago when I was forced to choose between writing and broadcasting in days when even an appearance of bias was lethal. Despite complaints about Downing Street pressure now, that rigour was a sign that the BBC lived in far greater fear of the Tories then than they do of Labour. The BBC needs defending to the death - but it also needs to be absolutely defensible in fairness and intellectual rigour.

However, in the dangerous drama now unfolding, the BBC is only a sideshow. The main thrust of Gilligan's report stands. It is the government that stands indicted by that unanswerable recorded voice from the grave that will linger on in public imagination beyond Hutton's actual verdict - whatever it may be.

Nothing new of real importance is likely to emerge. Those of us who opposed the war always knew the government over-egged the danger of WMD. That's what the debate was about between the pro and anti warriors. There might be good reasons for removing a murderous dictator or even for supporting the US. But the only (possibly) legal excuse for invading a sovereign state was pre-emption of imminent attack and we didn't believe it. Kelly told nothing we did not already know.

If Kelly was right and the government over-egged the WMD evidence, how bad is that? It happens all the time. Ministers every day make difficult decisions between A and B. Once they have chosen B, then they must advance every possible case for it and deny every good argument for A. They can't get laws passed arguing a vague balance of probable benefits.

Going to war is the most serious decision of all. Probably the prime minister had decided, barring miracles, to go to war long before. He thought it the right thing to do in face of adverse opinion polls: few think he did it for political gain. The jury is still out on whether Iraq will be better or worse off, but the auguries are not too bad. Some of us will still think it has set us a catastrophic foreign policy with the US, Europe and the rest of the world.

But once he had decided to do it, of course he would make maximum use of every shred of evidence that came to hand. The Iraq war may mark the watershed in the Blair era - or it may just be a low water mark from which he will rise again. But as this great rigmarole unfolds, leading to the crescendo of his own evidence to Hutton next month, keep his crimes in reasonable perspective.

When Tony Blair gives evidence, he has to find the difficult language somewhere between mild admission and explanation, to describe how he considered the intelligence evidence he was given. What do you do with information that says it is "30% likely" that WMD is there and dangerous? Would you take your umbrella out on a 30% chance of rain? The use and abuse of intelligence is murky territory for forensic interrogation - as murky as journalism. The government would do well to go some way in admitting that. Straight denial would be disastrous.

p.toynbee@guardian.co.uk

A huge cheer for the Episcopal church

August 7 2003

Someone has to explain to me why Anglicans are all so upset about the first appointment of an openly gay bishop. The US Episcopal church yesterday confirmed the appointment of the Rev. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.

There are some 80 million Anglicans around the world and many of the conservative Anglicans are deeply incensed. There is even talk of a schism in the Church.

Conservative Anglicans around the world must still be living in the middle ages.

Lets consider some relevant details.

1. People are hardly flocking to church anymore. Openly encouraging church participation from any group is a necessity. The church needs to be inclusive. It is not an exclusive club for those the church deems are suitable. Heaven knows, forgive the pun, it needs all the followers that it can get.

2. Jesus Christ's twelve disciples were all male.

3. His female partner was a prostitute. He had no children with her. There is no record of them sleeping together.

4. Clearly Jesus was happy in male company and treated all people as equal participants in his faith.

5. The office or rank of bishop must be called a "bishopric" for a reason !!!!!

Modernise or die; it is as much a motto for the church as it is for business.

period commencing 2 August 2003

How flying home ruins a vacation

August 4 2003

The motto of the airline industry - "we are not happy until you are not happy" - was all too apparent on today's Cathay Pacific flight from Vancouver to Hong Kong.

With a scheduled departure of 2.55pm a check in time of 12.30pm gave us plenty of time. Wishful thinking. The plane was Cathay's new A340-600; the flight was full and only two desks were open to check in Economy passengers.

After 50 minutes we got to the desk. There were many, many people in a long queue behind us. "We have reserved you two seats at the side" said the smiling Irene T. "Row 67 A and C." I asked if these were at the back and near a washroom. Never, ever sit by the washroom on a long haul flight. "Oh, its a few rows in front" she said re-assuringly.

Take off was late at about 4.30pm. Row 67 is the very last row and is right in front of the washroom. This has the noisiest flush that you ever heard; it sounds like an explosion. When someone flushes and opens the door at the same time you must be able to hear it on the ground. There will be no sleep.

Dear Cathay Pacific; how about a big sign that says please leave the door closed while you flush !!

Their are only 5 cabin crew in economy. For some 240 passengers.

The man in 67D has started to stand up and fart; the noxious, gaseous variety. And there is still almost 8 hours to go !! I had to ask one of the crew to discourage him.

I had a great vacation; until 12.30pm today I was quite relaxed. I will need valium when I get to HKG.

And a reminder to myself; an email to the management of Vancouver airport. In return for the C$15 airport improvement fee they might at least make some effort to clean the washrooms. The mens' washroom at the international gates smelled like a sewer and you needed waders to get close to the urinals. And that sadly was my final impression of Vancouver. A sad and lingering memory !

About five hours out of Hong Kong and I need a little sleep. Forget it. There is a woman talking to one of the crew behind us. She has a voice that suggests she is competing with the Hong Kong City Hall dim sum crowd in a Sunday rush hour. I got up; asked them if they could lower the volume. Sat down, and they carried right on. So I asked again rather less politely. The crew member should know better.

It was a most unpleasant flight and will be my last Cathy flight for as long as possible !

Was the Iraq war justified?

August 3 2003

This will be the sort of question posed in history examinations in the 22nd century. And the students will by then have the proof of history to support their analysis.

This writer, at the eleventh hour argued that the war was inevitable and that Tony Blair at least should have our support: this is what I wrote back on March 18, 2003:

"Whatever our personal views about war; whatever our personal views about the US and its leadership Blair deserves a fair hearing and our support.

He could have sat by and done nothing. This is the Canadian approach as expressed yesterday by Jean Chretien. This will cost Canada dearly in its future dealings with the USA. Politically this will not harm the liberals. But I hope that Canada does not need US support for any cause in the near future.

He could have taken the French approach; saying "non" whatever the circumstances or evidence. Chirac's position is hugely popular with domestic voters; but it is political expediency without any underlying moral decency.

But Blair has stuck to principles of fundamental decency - of right and wrong. He clearly believes in the cause and the objectives. He is taking the most difficult of decisions that any leader faces; people will die; he will not sleep easily; but he should sleep knowing that he has been true to himself.

The trouble is that no one really believes George Bush. It has to do with his appearance; his words; his background; his friends; his business contacts. The trouble is people don't want the world's one superpower to be able to dictate what our world should look like.

But the peace demonstrators are in many cases missing the point. The demonstrations are too easily hijacked by those people who are scared of US power and influence. So the demonstrations become anti US platforms. They should be protesting outside the Iraqi consulates and asking why have you not disarmed yet as you said you would?"

