Minor Stupidity, Olympic Sized Hypocrisy

It looks like it isn't just New Zealand papers tthat are trying to cut costs by out-sourcing sub-editing duties to third world countries. Here is the sub-heading from an opinion piece in The Times Online, dated 14th July, 2008:

Minky Worden: China must improve its human rights record before the Beijing Olympics

Er, yeah. Like that is going to happen between now and the 8th of August. And even if it did, would three weeks of good behaviour balance out the atrocities carried out over the last sixty odd years?

Not that the actual headline, "China is losing the human rights race" is much better - China lost that race many years ago, and anyone who believed the platitudes offered up by the Bastards of Beijing in their Olympic bid is a fool. Anyone attending their evil games is complicit in their wickedness.

And the Times is far too late and far too mild with its condemnation.

1 - "China is losing the human rights race" by Minky Worden, published in The Times Online, 14th of July, 2008. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/specials/article4317068.ece)

We don't know what you will say, but you are not allowed to say it

George Orwell made a famous remark about how it is possible for pampered westerners to eschew violence only because other people are willing to do violence on their behalf:

Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. (1)

Tim Spicer, I am sure, thinks of himself as one of those men. He has made a living fighting in various places. He is a somewhat controversial figure, and I am sure he feels he is justified in instructing libel lawyers Schillings to suppress Craig Murray's book about him, even though the contents of this as yet unpublished book can only be guessed at. As Mr Murray points out on his website, this does encourage specuulation "that Spicer has something to hide" (2).

Spicer, I am sure, would argue that he has risked his life pursuing British interests around the globe, and because he has had to operate in places where law and order and the niceties of liberal democracy do not apply, it is unfair and intrusive of Mr Murray to demonise him in a book. Well, be that as it may. It is, however, reprehensible that libel action can be threatened against someone who has not actually published anything, as this time.

George Monbiot points out (3), a propos of this incident, that Britain's libel laws are a ghastly anachronism, and are used by the rich and powerful to threaten and intimidate those whom they find disagreeable or annoying. This is a flagrant example of that - it is not know what Mr Murray's book contains. Mr Spicer, in my opinion, is intent on shutting down any discussion of his actions and involvement in Iraq and other conflicts what-so-ever. This is wrong. It is essential that peope are able to speak and publish freely, and offend the powerful by directing their attention towards them. Otherwise, the men of violence who are supposed to defend our precious rights are merely fascist goons, the jackbooted bully-boys "stamping on a human face, forever" (4).

UPDATE: Murray's new book isn't about Spicer, in fact. It is a memoir of Murray's time in Africa. Spicer features in it, as Murray crossed paths with him there. On his blog, Murray writes:

How an elegaic memoir of ten years ago can generate such heat is hard to understand ... I suspect that what Schillings are trying to block is the story of how Spicer escaped prosecution, the role of Number 10, and the origin of New Labour's love affair with mercenaries. Or maybe it's the bit about when I missed my flight to Gabon. (5)

The book is called 'Catholic Orangemen of Togo.'

1 - "Note on Nationalism," by George Orwell, published in 1945. It is interesting to note that this is often misquoted, along the lines of "People sleep easy in their beds because rough men stand ready to violence on their behalf." I have no idea where that rather camp sounding version originates, but it is not from Orwell. He might have been a public school boy, but there is no evidence he was interested in rough trade. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwelnat.htm)
2 - "Iraq Mercenary Boss Hires Schillings To Block My New Book" by Craig Murray, published 10th of July, 2008. (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/)
3 - "A national disgrace, a global menace, and a pre-democratic anachronism," by George Monbiot, published in The Guardian, 15th of July, 2008. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/civilliberties.medialaw)
4 - 1984 by George Orwell, published in 1949. The quote about the boot and the human face occurs in part Three of Chapter Three.
5 - Murray, op. cit., from an entry titled 'Catholic Orangemen of Togo,' dated 16th July 2008.

There is no happy ending for Afghanistan

Conor Foley argues that, with the military situation a virtual stalemate, perhaps it is time to reverse Clausewitz's dictum, and pursue military goals by other means:

It was the culmination of one of Afghanistan's bloodiest weeks which, according to the Red Cross, saw 250 people killed or injured. Last month also saw a new record for the number of foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan, 42, which surpassed that of Iraq for the first time. Clearly the repeated claims of western politicians - and credulous journalists - that we are "winning the war" in Afghanistan bear almost no relation to reality. The US suffered one of its heaviest blows on Sunday when nine troops were killed in a Taliban attack in the eastern region. Another 24 people were killed in a suicide bombing. To view this conflict solely in terms of statistics and military clashes, however, is to miss the point about what is actually happening here at the moment.

