 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
TALLRITE BLOG You can write to blog@tallrite.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FEBRUARY 2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #29 - 23rd February 2003 [93] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
President Chirac Embarrasses His Citizens The French left can thank themselves for stupidly engineering the re-election of right-of-centre President Jacques Chirac by a thumping majority last May. Because they wouldn't unite around their front-running candidate, the Socialist Party's Lionel Jospin, then Prime Minister, their votes in the first round were shared among Jospin (16%), Arlette Laguiller (Workers Struggle, 6%) and five other left-wing candidates totalling a further 9%. This allowed Jean Marie Le Pen, the poisonous leader of the semi-Nazi Front National to sneak in as runner-up (with 17%) behind Chirac (on 20%). Aghast, the left were forced in the two-candidate second round to vote overwhelmingly (82%) for their mortal enemy Chirac just to keep out Le Pen, who got 18%. Emboldened by this landslide, Mr Chirac is now running rampant on the world stage, determined to get noticed at any cost, convinced of his own invincibility, annoying his friends and embarrassing his countrymen. In recent weeks he has :
Leading Germany's Gerhard Schröder and Belgium's Guy Verhofstadt in opposition to America's Iraq policy in the axis of weasel, or Old Europe as Donald Rumsfeld prefers to call them, Mr Chirac is banging on about a transatlantic America/Europe split. He is very mistaken. Of the 15 existing EU countries and 10 planning to join in May, only three - Germany, Belgium and France - openly oppose America. The remaining 22 either publicly support America (Britain, Spain, Italy and ten others) or remain silent. Thus Mr Chirac's split is within Europe itself, and Old Europe is in a distinct minority. America is but a spectator in this dance macabre. However his personal vanity comes first, above any consideration of world security. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how he will endeavour to save his face when presented with a second UN resolution next week authorising war. Or, indeed, when war breaks out. This is not a time when honourable Frenchmen - the vast vast majority - can feel very comfortable with their leadership. He is an embarrassment.
Mugabe Evicts Landless Black Farmers According to Africa Confidential, a British-owned newsletter analysing the situation throughout Africa, a recent Zimbabwe government audit of the country's land reform programme, has backfired, causing embarrassment to the President Robert Mugabe. This is because it has found (suprise, suprise) that numerous senior politicians, military officers and Mugabe relatives have been using corruption and violence to evict landless small farmers (all black) the very people the President claimed the land reform policy would help. Moreover, not only has the policy precipitated a catastrophic fall in food crop production which, along with the regional drought, is causing some seven million Zimbabweans to go hungry but, above all, the policy has financially benefited the nomenklatura of Mugabe's ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). The report of those violating the “one man, one farm” rule reads like a list of the ZANU-PF elite and their allies. I'm not sure why I'm relaying this information. it contains nothing we didn't already know. But it is notable that the report has been written by the Government itself, which of course has instantly tried to suppress it. Luckily, Africa Confidential manage to obtain a copy.
Towards the end of the First
Gulf War in 1991, when it was quite clear the Iraqi armed forces were
going to be ejected from Kuwait, the then US President George H Bush, father of
W, used the radio waves and dropped leaflets to encourage ordinary Iraqis to
rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein, saying that the West would back them
up. Vast numbers of Iraqis
believed him, particularly the non-Arab Kurds in the North-east and the
Shi’ite Muslims in the South. Fifteen out of eighteen provinces staged joyous uprisings across the
country.
But they shouldn’t have trusted H, because the American back-up never
arrived.
Instead, Saddam’s ever-loyal Republican Guard arrived from Baghdad
and brutally put down the rebellions, killing everyone in sight, driving
the Kurds and Shi’ites into their respective hinterlands.
When the slaughter was over, notwithstanding their terrible suffering, the result was, however, not all bad for the Kurds and Shi’ites, because the Americans and British set up no-fly zones over northern and southern bands of the country. Saddam’s forces were not permitted to patrol them, either by land or
by air, which effectively turned these areas into military protectorates.
The Kurds in particular seized this opportunity with gusto, and quickly -
Within a short time,
And the sanctions on the rest of Iraq have served as an additional
business opportunity for ambitious Kurdish traders.