However, weapons of mass destruction have not been found and at least some of the intelligence presented to support the war is looking less than intelligent. This must be at a minimum causing embarrassment and some anguish to Tony Blair, who I still believe to be a fundamentally decent man.

In Canada the war is seen rather differently. In large part because of the love-hate relationship that Canadians have with the United States. When a Canadian MP publicly called Bush a moron she was echoing views widely held across the country. But she is a politician. American bashing is a vote winner in Canada. Sadly. And there is a real danger of confusing the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war with good old fashioned US bashing. Canada is stuck with the US; it cannot live with them and it cannot live without them !

Back to my initial question which has to be answered.

Yes the war remains justified; but it needs massive investment and understanding to ensure a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.

For those who were already convinced before the war began that it was unjustified their arguments have been re-enforced by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Those people, me included, who accepted that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were a threat, must admit to feeling undermined that none have been found, and perhaps a little concerned at the wider implications. They could still be found; these weapons are often small and the country is large; but clearly the weapons were not widely deployed for use during the war. Clearly there was no weapons ready for launch within 45 minutes.

For those who believed war was necessary they find support in the short, sharp war, the lack of mass casualties, the absence of humanitarian disaster and the fact that there was no wide spread anti-American uprising in the Arab world.

Why was the war necessary; Saddam had to be removed. The Iraqi leader had toyed with UN inspectors for a decade. UN resolution 1441 gave him a final opportunity to make a complete declaration. He did not account for the chemical and nuclear weapons that the UN knew that he had as recently as 1998. Only the threat of military action would force him to change. And I suspect Saddam truly believed that a divided UN would protect him.

But there is more to the justification of war than were or were there not weapons of mass destruction.

In 1991 Saddam signed an agreement after the first Iraq War that within one year he would get rid of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, to eliminate his ballistic weapons and to cease the weapons development programmes. UN inspectors showed that at least 3,900 litres of the deadly nerve agent, VX, were subsequently produced. The inspectors withdrew in 1998, and were then barred from returning. Saddam was told in November 2002 under UN resolution 1441 what he had to do to comply. His failure to do so required action. The UN were clear that he did not comply with 1441, either in his vast formal declaration or in the inspections process. Without action the international community looks weak and divided.

Could the US and Britain have waited maybe until the fall and allowed the UN to pass and try to enforce further resolutions? That was just what Saddam wanted; more procrastination. The UN process too often falls apart with delays and divisions among the members; and what right the French have to a power of veto in the security council is a mystery. They abused their global responsibility in favour of domestic electioneering and their Iraqi business dealings.

Saddam had faced containment, sanctions and inspections for twelve years. It really was time to stop the charade.

The justification for the war will be supported in large part by the shape the country takes over the next five to ten years. The US and Britain both argue their intent to make the country and the region more peaceful, more prosperous and less threatening in the future.

US credibility will come from a commitment to staying to build a secure and stable country but also through leaving when power is handed over to a government run by and for the people of Iraq. It is a long term commitment. America can do this; they have shown a fifty year commitment to South Korea. It is costly; but if it succeeds then the world has much to be grateful for; even the Canadians might acknowledge that.

Saddam has a proven record of developing, using and concealing weapons of mass destruction. He has fought Iran in the 1980s, invaded Kuwait in 1990, and threatened Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait again. No wonder there was a collective sigh of relief when Baghdad fell. He was (still is) a dangerous man; in his hands these weapons can pose a real threat to regional peace and through the power of dominance of the worlds' oil reserves to the rest of the world.

Toronto - back and booming

August 3 2003

It took the Rolling Stones to revitalise Toronto. To send out a personal message that the city is back and booming. And with the sorry exceptions of the Argos and the Blue Jays, it is booming. On July 31, 2003 the Rolling Stones took to the stage at Downsview Park in front of over 400,000 people. Sure other bands had played during the day including AC/Dc and Rush and my old favourites, Blue Rodeo. But the crowd were there for the Stones. That the Stones interrupted their European tour to come to Toronto says a lot about the band and the fact that there seems to be mutual admiration between the city and the band.

The Stones maybe also wanted to show that they can still headline a massive concert on this scale. After all Mick Jagger turned 60 last week. At about $20 a ticket this was the way to get the people back to the city. Elitist golf tournaments are not the answer. It needed scale and the common touch to awake the city from a SARS induced depression.

And it is true. The city is booming; maybe too much so for the good of the residents. New migration to the city is running at some 100,000 a year. The city is spreading ever further North, East and West. New condos and housing developments are everywhere. The west side of downtown driven by the presence of the Skydome (Blue Jays) and the Air Canada Centre (Maple Leafs) is the night time playground of the city; bars restaurants, clubs, late night bookstores, cafes. Other parts of the city are seeing similar redevelopment, such as west of Spadina and the distillery area on the east side of downtown.

Whether the infrastructure can keep up is another matter. Traffic is slower and busier than ever. There has not been a new bus or tram in years. The train service is limited. Public services get held to ransom by labour unions.

But in summer it is a fine place to visit. The waterfront is busy; their are big name concerts almost nightly in the city, hanging baskets everywhere, enough rain to keep things green, cafes pour out onto the sidewalks. And one of the world's most cosmopolitan populations takes to the streets. Go and visit; hotels are cheap, there are great restaurants, great golf, fine museums, decent theatre, and the Muskoka Lakes two hours to the North.

The record breaking six years of Tony Blair

August 2 2003

After some six years and three months Tony Blair today overtakes Clement Attlee as leader of the longest uninterrupted Labour government.

Attlee's Labour party was elected in 1945 by an exhausted and bankrupt nation replacing Winston Churchill's wartime government and with a mandate to drag Britain out of the rubble that was the war. Attlee incidentally went to my old school. At least one of Blair's Labour MPs is from that same school.

The facts of Britain in 1945 were daunting. A quarter of a million war dead. Half a million bomb-ruined houses in London alone. The empire that Churchill had been determined to save on the edge of collapse. And looming bankruptcy.

Many of the policy challenges of today are the same as they were amid the bombsites and orange ration books. "Social justice and economic efficiency" was a goal then as now. And critically, consider the timing, what should its foreign policy alignment be, closer to the US or to Europe?

Attlee's government responded with a policy of nationalisation, modernisation and welfare, in particular of the NHS.

Roll on to 2003 and Tony Blair enters the history books but there is no party at No. 10 Downing St., the official residence of Britain's prime ministers.

The early successes and the resounding electoral wins of Blair's transformed party have been tarnished by debate over the Iraq war, Labor infighting over his domestic policies and the suicide of defense adviser David Kelly. Lord Hutton, the judge heading the inquiry into Kelly's death, said Friday that Blair would be called to testify.

