Yearly archives: 2010


The 4.45pm Link

Labour Party man Brian Barder on how to salvage his party:

The positive way to signal a radical change of policy on the resort to military force, implying (but not necessarily stating explicitly) a promise never to repeat the Iraq criminal blunder, would be to declare formally that no future Labour government will ever again send British forces into action overseas unless (a) in response to an armed attack on sovereign British territory (as permitted under the UN Charter) or else (b) to participate in peace-keeping or peace-making operations expressly authorised by the United Nations Security Council. Labour would also do well publicly to endorse the present coalition defence secretary’s useful reminder that in any case Britain is not a “global policeman” ?” and should never again try to act as if it were. He who “punches above his weight” tends to end up on the canvas.

http://www.barder.com/2608

View with comments

World Cup Opens

I am watching the World Cup opening ceremony, and it is absolutely breathtaking. The sheer scale, the grandeur, the majestic sweeping order, the colour, the spectacle, of those ranks upon ranks, rows upon serried rows, of absolutely empty orange seats! Bank upon bank, line upon line of starkly empty, glaringly orange seats! It is grandly symbolic, it is conceptual art, it should get the Turner Prize!

Oh sorry, it’s just a huge cock-up that shows the stupidity of taking an event this size to South Africa.

View with comments

Mavi Marmara: Footage Hidden From the Israelis

Israeli Attack on the Mavi Marmara, May 31st 2010 // 15 min. from Cultures of Resistance on Vimeo.

Lara Lee managed to hide this footage from the Israelis when they confiscated all the evidence from passengers. This video shows plainly a bloodstained ship before any commandos boarded, and that the passengers were not teroorists preparing for a fight.

View with comments

For William Hague: How To Cut the Foreign Ofiice

With all government departments having to look at huge cuts, I thought I would write about what I know. These are the steps I would take to cut back radically on the FCO budget.

1) Make all Directors-General and Heads of Department Redundant

Diplomats alternate in their careers between Whitehall and postings to Embassies, High Commissions and Consulates abroad. In the FCO in Whitehall, the chain of command goes like this.

Ministers

PUS

Directors General

Directors

Heads of Department

Assistant Heads of Department

Heads of Section

Desk Officers

Assistant Desk Officers

Clerks

The nomenclature changed several times when I was in the FCO, and may well have changed since from the above, but the structure remains the same.

That is many more layers of bureaucracy than is necessary. “Submissions” going to ministers work their way up every link of the chain, leading to duplication and second guessing. The official view is that more and more senior officials bring increased wieght and experience. The counter view is that, as you go up the chain, you are moving further and further away from expertise on the particular subject.

On top of which, at every leve,l you have varying degrees of budget management responsibility and the whole accompanying New Labour paraphernalia of target management, measurement, internal market and performance indication. The layers spend much of their time in internal administration of the interfaces grinding between each other. Savings from losing layers would be much greater than the considerable employment costs of the individuals involved.

There are two too many layers here. I can see varying arguments for which levels you cut and there is a sense in which it does not make too much difference. But on close consideration I would cut Heads of Department (assistants then becoming Heads at a lower grade, with some big departments with more than one assistant split up) and Directors General.

Remember it isn’t a saving unless you actually make the individuals redundant.

Full cost saving £25 miilion pa

2 Slash Embassies in EU States

The world has changed. In particular, the way that the UK interrelates with other EU members has changed dramatically. Huge areas of foreign and security policy are “coordinated” with the EU, while most trade and economic questions are under direct EU control or “competence”. The coordination of all this between states takes place to a small extent in capitals, but to a massive extent in Brussels.

The FCO has become marginal to the process to the point of irrelevance. This is an absolutely key point.

Thirty years ago a British official dealing with fisheries conservation or with environmental policy would almost never, in the course of their entire career, meet their French or Spanish counterpart. If a question on environmental policy arose, the British official would send a memo to the Foreign Office. If the FCO agreed, it would send an instruction to the diplomat whose portfolio included environmental policy in the Embassy in Paris or Madrid. He would make an appointment and go and see the officer in the French or Spanish foreign ministry who dealt with the question. He would leave him a copy of a memorandum. In due course, he would relay back to the FCO the answer from the French or Spanish ministry, who would send it on to the British environmental official we started with.