The international military presence has been expanding rapidly in Afghanistan, doubling from 10,000 to 20,000 in 2006 and trebling to almost 60,000 this year. More troops mean more targets and so, crudely put, the spike in the soldiers' death rate is not surprising. What is more significant is that this massive increase in firepower has not decisively changed the terms of the military engagement. The Taliban still effectively controls a vast swath of the south of the country where government and international forces can only venture out of their heavily reinforced bases with air support. However, the Taliban's attempts to spread the insurgency to non-Pashtu areas have largely failed. There is a stalemate which cannot be broken by military means. (1)

A quick look back over history leads to a pessimistic conclusion - the taliban were supported by the people of Afghanistan not becausre of any deep religious sympathy for their fanatical creed, but because they brough some form of stability to the country after decades of fighting. Anger at the coalition is going to grow, persistently, with every blunder. They haven't managed to obliterate the Taliban and they haven't - as Foley points out - made the parts of Afghanistan they do control safe or prosperous. Support for the Taliban will grow as bitterness towards the coalition increases.

The sorry adventure might not end with the desperation of the evacuation of Saigon, but it looks very like it will end badly for the world's unluckiest country.

1 - "Afghans want a peace deal, and force cannot provide it," by Conor Foley in The Guardian, 15th of July, 2007. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/afghanistan)

Insanity!!!!

The Telegraph devotes a leading article to bleating (1) about Labour's latest white paper on reform of the House of Lords. This is odd, since it is pointed out that "Mr Straw was forced to admit that nothing will happen this side of a general election." Why waste a column complaining about Labour wasting time on this chimera? It is noted that "We are in the grip of an economic crisis and our soldiers are fighting on two fronts" (2). Indeed. So why not write columns about that?

The article continues:

For the Government still has not made a coherent case for change. Ministers may see this as a piece of unfinished business following the spiteful removal of all but 92 hereditary peers in Labour's first term. (3)

This is the pure stuff of madness. First, the burden is on the supporters of the Lords to make the case for their retentions - the House of Lords, even in its partially reformed format, is a ghastly thing and the onus is on those who don't support its immediate demolition to explain themselves. Secondly, how on Earth is removing hereditary peers 'spiteful'? Only the truly insane would argue - with a straight face - that there is anyplace for hereditary peers in the 21st 20th 19th century. We've actully be outstandingly tolerant, allowing the spawn of a decayed aristocracy to shuffle about, hanging on to their privileges and powers for so long. These fools exercised real, meaningful power over us. Taking it away from them was not spiteful - it was sane.

Next, I suspect, the Telegraph will rail against the malicious Parliament Act of 1911. Probably, that attempt to limit the powers of the arsitocracy and their ability to defy the Commons will be described as 'malicious.' And Magna Carta written off as 'misguided and politically correct.'

Welcome to Telegraphland.

1 - "The House of Lords: leave well alone," leading article in The Telegraph, 15th of July, 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/15/dl1501.xml)
2 - ibid.
3 - ibid.

Places worse than Easterhouse

For those of you who don't know it (most of the population of the planet), Easterhouse is a council estate in Glasgow, Scotland. Usually, it is ignored by everyone who doesn't have the misfortune to live there, because it isn't a nice place to live, rife with drugs, violence, unemployment, poverty and everything else that you can think of that you might call a negative social indicator.

It has been in the news of late, because there is gointg to be a by-election there. Though Glasgow East has been traditional Labour territory for millenia, there is a real chance now that the Scottish National Party might defeat the Labour candidate, such is the epic upopularity of PM Gordon Brown.

The Independent listed (1) some of the grisly statistics of life in Glasgow's East End, to give their (largely middle class and English) readership a frission of horror at the lot of the lumpen proletariat, inbetween gulps of cappuchino, Volvo driving and flirting with the idea of voting for the Conservatives:

• 30 per cent of the working-age population is on unemployment or incapacity benefit,
• Almost 40 per cent of children grow up in homes where there is no adult in paid employment,
• 60 per cent of people have no access to a car,
• Nearly 40 per cent of adults smoke,
• there are 25 drug-related deaths a year on average,
• In part of the constituency, male life expectancy is just 54, lower than Gaza, or North Korea. (2)

The last statistic is, of course, the shocker (my own little frission of middle class horror). Women get to live an extra ten years, probably because they are less likely to stab each other to death or dabble in hard drugs (though the Independent, with clumsy irony, attributes this to their tendency to "keep themselves busy and optimistic by juggling household budgets and battling to keep their children off drugs").

Here are a list (3) of countries where the average male life expectancy is LESS than 54:

Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Camaroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivorie, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanada, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

There are, apparently, 195 countries in the world, and only 40 rate worse than the East End of Glasgow. For the record, the average male life expectancy for Britain as a whole is given as 75.94 years (4).

The other noteable trend is that almost all these countries are ex-colonial and in Africa. The former European colonial powers ravaged these countries for decades and when they finally surrendered their hold on them, surrendered the long-sufferring people Africa the the misrule of a cabal of incompetents, tryrants and thugs. The glories of Europe - and the reasonably high standard of living and life expectancy of Europeans lucky enough not to live in Glasgow's east end - were based on colonial pillaging, racism, slavery and genocide. The reparations owed by Europe are incaluculable, but must be paid, anyhow.