So, over the intervening
decade, the Kurdish protectorate has come more and more to resemble a
sovereign country, to the delight of its inhabitants.
But neighbouring Turkey and Iran are not happy at all, as they see
their own restive Kurds watching this development enviously.
Meanwhile, the forthcoming war now puts the Iraqi Kurds in a bit of a dilemma.
And the first things that the
new Iraqi government will do, under the approving gaze of the rest of the
world, will be to unify Iraq, abolish the no-fly zones, lift all the
sanctions, re-open the oilfields, and encourage trade and industry, while
benign foreigners pour in copious aid for reconstruction. But that means no more special
status for the Kurds, no more sanctions-busting opportunities and the end
of their dream of having their own state.
There is no doubt that once Saddam is overthrown and the Americans and their allies march in to Baghdad, the streets “will be filled with jubilant Iraqis”, as Dr Salih last month told the Socialist International Council in Rome. “Let us remember”, he said -
Liberation did not create
paradise in any of these places, but it created hope and opportunity.”
On balance, I am sure the apprehensive Kurds will be rejoicing as well. But it is well to remember that they are one group of Iraqis that
will conceivably be worse off after liberation.
Iraqi Defence Minister Under House Arrest The Guardian reports
that, to prevent a coup, President Saddam Hussein has placed under house
arrest his heir-apparent and defence minister, whose daughter is married to Qusay, Saddam's 36-year-old younger
son. Several other high-ranking military and government
officials have also apparently been arrested in the past few days.
Apprehension is growing in Baghdad that the Iraqi army, including the elite Republican Guard, might desert in the event of an attack. As well they might. The American forces will give them the choice of certain death or humane treatment as POWs. As for the commanders, their choice will be
The abiding fear of Saddam's senior lieutenants that I wrote of last September is devouring them from the inside outwards. Saddam is right to fear for their loyalty.
Traffic Congestion and Plastic Bags According to the (subscription-only) Economist, Britain has the most congested roads in Europe. London in turn has the most congested roads in Britain.
For this reason, London's rabidly socialist mayor, “Red Ken” Livingstone, turned capitalist last week by introducing a controversial £5 congestion charge for those driving into the city's eight square mile central area. His numerous opponents within the Labour party hierarchy, Labour's opponents the Conservatives, the motoring organizations, the media, and not a few actual car-drivers all avidly awaited disaster in the form of chaos on the roads as the scheme came into effect on 17th February. Disappointment. No bedlam.
The media were especially forlorn because there were no calamities to report. And that's more or less been the story ever since. As it would had the charge been only £1. That the scheme is proving so successful could have been predicted by anyone
Plastic bags ? A year ago, as discussed in a previous blog, Ireland introduced a spectacularly successful government tax of just €0.15 on every plastic bag given out free by shops, supermarkets etc. This was in order to cut their polluting usage, while raising cash for environmental causes. With people resolutely refusing to part with fifteen cents for a lousy supermarket bag to carry home their €100-worth of groceries, bag consumption dropped overnight from 1.2 billion per year to just 200,000, raising around €10m per year in the process. The reduction in plastic bags cluttering up the streets, stuck in hedgerows, floating around in the air, is palpable.
In both cases, it is not the size of the levy that deters people, nor the effect on their bank balances.
It is the principle of the damn thing. Never underestimate the perversity of human nature.
Earlier this month, the Consumers' Association lambasted the extended warranties sold by electrical retailers, saying they were "too expensive, generally go unused and you'll probably get a better deal elsewhere". Last year, the Office of Fair Trading made much the same point. Dixons claims to be Europe's largest specialist retailer of consumer electronics. John Clare, its new Group chief executive has taken exception to the attack on extended warranties and has written a public letter in response. But it's not at all convincing. He asserts that because we buy more electrical/electronic products today than a few decades ago, we suffer more breakdowns.