This world has changed completely. Now our British environmental of fisheries conservation official will meet his French and Spanish counterparts six times a year in Brussels at EU meetings on his subject, and now and then at international conferences. He will be on first name terms with them, have their mobile and telephone numbers. The chances that anyone in the FCO has a clue what he is doing are slim indeed. If he needs to cabal with the French, Pole and German to influence an EU decision, he will do it himself in the corridors of a meeting, not ask the FCO.

Yet our Embassies in EU countries remain among the biggest and grandest we possess, reflecting the days when our shifting bilateral relationships with European nations were literally matters of life and death, war and peace. They are magnificent and madly over-staffed by crazily over senior people. They are a great relic of a bygone age, institutions so grand that their overwhelming presence masks their lack of purpose.

Be radical. Large Embassies in EU member states should be cut to eight diplomats (Paris, Bonn) small Embassies to four diplomats (Copenhagen, Dublin). Let’s move into the 21st century.

This would bring not only a great regular saving, but a very large one off lump sum indeed. We have an owned estate of massive value in houses and offices in Europe’s capitals. Selling off most of it would net at least 300 million

Cash Gain From Property Sales 300 million

Annual Full Cost Saving £200 million

3 Close Consulates in First World Countries

We have a network of consulates (posts subsidiary to embassies) in places like Nice and Vancouver. They are there primarily to offer market advice to British businessmen and passport and consular services to British nationals. This is outmoded in this globalised age. France or Canada are no longer part of some scarey “abroad” in which British businessmen cannot operate without their hand being held by some bureaucrat who has never sold anything in their life. These are countries where tourists in trouble should not need their hand held by the government. Close all first world consulates, and deploy half the savings into opening new consulates and embassies outside the first world where they are actually needed. Again this would bring an annual saving and a big capital benefit from property sales.

Net Cash Gain From Property Sales 50 million

Net Full Cost Saving £60 million pa

4 Reduce the Dipomatic Housing Estate

Diplomats, especially senior ones, live in housing which is much grander than civil servants of their grade could possibly aff0rd in London. There used to be a reason for this. Official entertaining at home had to impress your foreign visitor.

But the real truth is that our diplomats nowadays very seldom use their grand houses for entertainng at home. There has been a measured and major trend towards entertaining in restaurants. Actually I think this is an awful shame. I had literally thousands of visitors a year through my home throughout my entire diplomatic career. But my breed is now extinct. Diplomats see their grand home as their private space, and many senior diplomats do not entertain at home.

Why should diplomats therefore live in houses and apartments often worth £2 million up?

I do not propose we get rid of our Ambassadorial residences, which are an important diplomatic tool and often woth £10 million up. But these assets need to be sweated much more. Every Ambassadorial residence has its de facto public and private rooms – who wants to eat their breakfast alone at a table for 36? The public/private areas should be formalised, and the public areas be available to any diplomat in the post to use for entertaining purposes, and possibly available to rent for British companies. Official use of the public areas is probably below 20% at the moment, if you take lunch, dinner and weekend afternoons as the possible entertaining opportunities. Let’s get that up over 90%.

Our diplomats can then be asked to live in the kind of accommodation that their salary would afford in London – ie very much smaller than they get now. Many very expensive properties could be sold off.

Cash Gain From Property Sales 150 miilion

Annual Full Cost Saving (Rent) 20 million

The savings figures are estimates and designed to give no more than a rough feel for the sums involved. The beauty of this scheme is that the capital gains from property sales would more than cover the cost of compulsory redundancies.

The FCO bureaucrats will take the opposite view of any cuts. They will not want to give up their expensive houses or any London jobs with access to ministers and political power. They will certainly not want to cut any postings to easy countries with access to Aspen or St Moritz. They will propose a series of closures of posts in third world countries – pretty well the only place the FCO actually is any use. They will propose cuts to the BBC World Service.

My key piece of advice to William Hague: do not get captured by your senior officials.

View with comments

Strange Events

You will note that this morning’s piece on Afghanistan was posted at 4am. That is because I was awoken by what sounded like somebody rattling the back door. There was however nothing to be seen.