1 - 'Struggle for survival in Labour heartland' by Andy McSmith in The Independent, 12th of July, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/struggle-for-survival-in-labour-heartland-865816.html)
2 - ibid.
3- Statistics courtesy of Yahoo! Education. Obviously, the comparison is not accurate, as it is comparing the nadir of Scottish life expectancy to average figures of nations containing massive gulfs between top and bottom life expectancy - it is probably much worse being poor in a many more countries than it is in Scotland, but this is disguised by the average. Data retreived 12th of July, 2008. (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/le/1a.html)
4 - ibid.

Spot the difference

The other day, Gordon Brown hinted (1) about possible military intervention in Nigeria, to help end the sufferring of the Nigerian people maximise Nigerian oil supply because Britain's economic growth - and hence Mr Briown's electability - is being weakened by high oil prices (1).

Contrast this with the situation in Zimbabwe. Yesterday, the UN failed to vote to sanction Mugabe and his henchmen (2). This was large due to Russia and China's noble defence of a country's right to conduct their own internal affairs discomfort at the idea of their own brutality toward dissidents leading to them facing similar condemnation. The fact that China is the second largest trading partner of Zimbabwe (after South Africa, who also opposed sanctions) had nothing to do with it, either (3).

The British response? Hand wringing and a few words about what a shame it all was:

The British ambassador said the Security Council had fallen down in its duty to defend the democratic rights of ordinary Zimbabweans. Sir John Sawers said: "The people of Zimbabwe need to be given hope that there is an end in sight to their suffering. The Security Council today has failed to offer them that hope."

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said: "I am very disappointed that the UN Security Council should have failed to pass a strong and clear resolution on Zimbabwe. In particular, it will appear incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe that Russia, which committed itself at the G8 only a few days ago to take further steps including introducing financial and other sanctions, should today stand in the way of timely and decisive security council action. Nor will they understand the Chinese vote.

"The UN still has a key role to play in supporting African efforts to bring an end to this crisis, and we will continue to press for the appointment of a UN envoy." (4)

I am certain, of course, that the different approaches has nothing to do with the fact that Nigeria is a major oil producer, whereas any intervention in Zimbabwe would offer no economic reward? Surely, such base considerations would not enter into the heads of our leaders?

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/07/gordon-brown-admits-it-is-all-about.html
2 - 'China and Russia veto UN sanctions on Mugabe,' by Leonard Doyle in The INdependent, 12th of July, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/china-and-russia-veto-un-sanctions-on-mugabe-865921.html)
3 - China is now "the second largest trade partner of Zimbabwe, after South Africa, and China is also the biggest tobacco buyer from Zimbabwe, with the total trade volume between the two countries reaching 275 million U.S. dollars in 2006, while a few years ago, China was not even among the top ten trade partners of Zimbabwe, according to the Chinese ambassador" according to an unattributed article, 'Sino-Zimbabwe cooperation enters brand-new stage,' in The People's Daily Online, 19th of April, 2007. (http://english.people.com.cn/200704/19/eng20070419_367992.html)
4 - Doyle, op. cit.

Gordon Brown admits it is all about (Nigerian) oil

As it was in Iraq, so let it be in Nigeria. Gordon Brown has basically admitted that the prime consideration for intervention - whether it be military invasion or military 'aid' - is securing oil supply:

The Prime Minister said: "We stand ready to give help to the Nigerians to deal with lawlessness that exists in this area and to achieve the levels of production that Nigeria is capable of, but because of the law and order problems has not been able to achieve." His comments came ahead of a visit to London by the Nigerian President, Umaru Yar'Adua, next week in which he is expected to appeal for military aid to put down militant groups who have attacked oil pipelines and platforms. (1)

Never mind the quality of life or human potential that the long suffering people of Nigeria have "not been able to achieve." Who cares about them? They don't vote in our elections. They're too poor to buy our consumer goods - which aren't actually ours at all, but China's, but don't let reality get in the way, never let reality get in the way.

In fact, they are a nuisance. Some of them are blowing up pipelines and making it difficult for us to get the oil we need to keep our economy lumbering along. So maybe we shoul care about them. They're a problem. I know, lets give some of them guns and stuff to kill the others with.

Oil, you see, that's worth worrying about, particularly right now. If intervening in Nigeria (i.e. selling the government arms to continue the civil war with renewed ferocity) can improve supply, bring down prices in the west, keep oil addicted western capitalist system grinding along a little bit longer, and fend off (temporarily) or mitigate the threatening depression - then it might be worthwhile. Oh, yes. Priorities.

The misery inflicted on the people of Nigeria by the persistent lawlessness and violence doesn't figure. But maximising oil supply - when an unpopular Prime Minister is keen to convince the British voters to like him again - is. Which explains a lot, I suppose.

Ruthless, mercenary, hypocrititical scum.

1 - 'Brown blunders in pledge to secure Nigeria oil,' by Daniel Howden, Kim Sengupta, Colin Brown and Claire Soares in The Independent, 11th of July, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/brown-blunders-in-pledge-to-secure-nigeria-oil-865035.html)