With friends like this

Actually, it is not always easy to tell whose friends the various NGOs and tranzis in general are. Sometimes, by an error of judgement they come out on our side. That is rare. On other occasions their behaviour is quite helpful to our side much as they dislike that.

My colleague has written an important study of the situation in Afghanistan and one of the conclusions we came to, as we discussed his findings in detail, was, unsurprisingly, that the role of the NGOs and tranzis in general was not only not helpful but actually harmful. Tentatively, I would go further than that. The fact that the situation in Iraq appears to be improving while in Afghanistan it is not, may well be credited partially to the fact that the tranzis and NGOs, in their hatred for President Bush and the American government, disliked the Iraqi war and wanted no part of it. Their refusal to dirty their hands with what they considered to be an unpleasant war may well now be helping the people of Iraq though that was not their original aim.

In a different way, they seem to have been inadvertently helpful to Colombian President, Álvaro Uribe, and the Colombian army, which is basking in well-deserved praise. We have already written about one rather peculiar aspect of the operation: it seems that the American government knew about it well ahead and gave its support; it seems, furthermore, that John McCain, who was visiting the country to reassure the people that he will, if elected, try to overcome Congress's ridiculous reluctance to continue with the free-trade agreement, was told (and kept quiet about the information); but President Nicolas Sarkozy knew nothing about it, despite the most important hostage being half-French and a cause célèbre in France.

One reason may have been that President Sarkozy (and the French government in general) was one of the people who had consistently tried to put pressure on President Uribe to make him negotiate with FARC and to give in, if necessary, to their demands.

In a thoughtful article in today's Wall Street Journal Mary Anastasia O'Grady looks at some other people and organizations who had tried to put similar pressure on President Uribe and who had done their very best to undermine his government in its fight against the terrorists.

She starts with a very interesting question: how is it that the army fooled the FARC brigade so easily when pretending to be from a "humanitarian NGO"?

It may have taken years for army intelligence to infiltrate the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and it may have been tough to convincingly impersonate rebels. But what seems to have been a walk in the park was getting the FARC to believe that an NGO was providing resources to help it in the dirty work of ferrying captives to a new location.

Well, yes, why was this seemingly improbable story believed? (Mind you, some of us recall the story of the Italian Red Cross using their ambulances to transport wanted terrorists in Iraq, which just proves that when NGOs do turn up in that country they cause appalling damage.)

Could it be, asks Ms O'Grady, because a number of NGOs have been collaborating with FARC openly and not so openly, and so the terrorist brigade had learnt to trust them? The article is well worth reading as she produces interesting information about several of the benighted organizations, some Democrat politicians and Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, the idol of the tranzis and "currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC".

Since the late 1990s, the NGO practice of dragging the military into court on allegations of human rights violations has destroyed the careers of some of the country's finest officers, even though most of these men were found innocent after years of proceedings. "Judicial warfare" turned out to be especially effective because under legislation pushed by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, "credible" charges against officers put at risk U.S. military aid unless the accused was removed. The NGOs knew that they only had to point fingers to get rid of an effective leader and demoralize the ranks. Given this history, it's not surprising that the FARC thought a helicopter from an NGO was perfectly natural.

Hmm, a familiar tactic. Incidentally, all those "credible" charges were dismissed eventually but not without causing a great deal of damage to individuals and the security organizations, all of whom are now feeling triumphant.

At the end of the article there is a reference to Sarko, which can be read in various ways. The information comes from important FARC documents captured by the Colombian army during a raid on a guerrilla camp in Ecuador.

She [Senator Cordoba] met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that "Piedad says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn't know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this."

If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, "It doesn't matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid." In short, why give up such a useful pawn?

I doubt that President Uribe is really going crazy, having outwitted all those massed supporters of terrorists. But one cannot help wondering who exactly is the pawn Ms O'Grady refers to.

National pride

Reflecting on the papers this morning, one was struck about how dull they all were – lacking in passion and interest. One flicks through in desultory fashion, hardly bothering to read most of the stories.

This is in stark contrast to the weekend, where we learn that 125,000 people turned up to watch the Vulcan fly at Waddington Air Show. That says something about our nation, where an icon of British greatness can attract such a huge audience.

Thousands were prepared to drive out to the middle of nowhere, spending hours in traffic queues (it took us over two hours to travel the last ten miles – see picture) all for a few minutes of wonderment and pride.

And it certainly was the Vulcan that was the draw. Throughout the air show, with all the stands and other entertainments, you often wonder why people come – so few seem actually to be watching the aircraft. But, when this great beast took off, everything stopped as attention focused solely on the aircraft.