Then at 10.22pm this evening, Nadira received a phone call on her mobile from a witheld number. A heavily accented man asked “if her husband was the writer”. She asked who it was, and he gave his name as Osman. She noticed that another man was whispering, telling the first man what to reply.

“Osman” then started asking repeatedly “Is your husband at home?” Nadira said that I did not take phone calls from people at that time of night, and suggested that “Osman” should email. “Osman” said that I was going to write something for him, and again started asking if I was at home. Nadira told him to email, and he then started swearing and repeating “Your husband owes us £30,000”.

This is all very disconcerting. I don’t know any “Osman”, and to the best of my knowledge neither I not any organisation with which I am connected has any outstanding debts to anybody. Why phone so late of night, who was “Osman” and who was the man whispering his instructions? Most disconcerting of all, why phone Nadira and where did he get her number?

If I did not have a family I would laugh this off, but the approach to Nadira and the questioning of whether I am at home is alarming. Probably that is the object of the exercise.

View with comments

UNESCO Shame

I am truly sorry to say it, but UNESCO really is an appalling organisation. Good article here by Liberal Vision.

http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/06/07/shameful-un-need-reprimanding-by-the-coalition/

The links to Global Witness are well worth following up, too. I have a lot of time for Global Witness.

UNESCO have put millions of UN money into “reconstruction” of Tamerlane monumental architecture in Uzbekistan. Astonishingly, the process often involves demolition of the original remains being “reconstructed”. The entire purpose of these Disneyland reconstructions is to host Karimov regime spectaculars featuring singing soldiers and massed ranks of dancers celebrating the cotton harvest.

UNESCO seems devoid of moral sense – indeed any sense. I remember, as an internationalist, being appalled when Thatcher withdrew Britain from UNESCO for a while. But she was right.

View with comments

Afghanistan: Heading Into Disaster

I seem unable to switch on a news channel nowadays without seeing a caption announcing the death of another poor young British soldier in Afghanistan. NATO has in June so far lost and average of precisely 3 soldiers killed every day, with a multiple of that injured.

Two events yesterday highlighted the deterioration in the NATO position. A Blackhawk helicopter was taken down, indicating that the Afghan resistance have regained access to effective missiles, while a 50 truck supply convoy was attacked and destroyed in Pakistan – not in Waziristan, but just outside Islamabad. That is perhaps the most significant news of all.

Afghans themselves are of course suffering much more than NATO,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/10/afghanistan-kandahar-wedding-party-explosion

All of this to maintain in power the fraudster Karzai and the gang of heroin warlords who make up his government, and promote the “Northern Alliance” tribes who comprise the laughably named “Afghan National Army” against the Pashtuns.

By my calculation, this month Afghanistan overtakes Vietnam as the United States’ longest running war. I haven’t seen that referenced anywhere, so grateful for views on that. The international consequences of this war are still more disastrous, while there is no reason to believe it will be militarily more succesful. The attempt to impose by brute military force an alien ideology on the Afghan people, is doomed to failure.

View with comments

Bilderberg – It’s About Screwing Black People

Africans have yet to see much economic benefit from the policies espoused by the apostles of globalisation. Not exactly many black faces among the delegates either. Scroll through all the Guardian’s pictures here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2010/jun/09/bilderberg-spain

View with comments

Obama’s Central Asian Policy Worse than George Bush

This is a very important documentary from the ever excellent Michael Andersen. It requires some patience and concentration, but it is essential to get away from the banalities of the mainstream media and understand the sheer scale of the disaster to which a purblind concentration on the disastrous Afghan war is leading.

Please watch.

View with comments

Diane Abbott

canopykakum.jpg

I know Diane Abbott slightly. I once had the pleasure of accompanying her across the Canopy Walkway at Kakum in Ghana. The photo of the walkway may come in handy as a metaphor. Last time I met her we chatted in Westminster tube station about Tony Blair – our views on him are similar.

A question for my Labour supporting commenters. I do not know if, now John has stepped down, if Diane will now get enough MP nominations to stand. But why is hr candidature treated as a joke, or at best a half-hearted bit of tokenism? Look at her voting record:

Voted moderately against a stricter asylum system.

Voted very strongly against the Iraq war.

Voted moderately against an investigation into the Iraq war.

Voted moderately against Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.

Voted a mixture of for and against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.

Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools.

Voted a mixture of for and against introducing ID cards.

Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change.

Voted moderately for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

Voted very strongly for a wholly elected House of Lords.

Voted strongly for more EU integration.

Voted moderately for equal gay rights.

Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.

Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees.

Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament.

Voted strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.

Voted moderately for the hunting ban.

Diane Abbott is the only possible candidate left who was against the Iraq War, against Trident and for civil liberties. All the other candidates are deeply steeped in Iraqi blood and strongly associated with New Labour’s viciously authoritarian agenda. The frontrunner, David Miliband, spent most of his tenure as Foreign Secretary engaged in numerous legal attempts both to keep secret and to justify Britain’s complicity in torture under New Labour.

But she is the joke candidate because she is the only one who is not an Oxford educated cabinet minister.

Which opens the question, what is New Labour for? To me, it has found its niche as a neo-conservative opposition to a more traditional Conservative party given a still more comparatively Liberal tinge by coalition.

View with comments

Bilderberg – Why Don’t You Write Me a Letter to Brighten My Loneliest Evening?

Someone has written me a letter about Bilderberg

http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/open-letter-to-craig-murray-and-michael.html

My own view is that those who get overly worried about rich and powerful people meeting to forward their common interest, need to chill out. Of course they do that. It’s just like Davos with added cachet from the thrill of being “secret”. If it were public, I don’t doubt you would find it’s just as banal.

Everything is not directed by Bilderberg, Freemasons, Illuminati, the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, the Prieure of Sion or any other grouping. Do the rich and powerful heavily influence western governments? Of course. Do they cabal in various ways? Of course. Is there a hidden force behind everything, a secret world government? No.

View with comments

The USA is Another Planet

This extraordinary passage is from the State Department’s Daily Brieifng yesterday:

QUESTION: Mr. Crowley, it is the Israeli’s actions that need to be investigated. So how can Israel, too ?” best investigation ?” why is the United States opposed to UN investigation?

MR. CROWLEY: As we’ve said, we are completely supportive of an impartial investigation that helps us understand what happens ?” what happened on these ships, and more importantly, working collectively, how we can meet our common objectives of increasing the international support for the people of Gaza, and at the same time, supporting Israel with its legitimate security concerns.

We believe that Israel is in the best position to lead this investigation. But as the Secretary said yesterday, this has to be credible. The international community will be watching this very closely as it unfolds. We want to see this done in a way that meets international standards. We’ll be talking to Israel about how best to accomplish this. We’ll be talking to other countries that may want to play a role in this. And as we ?” as the Secretary said, we are open to ways of making this as credible as possible, including international participation. And that is our view.

QUESTION: Why ?” I think his question, though, was essentially why? And can you explain why Israel is in the best position to lead the investigation (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: Israel is a vibrant democracy. It has effective, competent institutions of government, and Israel is fully capable of investigating a matter that involved its forces. And so can Israel conduct a fair, transparent, credible investigation? The answer is yes.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/06/142591.htm

At the UN Human Rights Council, the USA was joined by only Italy and the Netherlands in voting against a motion condemning the murderous Israeli attack in international waters. (The UK abstained on the pathetic grounds that we should await the outcome of the independent investigation, in the full knowledge that there will be no independent investigation).

Berlsconi’s support for the US and Israel is no surprise, but the Netherlands deserves remark. It has gone on a remarkable journey in the last decade, from a liberal society to one as poisoned with fascism as their Flemish neighbours.

View with comments

The 4.45pm Link

Iain Dale deserves applause and support for taking on the appalling rich man’s thugs, Schillings, and publishing John Sweeney’s Rooney’s Gold.

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/06/rooneys-gold-publishing-tale.html

You will recall it was Schillings who had this blog – and several others – taken down temporarily (permanently if they had their way) at the behest of convicted gangster and racketeer Alisher Usmanov.

Just as Schillings had Rooney’s Gold cancelled by Random House on behalf of Wayne Rooney, so they had The Catholic Orangemen of Togo cancelled by Mainstream (50% owned by Random House) on behalf of mercenary killer Tim Spicer. Yet not a word of libel appears in either book.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/buy_the_catholi.html

Rooney’s Gold is written by my mate John Sweeney. It should be a good read – the extraordinary things he was telling me about the relationship between football agents and organised crime were a real revelation.

