Blog

Interesting article by Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian (via American Future).

Reasons to be cheerful:

Her conciliatory speech in Paris earlier this week coincided with the handshake of peace between Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas. That was a gift only in small measure of Washington’s own making. The president whom Dr Rice serves so faithfully, George Bush, has long been inspired by the example of Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, he wants his first term, in which he was demonised as a warmonger by many Europeans, to be followed by a second term in which he writes himself into the history books as both peacemaker and freedom spreader. (Into some history books, depending whose you read.) But Reagan could do this because the US’s main geopolitical challenger produced a leader called Mikhail Gorbachev. Until recently, it was hard to see where Bush’s Gorbachev moment would come from. Now there is a chance that Bush’s Gorbachev will be called Mahmoud Abbas.

On the other hand:

Gorbachev was the undisputed leader of a post-totalitarian state. Mahmoud Abbas is the contested leader of a non-existent state. Representatives of two militant Palestinian groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, said yesterday that they are not bound by his ceasefire. Reagan was Gorbachev’s chief interlocutor; the deals were made directly between the two of them. For all the US influence in the region, Abbas’s chief interlocutor is Sharon, and the deal has to be done between them. Europeans and Americans are pulling in the same direction here, but if the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation stalls, transatlantic differences could again become acute.

Dr Rice has been reassuring Europeans that Iran is not another Iraq. While the US president will never take the threat of force off the table, the military option is low on his list. Yet the administration wants Iran to stop working towards a nuclear weapons capacity, stop supporting terrorists, reform itself, and respect human rights. This adds up to regime change. In dealing with the already nuclear-armed Soviet Union, you could combine military containment and detente-style political engagement for peaceful change. But no one has yet managed to explain how you do both prevention and detente at the same time. Meanwhile, there’s a big transatlantic row brewing over the EU proposing to lift its embargo on arms exports to China.

Helen Rumbelow in the Times sets out the lunacy of the EU policy on sugar, and how it affects Africa:

During the Napoleonic Wars, Nelson blockaded sugar exports from the West Indies. This was a disaster for Napoleon — the French literally could not eat cake, as sugar cane does not grow in cold European climes. So Napoleon offered a cash prize to anyone who could crystallize sugar from beets, which was then used as animal feed. It was won by a German chemist, but the process is still laborious and costly compared to sugar cane, which is why Napoleon had to subsidise his farmers. To this day the EU has to spend €3.30 in subsidies to export sugar worth €1. If trade barriers were lifted tomorrow, European sugar farmers would go out of business.

Does this sound crazy to you? That you as a British consumer pay extra (in taxes and the high price of sugar) to prop up a crop that Europe does not grow very well, but is so oversubsidised it is destroying the industries in countries where it grows so abundantly? And all because a short Frenchman’s ambitions got out of control?

ssible effort to settle the nuclear issue and improve the bilateral relations.

However, the US interpreted this as a sign of weakness, defiled the dignified political system in the DPRK chosen by its people and wantonly interfered in its internal affairs. The US, turning down the DPRK’s request to roll back its anti-DPRK hostile policy, a major stumbling block in the way of settling the nuclear issue, treated it as an enemy and, not content with this, totally rejected it, terming it “tyranny.” This deprived the DPRK of any justification to negotiate with the U.S. and participate in the six-party talks.

Is it not self-contradictory and unreasonable for the US to urge the DPRK to come out to the talks while negating its dialogue partner? This is the height of impudence.

uicide.

Such being a hard reality, the reactionaries of Japan are joining the U.S. in its smear campaign against the DPRK over its “human rights issue” in an effort to overturn its system. This is, however, nothing but a daydream of the wicked and stupid guys.

The Japanese reactionaries had better properly understand who their rival is and give up their futile attempt to bring down the system in the DPRK.

Sadly the Japanese reactionaries, steeped in bitter hostility, “the sworn enemy of the Korean nation”, beat the dignified lads from DPRK by 2 – 1.

Not so great at football then, but their rhetoric is unmatched:

Rodong Sinmun Monday editorially calls upon all the people of the country to thoroughly implement the appeal of the meeting for general march of the Songun revolution calling on them to turn out as one in the all-out charge to glorify the 60th anniversaries of the Workers’ Party of Korea and the liberation of Korea as grand festivals of victors in the Songun revolution, hailing the success of the meeting which provided a landmark for bringing about an epochal turn in building a great prosperous powerful socialist nation and accomplishing the cause of Juche.

get special licenses for exporting unclassified military technologies – a move pushed by a couple of Republican congressmen, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House Armed Services panel:

This week [three weeks ago now], the special relationship was cast aside as Britain lifted its longstanding opposition to scrapping the European Union’s embargo on selling arms to China. What was a solid, united Bush-Blair front against military sales to China was suddenly in tatters, scuttled by two Republican congressmen.

Apparently, no one on Mr. Bush’s foreign policy team warned him about the consequences of the Hunter-Hyde two-step into the unknown. And Mr. Blair himself simply explained to Mr. Bush that Britain could no longer be the lone holdout in EU against selling weapons to China. To mollify his White House friend, Mr. Blair assured Mr. Bush no hardware would be sold to China that might upset the delicate balance between China and Taiwan. […]

A senior British BAE executive said privately, “I have never seen Tony Blair so angry. British papers keelhauled him for getting nothing from the U.S. in return for his Iraqi commitment to Bush. And he patiently waited for an opportunity to show the White House and Congress that Britain is bulldog, not poodle.”