Therefore this is no reason to buy an extended warranty, which is sold per device. Dixon's extended warranty apparently covers things like
Great, but so will your household contents insurance. Mr Clare publishes a table in his letter which shows - extraordinarily - that you can expect that between a third and all of the white goods and TVs you buy from Dixons will break down within three years, and within five years many of them will break down twice ! He tells us this to convince us to take out Dixons' extended warranty. Rather, it is a clear sign never ever ever to buy any of these utterly untrustworthy items from Dixons. An own goal if ever there was one. In summary,
The only positive thing to say about extended warranties is that they are great little earners for the shareholders.
The airline has agreed to increase cabin temperature for the comfort of the naked passengers, but has insisted that towels are placed on all seats. No hot beverages or ice-cold drinks will be served; all meals will be catered at, er, blood temperature. To protect the tourists' privacy (very shy people these), Castaways is keeping the flight time and airline's name secret If you want to join, hurry. They're still looking for bums on seats (provided you use the towels). A seven-day holiday costs just $3,100 for four cheeks.
Wacko Jacko's Face in Real Time
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #28 - 16th February 2003 [74]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Blix/Baradei Report and Debate So Doctors Blix and El Baradei have delivered their Valentine's Day report to the UN Security Council, chaired by the redoubtable Joschke Fischer of Germany’s Green party (the premier refuseniks in Europe). There is something in it for everybody. Iraq, the inspectors said, is continuing
to co-operate in “process”, and has started to in “substance”
by, for example, permitting scientists to be interviewed in private, U2
overfights (Bono eat your heart out), fewer minders of inspectors,
commissions to investigate what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction, decrees
forbidding further work on WMD. More
inspections, they believe, will lead to more co-operation in substance.
On the other hand, inspectors criticize
the Iraqis for failing to cooperate actively and unconditionally.
They say it possesses banned missiles and facilities to construct new
engines. Moreover, Iraq continues to fail to account for 1,000 tonnes of
deadly anthrax and VX nerve gas.
Each side argues that it’s own interpretation of the situation is correct. Yet only one can be right. To see which, you need to read the resolution in detail, because it is very cunningly crafted with the express purpose of providing clarity and removing wriggle-room. Here are a few key points :
Other than the Iraqi ambassador, nobody at the UN debate :
The key words are “complete”, “unconditional”, “immediate”. Resolution 1441 deliberately makes no provision for “half-measures”, “steps in the right direction”, “making progress” and as such they represent continuation of the material breach. To use such phrases as a reason to prolong the inspection regime is to wilfully flout 1441. So will the UN Security Council really sanction the overt flouting of its own unanimously-adopted, legally-binding demands ?
However I don’t believe it will come to that. Before 16th March, the Council will have specifically authorised, by a majority and with no veto, the use of force to disarm Saddam Now for those peace marches on 15th February. We are told one million anti-war protestors (1.7% of the UK's population) turned up at Hyde Park and proportionately comparable levels in other cities around the world. Huge numbers, but are they a majority ? Those who, like myself support the Blair/Bush position, were not there. Does our absence make us a minority ? Sky TV conducted a UK poll the next day in which
Also, I am reminded of a brilliant Alistair Cook “Letter from America” a couple of weeks ago. He recalled that in 1938, 10 million British voters out of 11 million signed an unconditional peace ballot whose slogan was “against war and fascism”, which is like being “against hospitals and disease”. How wrong they were as Hitler and events proved. But in fairness, they backed the war as soon as it broke out. We are all in favour of peace. But being responsible for
are two quite different things. Blair and Bush are right to trust their own consciences in this matter. They will have to live with the consequences. The protestors will not. It seems to me that the major part of the anti-war movement have become so obsessed by a rabid anti-Americanism that they prefer to support a genocidal tyrant against the liberation and democratic aspirations of his own people. Why else would you not want to remove him ? Finally, I recommend you read Tony Blair's stirring and coherent speech delivered on the day of the marches. “Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane.” Reader Michael comments,
“The American and British armed forces are acting as
world policemen. With, we hope and trust, the full authority of the United
Nations they will execute their policing duties, release the peoples of
Iraq held hostage and apprehend the master criminal and his gang of thugs.
How can anyone demonstrate against police carrying out their duty?”
I certainly can't. Read the full letter.