When politicians talk blithely about "Britishness" and about restoring a sense of pride in our nation, therefore, it just demonstrates how out of touch they are. That pride never went away – it is simply that what we regard as important differs from the ideas of the prattling politicians.

In other words, the passion still exists – it is just that the politicians have lost their ability to harness it. The world goes on without them and the more they posture and preen, the less interest we have in their affairs.

Perhaps if David Cameron had turned up at the Air Show, he might have demonstrated an affinity with the "common man", but the interests of us "oiks" would never hold any attraction for him and his ilk. And then, the "carbon footprint" would have mortified him.

The same goes for the "colleagues" and their grand "European" experiment. They talk glibly about addressing the concerns of "European citizens" but, in truth, they know diddly squat about what makes us tick. No wonder the majority of us, quite rightly, have little interest in their grand project.

On that miraculous Saturday, therefore, when the Vulcan took to the skies again – there was perhaps only one regret – that the bomb bay was not filled with ordnance, with the destination Brussels via Westminster. All we can do is live in hope…

I'm off to London, so light blogging from me.

COMMENT THREAD

Putting it all together

We've finally finished the great work on Afghanistan, now running to 12 parts and over 20,000 words. The last part is posted on Defence of the Realm here and the index to the whole work can be found here. We'll clean it up and post the whole thing as a .pdf file some time this week.

Winning the war

Booker picks up on our work on Afghanistan in his column today, setting out an admirable summary of what has taken us – so far – over 20,000 words to articulate.

This is the essence of the Booker/North team – I write "long" in order to do the working out, while he then encapsulates the core findings in one short piece that then gets the wider coverage.

And, for once, The Sunday Telegraph has put an active link to the work on Defence of the Realm, giving those readers who want to look at the detailed arguments a chance to do so. If the MSM can work with the blogosphere in this way, then I think we would all benefit – and a lot of our hostility would evaporate.

Anyhow, as to Booker's piece, he connects the Mandelson/Sarkozy spat with the fate of our troops in Afghanistan – a connection rightly made. If the situation in Afghanistan is to be stabilised, then it is going to be by building prosperity of the bulk of the population through the export of high-value agricultural products – something which current trade regimes are inhibiting.

Interestingly, Mandelson makes his case in today's Telegraph while Douglas Alexander makes his case for the redevelopment of Afghanistan in The Sunday Times today.

The latter, although making some good points, is seriously unimpressive. We will have a look at his piece in detail later today when, we hope, we will conclude our series on Afghanistan.

In so doing, we are attempting to do what the MSM so often claims to do - but very badly - "setting the agenda". This is, in our view, where the blogosphere should be and is one of the reasons why it has become politically influential in the United States. Hit rates are all very well, but it is influence that really matters.

COMMENT THREAD

What's in a word?

When are biofuels not biofuels? Well, it seems, when they are in a proposal for an EU directive.

While I was having fun at Waddington Air Show, watching "carbon footprints" so huge as to make the Greenies shriek in agony, the energy ministers of the EU member states were having an "informal" meeting, whence they decided they had been labouring for 18 months under the false impression that an EU plan to fight global warming included an obligation to develop biofuels.

That the commission intended that biofuels should comprise 10 percent of all transport fuel is beyond doubt. But when it came to the draft directive, a certain amount of ambiguity has crept in, with the formal reference being made not specifically to biofuels but to "renewable energy".

With biofuels now about as popular as a Vulcan bomber fly-past at a climate change conference, ministers – led Jean-Louis Borloo, the French environment and energy minister, had leapt upon the commission's ambiguity. He and his "colleagues" are now convinced that other alternatives can be chosen, with Borloo, in particular, fastening on hydrogen-based technology.

The beauty of this is that, to be produced in the sort of quantities needed, the only feasible option would be high-temperature electrolysis, using electricity generated by nuclear power – of which France has an abundance.

It would be such fun to see the French – and the others – take up this option, which would be entirely within the letter, but certainly not within the spirit of the commission's proposed law. Even more fun would be the fury of the Greenies who would have to suffer the prospect of their environmentally friendly cars being reliant on nuclear power.

For that, it would almost be worth going "green" and driving one of the ridiculous things pictured at the top of this post.

COMMENT THREAD

It flew!

Yes, the Vulcan takes to the skies again ... pure sweet music. And then the Lancaster and Vulcan flew in formation, just as my battery died! But I got some more pics - I've posted a selection of them on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

While the cat's away

Heh! The boss is at an airshow or so he tells us, so I can do another one of "a great American dies" that so annoys exhilarates our readers. Senator Jesse Helms, one of the great anti-Communist fighters of the Cold War died yesterday and going on July 4 may have been part of his masterplan.