From the Mirror:

A Welsh rugby fan chopped off his testicles after his country’s epic victory over England.

Geoff Huish, 26, was so convinced England would triumph he told friends at a social club: “If Wales win I’ll cut my balls off.”

They thought he was joking but he went home after the match, severed them with a knife and returned to show his mates what he had done.

Staff dialled 999 and put the testicles in a pint glass filled with ice cubes.

Geoff was “seriously ill” in hospital yesterday with his family at his bedside.

He will need cosmetic surgery and may be given a prosthetic scrotum.

Another fan who was with Geoff at Leigh Social Club in Caerphilly, Mid Glamorgan, said: “He came back later wearing a kilt with his testicles in a bag.

“He lifted the kilt up to show everyone what he had done. There was blood everywhere, it was terrible. That’s when he collapsed.”

Another club-goer said: “We’re all in a state of shock, no one can believe what happened. He must have been in terrific pain.

“It was amazing he could walk the 200 yards from his house back to the club.”

Police said Geoff had a history of mental problems.

Further to the EU resumption of normal relations with Cuba, it now transpires that the ban on inviting Cuban dissidents to receptions at European embassies in Havana, proposed by the Spanish and eloquently opposed by Vaclav Havel, has been blocked by the Czechs:

The ban would have suspended a 2003 resolution that called on EU countries to support anti-Castro dissidents by inviting them to parties celebrating national holidays.

Spain proposed the ban as part of a package of measures — including the resumption of EU missions to Cuba — designed to ease tensions with Havana. It became a sticking point when the Czechs threatened to use their veto in the 25-member Council of Foreign Ministers, where unanimity is required on policy decisions.

The “Cocktail Wars,” as one paper dubbed them, ended Jan. 31 when Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda convinced other ministers to remove the ban during a closed-door lunch.

“I consider this an unequivocal success,” Svoboda later told reporters.

Debate over the ban touched a nerve here, where many former dissidents entered politics after communism fell in 1989.

Former dissident-turned-president Vaclav Havel wrote in the Jan. 28 edition of the French newspaper Le Figaro, “I can hardly imagine a better way for the EU to spit on [its] principles. … We will start discriminating against free-thinking people.”

A source at the foreign ministry in Spain played down the dispute. “We want to continue working with opposition in Cuba, but the old measures weren’t working,” he said.

The Czechs, who don’t seem to have quite got the hang of EU-approved methods of dealing with totalitarian regimes, have also responded unhelpfully to North Korean requests to have Team America: World Police banned (via The Marmot’s Hole):

North Korea’s embassy in Prague has demanded that the film “Team America: World Police” be banned in the Czech Republic, saying the movie harms their country’s reputation, a report said Saturday. […]

“It harms the image of our country,” the Lidove Noviny daily quoted a North Korean diplomat as saying. “Such behavior is not part of our country’s political culture. Therefore, we want the film to be banned.”

The Czech Foreign Ministy said the film would not be banned in the Czech Republic.

“We told them it’s an unrealistic wish,” ministry spokesman Vit Kolar was quoted as saying. “Obviously, it’s absurd to demand that in a democratic country.”

he common denominator of which is the idea that evil must be appeased and that the best way to achieve peace is through indifference to the freedom of others.

corp.typepad.com/photos/variousthings/wayoutmap.html”>Way Out tube map, which shows you which carriage to board to arrive right opposite the platform exit at your destination. Then there’s this Wikipedia page, which links in turn to a discussion of the game…..

Mornington Crescent!

Iyad Allawi in the Times:

For those fortunate to live in a stable, peaceful and democratic country such as Britain, it is difficult to understand the full importance and impact of Sunday’s elections on Iraq and its people. Perhaps only those denied freedom for so long can fully grasp its meaning.

For millions of Iraqis, Sunday was a day of history and high emotion. I never doubted, despite the violence and threats, that the Iraqi people would demonstrate their courage and love of freedom. They knew how important Sunday’s poll was to their country’s future and knew, too, that the eyes of the world were on them.

In every part of our great country and in huge numbers, they defied the terrorists, fanatics and cowards to play their own part in free and fair elections. Sunni, Shias, Arabs, Kurds, Turkomans and Christians marched to the polls as a national army, armed solely with their determination to live in liberty. […]

[N]one of this would have happened without Britain, the United States and your coalition partners. It is the steadfastness of your leaders and your citizens and, above all, the courage of your forces which have given our country this opportunity. I know that this has come at a very high cost.

The terrible loss of life on Sunday was the latest sacrifice Britain has made. I want to express my gratitude to your country and my sympathy to the families. You can be as proud of the role that your country and its forces have played in giving Iraq this chance of a democratic future as I am of my fellow countrymen and women in seizing that opportunity with both hands on Sunday.

I know, too, how divisive the conflict was in Britain, and many other countries, and the legacy of bitterness that remains. I ask, however, that just as our country must put its divisions behind us so you, too, unite to support the march for democracy and peace in Iraq. There can surely be no choice now for any democrat.