I am going to contact other bloggers to see if we can’t organise a day of campaigning by all major British bloggers against the UK’s notoriously oppressive libel laws, which put nil value on freedom of speech – literally – and are designed for the express purpose of protecting the rich from the revelation of truth.

View with comments

US Kills 35 Women and Children in the Yemen

I remain grateful to emptywheel for the perception that the US defence of the Israeli killings is of a piece with its own claim to the right to murder anybody, anytime, anywhere.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/06/04/the-us-is-defending-not-just-its-closest-ally-in-israeli-raid-but-also-approach-to-war/

This is starkly illustrated by the news that the US killed 35 women and children in a cluster bomb attack on the Yemen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/7806882/US-cluster-bombs-killed-35-women-and-children.html

This policy is the apogee of what I named in “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo” the “Good Guy, Bad Guy” school of foreign policy analysis. In this view, conflicts are not born out of competition for resources or present or historical injustices, but simply by evil “bad guys”. Eliminate them, and the conflict goes away.

The tragedy is, of course, that the continued US massacre of civilians by these “targeted” attacks in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere will only make conflict more bitter, intense and of course longer. But then, that is good news if you are an arms manufacturer, mercenary, part of the security apparatus or a right wing politician. All of those people’s access to funds, resources and power is increased by continuing conflict.

View with comments

The 4.45pm Link

Today I link to something that I did not enjoy reading, just to illustrate a point. It is a truly poor article by one Niles Gardiner in the Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100041748/the-world-demonises-israel-once-again/

I point out merely in passing that the first few hundred overwhelmingly negative comments were deleted by the Telegraph. But the real reason I link is the significance of the strapline:

He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.

I bet he does. He has no international diplomatic experience, no knowledge of international law and very little experience of the hotspots of the world. But he is fully armed with the set of opinions those news outlets want their readers to hear.

Absolutely anybody can write this rubbish. Just string these elements together:

Poor little Israel. Threatened from all sides. Nazi Germany. Islamic terrorism. Hamas. Anti-semitism. Brutal Jihadists. Self defence. The right to return. Only democracy in the Middle East. Self defence. Iranian President threat to wipe off map. 8,000 Hamas rockets. Alliance of liberals, commies and islamists. 9/11. Chopping off hands. Subjugation of women. Taliban. Clash of civilisations. Existential threat. Self defence.

I could churn this stuff out easily and be on Fox, Sky and BBC as often as I like. I could pick up a fat salary like Nick Cohen for a weekly column of this stuff, and pocket the Rupert Murdoch TV fees as an extra. I could sit in a think tank. I would certainly be a great deal more qualified, and a great deal more convincing, than Niles pisspoor Gardiner. I write a lot better too.

But then I am handicapped by morality.

Which reminds me. Having followed the media coverage of the Israeli action very carefully, have you noticed what seems a complete absence on TV of bona fide experts in maritime law?

Normally live news brings in “experts” at the drop of a hat to fill in the 24/7 broadcasting, but despite the fact that professors of international law specialising in the law of the sea are not exactly hard to find, no TV station has asked one about the legality of the Israeli action.

That is because the martime law community is unanimous that the Israeli action is illegal.

View with comments

BP Lies

For anybody inclined to be sympathetic to BP over the Gulf oil link, note that its latest capping effort is capturing about 10,000 barrels of oil a day, estimated to be about half of what is leaking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/06/bp-oil-spill-chief-executive

But note that for months, BP claimed the total leak was only 5,000 barrels a day and roundly abused the very many experts who suggested otherwise – while rebutting any independent monitoring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7746662/BP-admits-underestimating-oil-leaking-from-Gulf-of-Mexico-well.html

So what we now know is that total leakage is about four times what BP were claiming for 90% of the period covered by the disaster so far. Now, either BP don’t know much about oil wells, or they were deliberately lying about the extent of the disaster.

Oil is of course a perfectly natural substance which on occasion gets into the sea through seismic events, erosion or other natural cause. Chemical dispersants – most of which are varieties of detergent – are not natural substances at all. I am sceptical whether spraying the seas with chemical dispersants does not make the situation worse.

View with comments