Blair insists he has the will to carry on. At the age of 50 he is 18 years younger than Attlee when the Conservatives returned to power in 1951.

Blair rebranded his "New Labor'' party. He courted big business and middle class voters, promising a reformed welfare state driven by a free market economy. He turned his back on many of Labor's hallowed but vote-losing socialist policies, such as state ownership of key industries.

The result was a landslide election victory May 2, 1997, which (thankfully) ended 18 years of Conservative Party rule. A second big win came four years later, and Labor holds 409 of the 659 seats in Parliament.

Labour governments have been rare in Britain. Harold Wilson served longer, but his total of seven years, 279 days, was split between governments in 1964-70 and 1974-76.

Blair would need one more election victory to challenge Margaret Thatcher's 20th century record of 11 years, 209 days in office as a Conservative prime minister. Elections will have to be held by June 2006.

Blair is still the favorite to win a third election if he stays Labor leader. There is no precedent for a government with such a big Parliament majority losing an election, and Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith is hardly turning the Conservative party fortunes around. Indeed it would be a surprise if Duncan Smith led the next election campaign for the Tories.

In Blair's first term, the government set up regional parliaments in Wales and Scotland, and after years of conflict it brokered the terms of a peace process in Northern Ireland.

It expelled most of the hereditary members of the House of Lords, though it still hasn't settled on a new method for appointing or electing members. Blair has put off a decision on joining the European Union's common currency.

In the US he he admired; and a joint session of Congress stood and applauded him on July 17. But that wont protect him at home.

In Britain, taxes have risen, but voters are still waiting to see significant improvements in the ailing public health service and decrepit transport system. Trade unions claim Labour has abandoned its working class roots and are scaling back on financial support.

Blair's strong support for President Bush over the Iraq war angered many Labour lawmakers, and strained ties with European partners. Two vocal Cabinet members (Robin Cook and Claire Short) resigned in opposition to the war.

The suicide of Kelly, the source of a British Broadcasting Corporation report claiming the government exaggerated the danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, has tarnished the government. The coalition's failure to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is also damaging Blair; it was his personal conviction that reassured many that the war was necessary as he made that threat the prime justification for war.

A poll published last month said two-thirds of Britons believe Blair misled them on the case for war.

Blair is helped hugely by an inept opposition; and by the fact that the opposition also argues the need for a war in Iraq.

But he needs to start winning respect and trust at home. He is the British Priminister not the US President. Maybe, like Attlee before him, he needs to strongly consider where his overseas allegiances are best placed.

The exploitation of Saddam's sons

1 August 2003

The big news from Iraq in the last two weeks was that Saddam's two sons were slaughtered and then put on public display. This was a moment from the middle ages. In Britain, traitors were taken to the Tower of London, beheaded, and their heads stuck like trophies on a spike pour encourager les autres !!What has changed in 600 years?

Of course the sons would never have surrendered to the Americans; but when the US knew where the sons were they could have at least made some attempt at their capture. I am sure there would have been more than a few willing interrogators to help ask questions. Indeed the two sons might even have known where their father was. Since the US does not seem to know !

The media treatment was rank hypocrisy. Show an American POW on TV and the US cries that it is in breach of the Geneva convention. But showing the mutilated bodies of the Iraqi leader's two sons was somehow permissable?

And were they really Saddam's sons? The pictures were unrecognisable. So they US brought in the morticians to remodel their faces and prove that you really can do anything with plastic surgery. So maybe they remodelled strangers into the two sons. Who knows? But the conspiracy theorists are having a great time!! And no one trust the US to tell the truth.

from 13 July 2003

Tung tied

17 July 2003

As this website has advocated for some time Anthony Leung and Regina Ip have done the only decent thing; they have both resigned from Tung Chee-hwa's cabinet in Hong Kong.

Predictably Tung missed a terrific opportunity to show that he was in control and to send a positive message to the people of Hong Kong.

It was all so unplanned and unco-ordinated. Regina Ip, was first to go as she quit as the Security Secretary; then a couple of hours later came Leung's resignation as Financial Secretary.

Ip was a very unpopular minsister; Leung has been dis-credited ever since his ill-judged car purchase.

Tung could have announced the resignation of both, at the same time, as part of a cabinet reshuffle, and with their replacements already to take over. The he would have looked in good control.

But no ! And worse still he paid a flowing tribute to both ministers; when really he should have been distancing himself from them. This would have been a good time to quietly welcome their departure; it was the wrong time to express regret at their respective decisions.

Removing Ip and Leung from the cabinet would have been a decisive action and a positive response to the recent protests in Hong Kong. People would have applauded. Instead they have removed themselves.

Instead of a carefully thought out cabinet reshuffle Tung is now left without two of the most senior members of his cabinet.

Finding new talent willing to join this failing cabinet, and willing to pledge their reputations to work for an ineffective and un-respected leader, is a hard task indeed. This government needs new life; there are great economic and political challenges ahead, and security laws to be implemented. New life and new talent needs new leadership. Hong Kong is a great city; its people deserve better leaders.

George Bush's too safe safari

14 July 2003

I have to confess to some serious reservations about George Bush's whistle-stop tour around the friendlier (to the USA anyway) African states.

Africa - a continent of wonders and history, of heartbreak and promise. Of four nights in Africa Bush spent three staying at a luxury hotel in the very dull city of Pretoria. Hopping about the Continent on Air Force 1, he spent six hours in each of Botswana and Senegal and a few hours in Uganda and Nigeria. No doubt his security advisors limited his agenda on this trip but that probably suited him.

What was this trip and will something of real substance come from it? At the heart of the trip is still American self protection. Africa's failed states offer real and potential homes to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Africa is not about quick fixes. In Africa you chip away at the problems bit by bit. Quick fixes and massive once off aid packages are not the solution.

If the USA is to seriously engage Africa over time the economic imbalance between the countries has to change. If we look at the balance of payments for Sub-Saharan Africa, there is an annual net drain of more than $12 billion dollars out of the region. This is about 4.4 percent of the region's income, one of the highest such transfers from South to North in the world. It is mostly debt service.

Some of the world's poorest countries are transferring a large amount of their income – even after taking into account the new loans and grants that they get for development assistance – to the vastly richer North. This includes their biggest creditors, the IMF and World Bank. The transfer is more than these countries spend for health care or education.

This debt could be cancelled.

As Bush is well aware, Africa is suffering from a horrible plague – 29 million Africans have AIDS or are HIV-positive. With only about 12 percent of the world's population, the continent has 90 percent (11 million) of the world's AIDS orphans. And about 1.5 million Africans die each year from tuberculosis and malaria.

