The opinions expressed on these pages are entirely personal unless they are
credited; you may not agree with all, or anything, that I write. So please use
the
feedback
page to
respond, comment or berate me.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 CampbellThe 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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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