We are hearing a lot at the moment about how
Here is a philosophical question. How do you determine who is doing the undermining ? For if you and I have different views, am I undermining you or are you undermining me ? In all three examples above, you can make a plausible case for saying the opposite party is actually the underminer. It’s not at all clear cut. I guess what it means is that if from time to time a multilateral body finds itself unable to act in unison, it either has to live with that uncomfortable reality, hope it doesn't happen too often and move on. Or else be prepared to disband itself. In either case, the failure, if that’s what you want to call it, belongs to the body as a whole, not to particular constituent members. Maybe it’s time for some of these bodies to rethink and perhaps reconstitute their structures. Why should they stay the same forever ?
I must have been really bored last week because I found myself watching two programmes on ITV about Britain's Princess Margaret and Prince Charles respectively. But they set me to thinking. Margaret Many share the view that Princess Margaret led a pretty pointless existence, where regular hedonistic splurges in her Mustique paradise were interspersed with deadly-dull royal engagements back in Blighty, along with half-hearted wifely duties and occasional childrearing. And as, with the help of copious quantities of whiskey and cigarettes, she grew old and frail ahead of her time, even the holidays withered away, until she died a year ago.
Nevertheless, a princess marrying a divorcé was seen as unseemly and neither Parliament nor her sister the Queen would accept it. This, we are told, broke her heart and her life began to deteriorate from then on. Rubbish. The Queen never objected to the marriage. She merely said that if it went ahead, Margaret would have to forego
In other words, become an ordinary wife. This was unthinkable for Margaret who adored her creature comforts and so she dumped the hapless Townshend. Her heart was so broken that only three months later she was engaged - for a while - to a Billy Wallace. A few years later she married photographer Tony Armstrong-Jones and produced two children, before reverting to her party-centred lifestyle. Charles
The reason is rather straightforward. Camilla was (and remains) a Roman Catholic. And you can't just resign. You need to be formally released by the senior bishop of the land after a lengthy bureaucratic process, which very few undergo. So once a Catholic, always a Catholic. In 1701, Parliament passed the so-called “Act of Settlement” designed to pacify belligerent Scottish and English Protestants who wanted to ensure the likes of Catholic bonny Prince Charlie (the First) or James Stuart II would never again ascend the British throne and rule over Protestants. The Act stipulates that the sovereign may neither become nor marry a Catholic. Jews, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians - they’re all fine. But no Catholics please. So had he married Camilla, he couldn’t have become King, and this was too heavy a price to pay. So enter Protestant Diana whose job was to produce an heir and a spare (which she did). Mean while, in the best traditions of monarchy, Charles continued to cavort with Camilla, then herself married, to their mutual hearts' content. “There were three of us in the marriage”, declared Diana. So don’t feel sorry for Charles. His disastrous personal life is entirely of his own making, driven by his desire to be King. Regardless of whether the British people want him or not (which many don’t). Edward
And, no quibbles, that’s exactly what he did. He accepted demotion to Duke of Windsor, she became his Duchess and they moved to France. And, as far as we know, the two of them lived more or less happily ever after in peace and tranquillity. What a shame his niece and grand-nephew chose to ignore his admirable example. Rather than marry the spouses they wanted, they chose lives of personal misery instead, for the sake of hanging onto their pathetic titles, fat income and juicy perks. So we needn't feel a bit sorry for Margaret or Charles.
Under intense political pressure, England last week pulled out of their opening Cricket World Cup game in Zimbabwe and will thus be punished –
But England’s cricketers have used the mealy-mouthed and dishonest excuse of players’ safety. Dishonest because the personal security of 20-odd people for a few days can always be assured with sufficient resources (bodyguards etc). It only costs money, and the English Cricket Board has plenty. The real reason
is honourable disgust at the tyrannical and brutal behaviour of the racist president
of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, toward unfavoured sections of his own
people. So in exchange for the heavy price the English cricket team
are paying, they won’t even get the kudos of having taken a moral stand
against Mr Mugabe. But cricket seemed to be taking second place as the World Cup kicked off last week. There were :
At least, though, there has now been some actual cricket at last. Let's hope it will remain the principal feature for the rest of the tournament. |