On the public health front, President Bush has received credit for pledging $15 billion over five years to help treat and prevent AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. But there are doubts about how much of this money is going to materialize, and when. Congress is already pushing for budget cuts and Bush will have to fight hard to protect this commitment.

To put this money into perspective, Donald Rumsfield (no less) recently estimated that the US burn rate to maintain a military presence in Iraq is US1 billion a week. That excludes any costs for the rebuilding of Iraq.

The real value of Bush's AIDS support will only be of greatest value if it is made a part of a detailed and influence free international programme that will last for a decade or more. The fact that this is not consistent with western political cycles and elections is an issue in itself.

The Bush Administration's efforts are also corrupted by the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. The big drug companies, backed by the US government, have fought tenaciously for years to prevent people in poor countries from having access to more affordable, generic drugs. This is a life-and- death issue for millions of people: the drugs that keep people with HIV/AIDS alive here cost $10,000 per year, but the Indian pharmaceutical industry produces the generic equivalent for less than $250. And it is not just AIDS that afflicts people in poor countries: They also get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and many other ailments that are common to human beings.

And remember also that anything that is done for Africa needs to be extended through all developing nations.

Bush is basically saying to Africa that if you no not embrace the forces of terror we will help. On both sides this will have to be a long term engagement. One thought; with two African Americans in his cabinet, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, it may just be that this trip was more than a photo-op.

The Greatest Briton

13 July 2003

A friend and I both suffering from a very dull day posed the ultimate trivia question - name three famous Belgians. It is not an original question; indeed a very patriotic web site exists at http://www.famousbelgians.net/. I might have got Rubens and George Simenon eventually.

In the meantime the BBC is canvassing global opinion to name the greatest Briton. They have a shortlist of 10. But even the shortlist is controversial. And what on earth is the late Diana, Princess of Wales doing on that list?

Just a few of the exclusions:

James Cook, Graham Alexander Bell, Sir Francis Drake, Guy Fawkes, Robin Hood, John Milton, Sir Thomas More, Emmeline Paknkhurst, Robert Owen, The Duke of Wellington, Charlie Chaplin (yes he was born in England!), Sir Bobby Moore, Wally Hammond.....and just to wind up the Aussies, Douglas Jardine !!

The BBC list is as follows;

Great Britons

The 10 contenders were shortlisted out of a potential 100 by popular vote in the UK, where the series was recently broadcast.

They are :

Charles Darwin (1809 - 82)
There were many theories of evolution before Darwin. His big idea, the development of species through natural selection, based on exhaustive observation and experiment, introduced the rigour of true science into a field overgrown with uninformed speculation – though his theories are still challenged by religious fundamentalists.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806 - 59)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel built the biggest ship, and the fastest railways, of the Victorian era. His visionary engineering pushed technology up to and sometimes beyond contemporary limits. In confronting mechanical and human problems he displayed creative thinking, physical and moral courage, professional integrity and private generosity.

Diana, Princess of Wales (1961 - 97)
The debate on Diana’s significance has been stimulated afresh. Many have noticed a greater emotional range across the Royal Family’s public appearances and statements, ascribed to Diana’s example. Others continue to appreciate the sincerity of her commitment to the underprivileged and the skill of her management of a powerful and beautiful image.

Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658)
A brilliant military organiser, trainer and battlefield commander during the English Civil Wars, he dominated subsequent political developments. Having led the move to try and execute King Charles I, he became Head of State as Lord Protector. His regime became increasingly personal, even monarchical. His son Richard succeeded him briefly and disastrously.

Horatio Nelson, Viscount Nelson (1758 - 1805)
Nelson was Britain’s most successful naval commander in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Already a national celebrity, his death at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 assured his immortality. His vulnerable humanity, evidenced by his spectacular love affair with Emma Hamilton, has made him a flesh and blood rather than a marble hero.

William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616)
The rich texture of his language and the breadth and subtlety of his understanding of the human condition continue to render Shakespeare the most performed and studied playwright in the world.

Elizabeth I (1533 - 1603)
Elizabeth I was an expert both in the substance and performance of power and monarchy. Her defiance of Catholic Spain consolidated England as a Protestant nation state. She never married, and although relying on experienced male advisers, projected female independence through the Virgin Queen imagery.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727)
Newton’s work on gravity explained, in rational rather than theological terms, the forces controlling the equilibrium of the universe. This made him the intellectual godfather of the British Enlightenment, whose leaders enshrined his reputation during the eighteenth century. Although some of his science has been superseded, he remains an exemplary figure.

Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
Churchill found the destiny he had marked out for himself as Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945. His colleagues admired his courage and vision, but were exasperated by his irregular working habits. His words evoked for the nation the triumphs of its past and the truculent, principled defiance, laced with eccentric humour, of its present.

John Lennon (1940-80)
John Lennon's raw energy created The Beatles, but their achievements left him unfulfilled. Having found his personal and artistic soul mate in Yoko Ono, he broke up the group and began an influential career as musician, artist and political activist. After a period as house husband, he was assassinated on the verge of another phase of productivity.

The choice is yours - and you can vote on the BBC's web site at www.bbcworld.com/vote. And just in case you care - my vote goes to.....Charles Darwin. He changed forever the way that we view the origins of our planet and our species.

period commencing 2 July 2003

Hong Kong's crisis and Beijing's dilemma

9 July 2003

In a land where saving face is ingrained in the culture have no doubts how much face Tung Chee-hwa has lost.

And the speed with which he has been dumped by his erstwhile allies in the Liberal Party and the the

Tung has withdrawn the proposed security legislation that was demanded by Beijing. In doing so he has undermined his authority and embarrassed his master in Beijing who hand-picked him for the Chief Executive's role in Hong Kong.

It is a massive victory for all the decent, hard working and articulate people of Hong Kong. It is a vote for reason and common sense. It is a belated acknowledgement that the people have a right to be heard and that their concerns deserve attention.

In demanding that the puppet government (that is what it was) push through the security legislation Beijing clearly misread the mood of the people of Hong Kong. Beijing has woken up to the fact that the people of Hong Kong are not as compliant as the mainland Chinese and that they cannot be bullied into submission.

What Beijing does next will say much about the future relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong and much about their commitment to one country, two systems.

In a western democracy, the government of Hong Kong would have massively lost a no confidence vote; and election would be held and a new government elected. Hong Kong is now rudderless. The Chief Executive has seen his first officers scurry away into their political lifeboats. He is left on the bridge, maybe with the faithful and foolish Regina IP, and they will be the last to leave. The biggest hope is that they do not go down with the ship.

After all the collapse of the security act and the clear statement of independence and confidence by the people could be just the shot in the arm that Hong Kong needs to bring foreign confidence and investment back into Hong Kong.

Will China replace Mr. Tung? The Basic Law makes no provision for a leader to step down mid term other than allowing him to resign for "ill-health or other reasons". But this will embarrass China's leaders who have publicly stood by and praised Mr. Tung.