The Wall Street Journal devotes an editorial to the man and it is richly deserved:

Helms was best known as the five-term North Carolina Senator who drove liberals crazy before his retirement in 2002. But his most important role in history arguably took place in 1976, when he and political ally Tom Ellis helped to resurrect Ronald Reagan's fading run for President.

As Little Green Footballs shows in his links to the Daily Kos (too nauseating for me to link directly) the Left is still screeching its hatred. They might pretend that it is all about him opposing things like gay rights or having a chequered record on race relations but what the Left cannot forgive is opposition to Communism and big government. On the first of those, see Richard Nixon's career, passim. Had he not been the one man on HUAC who insisted that Whittaker Chambers's evidence must be checked out, the whole story of Alger Hiss's (and Donald Hiss's and many others') betrayal might not have come to light. On the other hand the political and media establishment would not have hated him so much.

Hey, I told you I was going to take advantage of the boss's absence. Anyway, back to Jesse Helms. Not only did the man fight Communism and opposed any notion of detente, a.k.a. surrender to the forces of darkness, he took on other institutions.

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Helms also tried to reform the United Nations and other multinational bodies, to the extent that is possible. His purpose was to hold those institutions accountable to their own professed principles, which made him unpopular with elites but served U.S. interests. In 2000, he became the first Senator to address the Security Council. His tenacity on this score is missed in today's Senate, all the more so given the blind eye to corruption at both the U.N. and World Bank.

Hear, hear on that last point. His tenacity in the Senate is missed on many scores. Do you get the feeling that I might be something of an admirer?

There were other issues that one might disagree on with Senator Helms - he was a protectionist and often an old-fashioned demagogue (and no, I don't like that - there has been too much trouble from the real demagogues in the last century). He was not a racist or no more than many people but opposed affirmative action and forced busing, the latter of which having been abandoned some time ago while the former is criticize on all sides.

John Fund in this article gives a trenchant analysis of that thorny issue. Mind you, opposing yet another holiday for the public sector and calling it Martin Luther King Day can be viewed in various ways. Some of Senator Helms's other opinions might make one pause though his opposition to public funding of the arts strikes a chord with many of us. (Mind you, not when I see a really superior production by the Royal Shakespeare Company.)

The piece ends with a very useful reminder to all of us who call ourselves conservative:

It was Helms who first sent his own foreign policy advisers overseas to second-guess the executive branch's foreign policy. Many liberals have no qualms in doing the same today. One liberal consultant told me he learned from Helms's ability to distill complicated ideas to a level that connected with ordinary people. His mastery of new media techniques and technology convinced many liberals they had to invest in the Internet and build up the passions of their
base.

Jesse Helms was a major influence on American conservatism, but his career provides a blueprint for anyone who represents an embattled minority viewpoint. You can, with persistence and unflinching determination, change the political odds in your favor.

Here is a short piece about Senator Helms on Dirty Harry's Place together with a slightly unexpected picture. Can you guess who is the other guy in it? No, not in the one I published above.

Another interesting post (one of many on the American blogosphere) by Rick Moran. The comments are worth reading as well.

Happy days!

It's July, Saturday and pouring with rain - it must be Waddington Air Show. Here's a boring pic from last year ... this time they have a B-52, which we might be able to see if the mist clears. Meanwhile, have an open thread.

COMMENT THREAD

Nerves fraying?

When The Economist gets nervous about Sarkozy's stint in the EU presidency chair, perhaps it is time to sit up and take notice.

Actually, the magazine is suggesting that "Europe" is getting nervous, which is an odd thing for a continental land mass to do, so there is probably a bit of ego self-projection here.

Nevertheless, "Europe" quickly becomes "Europeans", some of whom, we are told, were feeling nervous on 1 July when France took over the six-monthly EU presidency of the EU. But, quelle horreur there are some others who do not trust the French president to be "chairman of the club".

C'est incroyable – some of the "colleagues" do not trust M. le president de toutes les grenouilles?

But, if The Economist says it, it must be true – and says it, it does. "For all the welcome energy he brings," quoth the mag, "the suspicion is that he is not interested in Europe as a forum in which 27 leaders debate and come to an agreement." Instead, comments one EU diplomat, Mr Sarkozy seems to see Europe as a backdrop for his own bilateral deal-making.

Despite that, M. le president is promising to use the French EU presidency to show that Europe can tackle "everyday concerns of citizens", whether by "protecting" them from globalisation, or by allowing lower taxes on restaurant meals. To nervous neighbours, that sounds less like a plan for Europe than a prescription for selling Europe to French voters.