And what precedent does this outburst of public disaffection set for the mainland. Suddenly it appears that at least in Hong Kong people want a greater say in how they are governed. Maybe one of the results of the SARS outbreak is people have discovered that there is more to living life than making money.

My guess is that in three to six months Tung Chee-hwa will be too ill to continue in office. He will get a nice fat pension and retire. It is far less clear who would replace him. His successor will then pass a significantly watered down anti subversion law early in 2004.

One lesson that the people of Hong Kong have learned now is that they can make a difference and they can cause change to happen. They should never be under-estimated again. Theirs has been a wake-up call not just to Hong Kong and China but a call that could reverberate around Asia.

The People Have Spoken

Christine Loh is CEO of the Hong Kong think tank, www.civic-exchange.org. this is her newsletter from 2 July 2003.

Dear Subscribers & Friends,

It's official - at least 500,000 Hong Kong people took to the streets yesterday to protest against the government's Article 23 national security legislation, which it wants to pass on 9 July. The people are now waiting for an official response and they are tuning in for that today. The people has one key message for the Tung Chee-hwa Administration: "Listen us us".

A. "We were there"

(a) 1.30 pm: Crowds began to gather at Victoria Park. Christian groups had a massive prayer session to pray for the well being of Hong Kong.

(b) 2.15 pm: Crowds started to swell. In anticipation of large numbers, people met at various corners in and around the park.

(c) 3 pm: The march started on time and by shortly after 4 pm, the front reached Central Government Offices - the end point.

(d) 7.30 pm: The last protesters left Victoria Park.

(e) 9.45 pm: The protest ended with organizers declaring at least 500,000 people had marched. The police has not contradicted that number.

B. Significant Aspects

(a) Peaceful: To have had 500,000 moving along Hong Kong's narrow streets on a sweltering day, including people having to stand around for hours before being able to move forward, protesters were peaceful, polite and in good cheer. Protesters expected no trouble as many brought their young children.

(b) Sea of black: Organziers suggested protesters to wear black. Many people did - a sign that people wanted to show unity of purpose.

(c) Official counter strategy: The government organized celebratory events of the 6th anniversary of Hong Kong's reunification with China. For example, the government allowed free entry to public indoor sports facilities e.g. swimming pools and museums; 10,000 people could go to watch movies for free; and free meals were served.

(d) Unofficial counter strategy: The political party, DAB, booked space at Victoria Park to have soccer matches and a reunification carnival.

(e) Unexpected numbers: No one expected 500,000 protesters. The highest estimate prior to the march was 250,000 but most people stuck to 100,000. By mid-afternoon, CNN reported 200,000; by 6 pm, the organizers thought there were 350,000; but as more people were still starting off and more joined in mid-way, it became clear that the number was going to be much bigger by the end.

(f) Parting comments: Premier Wen Jiabao left Hong Kong before the protest started so he would not know how many showed up until evening. His departing words may prove to be precient:

" The future of Hong Kong will be created by the people of Hong Kong themselves".

"At the moment, the most important requirements are understanding, trust and unity".

"We hope our Hong Kong compatriots will treasure the opportunity to become the masters of their homeland."

"The SAR Government has accummulated precious experience over the past 6 years. It has developed its wisdom and capability to tackle complex political situations".

"The enactment of Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong will never affect all kinds of rights and freedoms which the Hong Kong people."

(g) Deafening official silence: The HKSAR Government and its top officials have yet to say anything about the protest.

C. Analysis - "Can you hear us now?"

(a) Not a social gathering: The protest was clearly a political event. Hong Kong's secretary for security said a few days ago that marchers were going to a "social" gathering on a public holiday. That statement was a sign of disconnect between those in power and the people.

(b) Sign of disconnect: The DAB and the pro-government bodies' attempt to counter the protest by booking a section of Victoria Park knowing that people were going to gather there for a massive protest was also a sign of disconnect between them and a very large number of Hong Kong people. Did they feel a sense of "unreality" about what they were doing? The DAB and the Liberal Party are a part of the ruling coalition with the Tung Administration - when and how will they assess what happened yesterday?

(c) Deep and wide discontent: The 6th year is also the end of the first year of the 2nd term of office of the chief executive Tung Chee-hwa. The protest poses an interesting question for the Central People's Government (CPG) in Beijing: did you properly assess the 1st term of office? The CPG supported Tung for a 2nd term and made it clearly its wishes quite publicly in 2001. Now that there is a new leadership in Beijing, there is urgency for national leaders to better understand Hong Kong.

(d) No alternative to protest: Did the Hong Kong's ministers meet last night urgently to discuss how to respond to the protest? If not, they remain politically insensitive. If they did, they decided not to publish a statement last night. So, when will they respond? In Hong Kong, where the government is un-elected, on an issue such as Article 23 legislation when so many people are unhappy, people feel there is no alternative but to protest. The CPG should watch whether the Tung Administration can indeed handle this new crisis with "wisdom".

(e) Hong Kong people's character: Hong Kong people have shown themselves to be incredibly mature, patient and well behaved.

These characteristics were displayed during the SARS crisis, and again yesterday. Hong Kong people are not politically passive or politically immature. They could gather and show force in a completely peaceful and orderly manner. They continued to ask for their voices to be heard. The international media must not mistaken the lack of disorderly behaviour as passivity or discount the importance of the protest because it was not a riot.

(f) Political milestone?: The protest was a political milestone, like the protest of June 4, 1989 where a million people took to the street. Such events are defining moments for society because they change the public psyche. Yesterday was a sign of self-empowerment and self- respect for Hong Kong people. It's impact will reach far and wide over time.

CHRISTINE LOH

Civic Exchange - Hong Kong's independent think tank

www.civic-exchange.org

Get out, be heard, speak up while you still can

Protest in Hong Kong on 1 July 2003

30 June 2003

On July 1, the sixth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, there will be the biggest demonstration to date against the new security laws being proposed by the government of Hong Kong under Article 23 of the basic law, and likely to be passed into legislation on July 9 2003.

Perhaps the most telling reason to condemn this new legislation is the wave of protests that have been raised through professional and religious groups. Many of Hong Kong's' most articulate, educated and thoughtful people see the potential damage that this legislation can cause, and understand how its provisions can be used to muzzle their own voices and to take away their freedoms.

Academics. journalists, church representatives, lawyers, human rights representatives have all articulated their concerns and will be at the forefront of the protests.

For the business tycoons who run Hong Kong and who dominate its unelected government this legislation is a part of their duty to China and continues to smooth the way for their trading links and investments. These people are too busy making money to understand the potential dangers of this unhappy legislation.

If you are in Hong Kong and have any love for the city and its people you should join this protest on 1 July.

Timetable of Events:

June 27 - Members of the Democratic Party start a 100-hour hunger strike

June 28-29 - Exhibition, anti-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa T-shirt sale, and publicity for the march around Hong Kong

July 1 - Prayer gathering at 1.30pm in Victoria Park hosted by Catholic and Protestant groups

July 1 - 100,000 are expected to march from Victoria Park to the Central Government Offices at 3pm

July 7-9 - Representatives of the Federation of Students to hold a sit-in and hunger strike outside Legco

July 9 - The National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill will be put to a vote in Legco

July 11 - Catholic and Protestant groups hold 7.30pm gathering outside Legco to pray for the future after the enactment of the bill

July 13 - More than 50 groups to hold a democracy rally in Central, calling for universal suffrage to elect the chief executive and Legco in 2007 and 2008 respectively

Hong Kong's flawed law

Editorial; The Guardian, 30 June 2003

Hong Kong has faded from Britian's horizon since it returned to China - in spite of all the pledges that we would "never forget". The only story to attract attention recently has been the dismal one of Sars. Tomorrow, on the sixth anniversary of the July 1 1997 handover, tens of thousands of Hong Kongers will demonstrate on an issue requiring Britain's closest attention - the anti-subversion law that is about to be driven through the mostly unelected legislative council.

No one denies that, under article 23 of China's "Basic Law", Hong Kong will have to legislate against subversion, sedition and other such acts against the state. Yet although the Basic Law says that Hong Kong should do so "on its own", senior Hong Kong officials admit that both its timing and content have been agreed in advance with Beijing.

The most worrying clause requires the government to proscribe any group found to be linked to an already proscribed mainland organisation. The obvious example is the Falun Gong sect, already banned on the mainland where it is claimed, ludicrously, to be a threat to national security.

There are few illusions that Hong Kong's secretary for security, if asked to proscribe the Falun Gong's local chapter, would dissent from that demand. Another provision banning the disclosure of "state secrets" causes particular concern for Hong Kong's media, which has become more vulnerable to pressure since the handover. The government has rejected calls for a public interest defence to be allowed.

Chief executive Tung Chee-hwa is already deeply unpopular as a result of the Sars crisis, which he initially played down so as not to point the finger at China's own cover-up. More than 70 % in a University of Hong Kong poll believe that Mr Tung has listened more to Beijing than to his own people in rushing ahead with the new legislation. He has also back-pedalled on initiating the "political review" which many hope will lead to fully democratic elections before the end of the decade.

The new anti-subversion bill, if passed as it stands, will do nothing to encourage international confidence in Hong Kong's future. It also violates the principle behind the 1984 Sino-British agreement that Hong Kong's rule of law should remain unchanged. Britain, which has much better relations with China now than before, should say so clearly.

Repression in Hong Kong

International Herald Tribune 28 June 2003

Taking advantage of preoccupation in Hong Kong with the SARS epidemic, the territory's pro-Beijing government has been pushing along a noxious national security bill that would leave the territory vulnerable to the sort of political repression common on the Communist mainland. It may be too late to block the law, which looks likely to pass on July 9. But it should be made clear to Beijing that nobody buys its justifications for this repressive measure.

The measure, known as Article 23, deals with treason, sedition, subversion and the theft of state secrets, and includes provisions that would enable the Hong Kong government to crack down on organizations deemed to be linked to any that are banned in China, such as Falun Gong. That would seriously erode the autonomy that the former British colony was promised when it came under China's rule six years ago under the formula of "one country, two systems."

Some governments, including the United States and Canada, have already protested, as have many human-rights organizations, prompting predictable squawks from Beijing against meddling in its internal affairs. That can hardly be said of opponents in Hong Kong, who turned out in the tens of thousands on the 14th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising, and now plan an even larger protest against Article 23 for July 1, the anniversary of the turnover of Hong Kong. The resistance draws on an expanding coalition of human-rights groups, independent politicians, trade unions, journalists, academics and students. They have correctly identified the bill as a challenge to their autonomy and fundamental freedoms, and as an attempt to impose China's arbitrary legal system on Hong Kong through the back door.

China argues that Article 23 is not much different from the laws of some democratic states. That may be so, but democratic societies have checks and balances that China and other Communist states do not; in the latter, national security laws have long been a primary tool for silencing critics and subverting freedoms. The fate of Falun Gong is but one example. Another is SARS: Under the new law, the dogged newspapers of Hong Kong might have been forced into the same disgraceful and dangerous silence as the mainland press.

China's rulers have also portrayed Article 23 as a critical test of national sovereignty. It is really an assault on the freedoms they promised to respect in Hong Kong for 50 years. Even if the bill cannot be stopped, it should be widely exposed and condemned for the repressive measure it really is.

period commencing 16 June 2003

Last orders

27 June 2003

I was never a Margaret Thatcher fan. I need to say that up front. And thankfully I never voted for her. But her husband Dennis Thatcher died yesterday. For over 40 years of marriage he remained throughout her greatest supporter.

He may have played a supporting role but he was well enough known to have a column written in gentle fun in Private Eye and to have a long running English theatre comedy named after him.

I was greatly touched by Simon Hoggart's final paragraphs in the Guardian in memory of Dennis Thatcher:

"He (Dennis Thatcher) once said: "For 40 years I have been married to one of the greatest women the world has ever produced. All I could give - small as it may be - was love and loyalty."

Now that support has gone. She is succumbing to what used to be known as senility, and is nowadays usually called Alzheimer's. Her short-term memory is fading rapidly. Friends find her decline almost too painful to watch.

Denis would have been there to the end; Nancy to her Ronald Reagan. It is almost impossible for us to realise how distraught and bereft she now will be."
It is sad to see anyone as forceful as Margaret Thatcher succumb to Alzheimer's and the passage of time. It is sadder to know how much her loss must hurt.

Taking Stock

23 June 2003

At what point in our lives should we take a deep breath and carry out our own personal evaluation? And how do you carry out an audit of your life and of your personal well-being; what are the evaluation criteria, what were the objectives that were set for you; what are the measurements of success or otherwise; what or who are the comparisons against whom your performance is judged.

I have never asked my parents what they expected of me. I am not even sure if they have thought about that either. Maybe I should ask them and maybe they should wonder for themselves what they wanted from me.

I have never been good at setting personal targets or at new year resolutions. Is that laziness or just a reality.

And I don't want to give away too much that is personal here. Some of my readers know me well and they can, and in some cases have, formed their own views on what I have done well and where I have let myself and others down.

Others, who do not know me, may get a sense of what I believe in from this web site. But do I do enough to support the things that I believe in? Probably not !