However, it seems that the crucial test is how the French presidency handles the "tricky task" of brokering a deal on carbon dioxide emission cuts. "Europe" – that continental land mass again - is divided into two ideological camps. One is "liberal", including Britain and the Nordics, who believe in cutting carbon dioxide emissions across the globe by as much as possible for the lowest cost.

The other, would you believe, is "more protectionist". It wants to fight climate change but still preserve European jobs in energy-intensive industries. This camp wants to erect barriers to imports from countries that are not making matching sacrifices on carbon emissions.

Can we guess in which camp France resides? Well, says The Economist, it is not merely a member of this camp, but its leader: M. Sarkozy says that demanding "reciprocity" on tackling climate change will be a priority of his EU presidency.

All this and much more, not least the spat with Mandelson, is apparently leaving the impression that France is isolated. With a bag full of "populist" measure it wants to introduce, M. Sarkozy is stacking up the odds against himself, setting himself up for a fall, as the "colleagues" desert him.

So, in a rhetorical flourish, asks The Economist, "why promise such impossible things?" When they fail to happen, French voters will surely blame "Europe".

As with all good rhetorical questions, we get the answer – sort of. "If in fact the president is just another French politician who is happy to make Europe the scapegoat whenever it suits his domestic purposes, it is a question hardly worth asking at all."

So, what do we make of that? Do we have a bull in the China shop, another greasy French politician on the make, or what? It looks like even the mighty Economist doesn't quite know what to make of our new president (of the EU, that is).

Looks like we are in for an interesting ride.

COMMENT THREAD

Stupidity squared

The Financial Times is reporting that the EU "is poised to give €1bn ($1.57bn, £792m) in unused agricultural subsidies to farmers in the developing world to fight food shortages."

This was signalled by Mariann Fischer Boel, the EU agriculture commissioner, in a speech delivered in Brussels yesterday under the title, "Who will feed the World?"

The details are in a draft proposal, seen by the Financial Times and the idea is to set up a fund of €750m this year and €250m next year taken from unused intervention funds, currently surplus to requirements because of high food commodity prices.

This money would then go on buying fertilisers and seeds or other measures to increase production in developing countries, with up to 15 percent being spent on food aid. The money could be given to international organisations, direct to farmers, companies or charities, to governments or to regional projects.

Unfortunately, all the outlines of this plan does is demonstrates with absolute clarity that, like the Bourbons, the commission has "learned nothing and forgotten nothing."

Despite the current global stresses, there is actually no shortage of food. Most commonly, in developing countries, the problem is lack of purchasing power. The food is available but the very poor simply cannot afford to buy it.

Even at the height of the so-called Ethiopian famine – which brought "Live Aid" and that dangerous idiot Bob Geldwarf into prominence - there was never any shortage of food. Simply, the refugees had no money to pay for it.

This lack of purchasing power is especially the case with subsistence farmers, who most often eke out an existence by selling small surpluses in times of plenty, and by selling their labour to larger farmers who have a market for their produce.

An emphasis on production, per se in these circumstances, especially when it is focused on low value commodity crops, is – as we have sought to demonstrate - positively harmful. This creates local surpluses which, without the marketing infrastructures and alternative markets, drive down the prices and leave the poorer worse off.

Those that can, of course, diversify into other crops and it is precisely that mechanism which is driving opium growing in Afghanistan which, in turn, is fuelling the insurgency.

In many other respects, the focus on increased production is also misplaced. In Afghanistan, an estimated 15-25 percent of crops grown are lost through poor storage and pest damage. Producing more under these conditions simply multiplies the loss.

Globally, it is estimated that as much as 52 percent of food production is lost, either in the fields or post-harvest, suggesting that endeavours to reduce such losses would have farm more impact - and more lasting effect – than short-term boosts in production. Yet, we see the EU, on the other hand, bringing in legislation that will massively handicap farmers' efforts to protect their crops.

Other problems include the lack of distribution and the distorting effect of subsidies but the major handicap is the refusal of developed countries to reduce their own farming subsidies and their unwillingness to open their markets to high value produce from undeveloped nations. Add to that the restrictive trade agreements, not least the US Bumpers Amendment and you have – as we have pointed out - a political crisis, not a food crisis.

To all that, of course, the EU is blind, concerned more to exploit the political advantages of situation, rather than address the root causes, and deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

To an extent, one is being charitable calling it "stupidity". The drivers are, in fact, more complex. One though is that "aid" has become an industry, the primary beneficiaries being the NGOs and other tranzies who have become a massive constituency supporting and sustaining the status quo.