One important discovery is that you cannot undo what you have done; and you will never really know all the consequences of anything that you do, or perversely anything that you do not do. One action or inaction can cause a cascade of events which are not in any way predictable. And events play out over time; you have to be very patient to navigate through this complicated world.

A friend of mine gave me a blessing box; and has encouraged me to take this list out of the box when I need to be reminded of why I am here. I was surprised at how long it was! It would be too easy and too damning to produce the opposite - what is the opposite to a blessing; counting your losses, licking your wounds, crying over spilt milk.

I have always liked to think that I am younger than my age - that I look younger, act younger (this is not always a good thing), move quicker, stay active, think faster; after a little bit of necessary but rather invasive surgery a couple of weeks ago, I have been feeling as though I have aged twenty years! I have been moving so slowly, if at all. I have been aching in all the wrong places. Suddenly and maybe for the first time in my life, I have felt old.

It is quite an alarming discovery, especially when I sense that I am dealing with it largely on my own.

When I do think about my life it strikes me that I have always been in motion. Moving to another place, a different school or different work. I was nomadic as a child; and I have always been bad at keeping contact with people as I move on. There are no contacts from school or university and few from my life in the UK or Canada. I think what happens is that I get sucked into my new work and the new place that I am living in. That consumes me; and I lose contact with my past. I don't especially recommend this to anyone. Most people have a sense of home; somewhere where they can retreat to and know that they are comfortable, loved and provided for.

I thought I had found a home; and to some extent I still do. At least I can say that I have a bright, maybe brilliant, funny, bold, gentle, loving son. That is not a bad legacy. But he does not live with me. We do not have a home that we share. Regrets, yes. But I do have a responsibility to now make the best of the situation that I am in. My only question is the best for who?

This is all a bit to deep, personal and serious. But sometimes what is in the heart needs to be written. The joy of being the writer and the editor is that I can delete this at any time.

Same sex marriages in Canada

18 June 2003

The Federal Government in Canada has determined that it will not appeal rulings from the Courts of Appeal in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec that declared the present legal definition of marriage to be unconstitutional.

The government is now rapidly drafting legislation that will change the country's long-standing traditional definition of marriage. There will be a free vote in parliament this fall to vote on the proposed bill.

Canada will become the third country in the world to give same sex unions the status of traditional marriages.

The world has changed; and it is right that Canada takes the lead in a changing world. In a generation's time no-one will blink an eye at the thought of same-sex unions. I accept that for many people marriage is a union between a man and a woman and at the heart of the traditional family.

But the traditional family is a thing of the past; marriages fail; extended families are created through separation, second (and more) marriages, adoption, single parenthood. Same-sex relationships have all the strength of a heterosexual relationship; often they are stronger as they have fought with adversity and perception. And why should they not adopt and bring up kids in a warm and loving environment.

Any established couple that are happy to pledge themselves together deserve all of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. They should have the same right as any married couple to declare themselves as married on tax forms, credit and mortgage applications, passports

I have one reservation; lets not make this a big in your face issue; lets just get on with celebrating life in all of its forms and all of its pleasures.

There is a picture in today's Globe and Mail of Mark Eisenhardt and Erik Kulleseid; they have two daughters, a Manhattan co-op and a Chrysler mini-van. Despite their fourteen years together they do not have a marriage certificate. Good luck to them !

period commencing 2 June 2003

Fathers' Day...all alone !

15 June 2003

During the last year of writing this web site I have, for the most part, avoided discussing personal issues.

But today is the first father's day that I have been living apart from my six year old son. I hope he reads this one day and knows how much I love and miss him. He is in my thoughts and in my heart wherever either of us may be.

At the moment we live only two hours flight apart. He is with his mother in Hong Kong and I am living in Bangkok. I used to travel so much with my work that I think he got (too) used to the idea of my coming and going; this has perhaps made the adjustment to living with only one parent easier for him. He also has such a strong network of friends and such a strong school community that he keeps busy and active and probably has little time to miss me. And I know his mother will always be there to guide him and to look after his best interests. But I am not there; and I feel that loss. As, over the years, he may as well.

I did take all of 2002 away from work; and much of that time was spent with him; at his school, days out, holidays. We should all have that chance to be so connected to our children; in part because you realise so painfully what you have lost if the family breaks down.

I am not sure what will happen in the future; my guess at this moment is that I probably have to follow wherever he and his mother go. If they stay in Asia then my life and work should remain there. If they go to North America then probably I should as well. I don't want to camp on their doorstep or to interfere in the lives they build. I just want to be there when and if needed; and to be able to see him without having to fly half way round the world fighting jet-lag to do so!

And "So" the story goes....

15 June 2003

The unfortunate Ms So has apparently admitted to the Thai police and to the Hong Kong media that she fabricated the gang rape allegations.

This makes her selection of a tuk tuk driver as one of her alleged assailants from a line up particularly malicious.

The Thailand authorities have arrested her and it looks as though charges will be made. And although many people can feel rightly aggrieved at her behaviour pressing charges is probably not the answer. She is a stupid; she was malicious; and she is probably not all there mentally.

Deport her from Thailand, back to Hong Kong with an agreement form the Hong Kong authorities that they will give her a psychiatric evaluation and revoke her passport for a minimum of two years.

Let's not have a trial. Let's not make an example of her. Let Thailand show dignity rather than vindictiveness. And let's hear no more about this rather depressing story.

Those Washington "Bastards"

11 June 2003

In an amazing break from the normal diplomatic decencies Hans Blix described as "bastards the people who he alleges continually undermined his role as the UN's chief weapon's inspector.

He described as "bastards" people in Washington who planted "nasty things" in the media.

His accusations made during an interview with The Guardian newspaper are that:

·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;

·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and

·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.

Blix also stated that the Bush administration lent in his inspectors to employ more damning language in their reports in order to swing votes on the UN security council in favour of the USA/UK sponsored resolutions.

None of this will help Tony Blair to defend his stance on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Blix is clearly echoing international concerns when he says that a team of UN inspectors would be much more credible than the 1,300 strong US-appointed team now conducting its fruitless search for WoMD in Iraq. After all we are now in the crazy situation of looking for the reason that we went to war in the first place!

Gang rape case in Bangkok

11 June 2003

Last week Thailand's already battered tourism industry was further damaged by allegations from a Hong Kong tourist and freelance reporter that she was gang-raped by a tuk-tuk driver and three other men in Bangkok near Parliament House.

The story was made more damaging by the fact that her attempts to report the case to local police were initially dismissed.

Now there were initial doubts about her claims and the fact that within 24 hours she had identified a tuk-tuk driver as her attacker and that she was so openly courting attention as she was photographed by local reporters checking for evidence on tuk-tuks.

Now doctors at the Police Hospital Forensic Institute have found no evidence of rape.

So what is going on? Thailand does not need damaging malicious allegations. On the other hand why would anyone subject themselves to such intrusive physical and emotional examination without some form of attack having taken place.

It would be very helpful here is someone was brave enough to tell the truth.

Hong Kong - still not cleaning up its act.

5 June 2003

I do keep complaining about Hong Kong; maybe because one day I hope my adopted city will change dramatically for the better. But the lack of leadership, the lack of public thoughtfulness and the inability to deal with the most visible and noxious of issues in the city will keep tourists and business people away from Hong Kong.

I was walking over the rocks in the bay by the market at Stanley at the weekend. As well as the usual graffiti, cigarette ends, plastic bags and drink cans, there was a large amount of broken glass. No one ever seems to clean this place up. And what gives people the right to leave their debris behind in a place that is one of Hong Kong's best known tourist spots.

Masks are still widely worn. They are also widely discarded. The city is basically a large dustbin. People do not care. The government has increased the littering and spitting fines; but this only works if these fines are rigourously and consistently imposed. They are not. The city still looks like it is under siege. This is not an image that will quickly bring back visitors. Action is needed; not comforting words.

Hong Kong has been battered by SARS. It dealt with the outbreak particularly badly. And there seems little in place that can prevent a further outbreak at a future date. The government was probably aware of the outbreak of SARS in Guangdong earlier this year. But Hong Kong's government avoids (at its peril) Interfering or challenging Chinese domestic affairs.

And inevitable SARS spread over the border with the daily rush of cross bored traffic into Hong Kong...and the city was not prepared. Many company's have disaster/crisis management plans. Hong Kong has to have one as well. And Hong Kong needs independent experts to review what went wrong before and to recommend how to avoid making the same mistakes.

Yet all the indications in Hong Kong suggest that the government is more concerned with shooting the messenger than taking action to deal with the message. Article 23 could be used to control the flow of news through the media in any future emergency. Hong Kong needs its free press. It needs its free press to campaign for action and to educate its people. In the SARS epidemic this legislation has been forgotten; it should be carefully reviewed in the light of the recent epidemic.

One year old !!

2 June 2003

Happy birthday to my web site ! A year old and still going ! And still ranting on about many of the same things !

A year ago I was complaining about Hong Kong's garbage problem; Sadly, SARS does not seem to have changed the way people behave; the city is still treated like a dustbin by its citizens.

A year ago the USA was warning its citizens to avoid Pakistan and India with the alarming prospect of war.

Once again the anniversary of Tianenmen is imminent. And I believe this has a special resonance in Hong Kong this year as the Hong Kong government introduces its proposed Article 23 legislation, legislation that panders (no pun intended) to the city's Beijing masters and does nothing good for the people of Hong Kong.

period commencing 19 May 2003

An apology - we were all misled

30 May 2003

Am I the only person who is fed up with daily stories of mass graves, the barbarity of Saddam's sons and what a jolly bad lot the Ba'ath party were, or are !

This is not why we went to war in Iraq. If that was the reason for war there are plenty of regimes, some of whom call themselves friends of the Americans, that we should be engaging with equal vigour.

No - we went to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands and cause massive international instability.

Well there are no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi army was so poorly equipped that they barely had weapons of minor destruction. The Americans dramatically over-estimated the Iraqi army's strength.

Tony Blair fell for what was clearly misleading and poorly researched evidence. And his sincerity sold me and many others that this was a just (as just as can be !) assault on Iraq.

Are most Iraqis glad to see the end of Saddam's regime; the answer is yes. Without the Americans (and the Brits) they would be ruled by Saddam and his sons for all time. But is what has replaced them any better? The longer Iraq remains a mess the less chance the allies have of earning the goodwill that can change the nation.

The looting has continued for three months. That the allies sat back and watched it happen was a disgrace. They had created the lawlessness; they had an obligation to manage the problem immediately.

The former dictator and his two unpleasant sons are in hiding. The country is being torn apart by the infighting of hard line and more liberal clerics. Everyone sees an opportunity.

The weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Maybe Mr. Blix did his job rather effectively. It looks very much as though we should not have been at war. But now we have dropped our cluster bombs we have to clean up after ourselves, do it quickly and leave.

What Mr. Blair has to do is call a full Parliamentary enquiry into the intelligence gathering, presentation and justification of the war. And he has to accept that its findings may mot be flattering.

He would not lose my vote - the opposition is too pathetic to deserve it - but he has lost my trust.

Thank you !

27 May 2003

Thank you for 725 hits on www.rascott.com on 21st May; a new record; after 684 on 20 May. I know these numbers are not exactly world shattering but it makes me smile that something that I have written is being read !!!

Now can I ask that if you do see these notes - you take a couple of minutes to complete the feedback box for me - it is not a questionnaire; just a free format box where you can give me your comments and ideas.

Thank you, truly, for your support.

PGA; Purposeful, Grounded Annika

23 May 2003

It is after all called the Professional Golf Association. It should be open to anyone who has the talent to compete at that level.

Annika Sorenstam clearly has the talent.

And sure; it has generated a huge interest in golf; And I am sorry but the whining of Vijay Singh, Nick Price and others lets themselves and the rest of the "men's tour" down.

The course is par 70, over 7,000 yards; she is playing with the men off the competition tees. Sure the men may be more powerful and may hit the ball further. But she has finesse, guile, a game plan and the focus.

The pressure must have been huge. The media has been all over her all week. The crowds were huge and mostly willing her to do well. She has graced every media event. She holds thoughtful press conferences and behaves with the grace of the champion that she is.

She is not going to win. She may not even qualify for the last two rounds. Though if she had sunk a few putts yesterday she would have been in the high 60s not the 71 she recorded.

For Sorenstam, the challenge is not about playing the men. Its not a battle of the sexes. It is a battle to prove herself at the next level; in the toughest course she has ever played confronting pressure that she has not confronted before.

Let's hope she is back soon...and that others follow.

Press ganged

Blair's tragedy is that, in the end, it is Murdoch, Rothermere and Black who write British history, not he

Polly Toynbee
Wednesday May 21, 2003
The Guardian

Who runs the country? The rightwing press is now overreaching itself beyond anything seen in recent times. Its preposterous presumption might be funny if it weren't so damaging. The raucous bullying of the rightwing press barons for a referendum on an as yet unformulated new EU constitution is a flagrant challenge to the democratic authority of the government.

Yesterday the Daily Mail, with grotesque portentousness, announced "in an exercise unprecedented in newspaper history", June 9 will be "the day the Daily Mail will be conducting its historic national referendum on the EU constitution, a device that will sweep away 1,000 years of history." This crude usurpation will create "thousands and thousands of polling stations," with votes "scrutinised over the following weekend," to stop the EU taking as yet unspecified, "sweeping powers over huge swaths of national life". The Electoral Reform Society, scrutineer for all authentic b