The stupidity, in many respects, is in ourselves, who continue to allow this to happen, and in the political and chattering classes who still accept uncritically the "aid myth" and are more concerned with their own "feelgood" factors than addressing the reality of the damage their good intentions cause.

Nevertheless, it has to be said that, in some corners of the commission, there is a recognition that trade is essential, reflected in Mariann Fischer Boel's speech where she cites a policy paper which states, "A world short in supply and facing regional and country-specific fluctuations needs more options to trade, not less".

This is where, of course, the Doha Round comes in, and is why the "spat" between Sarkozy and Mandelson needed to be treated more seriously than on the "soap opera" level that some commentators chose. Despite the good intentions of the commission, the French are determined to sabotage the talks and, if they do, it will be a disaster – and one that will cost us dear.

Mariann Fischer Boel included in her speech yesterday with the words, "The first message is that we all need agriculture and that agriculture is much more central to many aspects of our way of life than we may realise." In that, at least, she is right. It is becoming vitally necessary that the rest of us wake up to that singular fact.

COMMENT THREAD

Elephant in the chamber

As one might expect, there is a great deal of comment on the debate – and vote over MPs' expenses yesterday evening. Much of it, we are able to say in our lofty and superior way, was ill-informed and missed the point.

Our view can be summed up fairly simply. If MPs were doing the job they were supposed to do, then they are underpaid. That job, in essence, is two-fold: to make (or approve) laws and to scrutinise the executive.

Since our (supreme) executive is now in Brussels, beyond the reach of our MPs, and they have outsourced 80 percent (or thereabouts) of our lawmaking to Brussels, MPs are grossly overpaid.

Both my co-editor and myself have made our positions clear on this. As it stands, MPs' pay should be cut, proportionate to the amount of power they have given away. After all, if Welsh Assembly members can argue for an increase in pay for taking on extra responsibilities, then the case for cutting MPs' pay is unanswerable.

As for MPs' expenses, I have already made a declaration of interest on this. I am paid by a number of MPs to carry out research for them. It is a pittance and the work is therefore subsidised by a public-spirited well-wisher, without which it simply could not be done.

In that context – and compared with other legislatures - MPs' expenses are too low. People have to wake up to the idea that, if they want good policy and effective scrutiny, then that has to be based on well-founded research. That does not come cheap. Part of the problem in our society is that research – especially political research – is under-valued, which accounts for the poor quality of much of it.

As to MPs' personal expenses – here the real issue is that, for want of being able to pass through unpopular pay increases, the parliament has top-loaded the expense system as a mechanism of compensation. It has, until now, stayed under the radar. Now that it has become visible, the central point has been lost – that real question of how much MPs are worth.

In the general run of things, MPs should have the capability to save us billions – and the decisions they make can save or cost lives. If they are doing their jobs well, then it matters not if the "package" is top loaded – the overall amount paid is what matters. If our parliament was effective and doing its job, then it is worth every penny and more. As it stands, it is not delivering value for money.

That is what really matters.

COMMENT THREAD

Vacuum at the centre

Habib, the labourer, looks at the new mansions in Shirpur and sees injustice. "These people are very bad people. That money was for us and they took it," he said. “The Taleban time was very bad and now it is very bad for the poor. Where is the difference?”

So runs the concluding paragraph of a piece written in November 2006 by Associated Press staff writer Kathy Gannon, published in The Boston Globe and no doubt elsewhere, now archived on an Afghani web site.

And so starts our eleventh - and we hope penultimate - piece on Afghanistan. This one addresses the deficiencies of the Karzai government and the corrosive effects of aid.

Posted on Defence of the Realm

We hold these truths ....

... to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sarko scrambles to save face

One of the curious aspects of the spectacular rescue operation in Colombia is the absence from it not only of the man who was going to solve all the problems of the continent, Hugo Chavez but of President Nicolas Sarkozy. The most important of the hostages was the French-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt, who was kidnapped in 2002.

Sarko had made her release the key point of his foreign policy and has, on various occasions, tried to put pressure on the Colombian government to sit down and negotiate with FARC. Said government and President Alvaro Uribe, a close ally of the United States, had other ideas. The army has been systematically destroying the leadership of FARC. Then it put together an extraordinarily bold plan, which it then carried out with meticulous care, to free all the Western hostages.

The plan, it appears, was carried out with the full knowledge and approval of the American government. The French President, on the other hand, was not even informed until it was all over.

French diplomats said they didn't find it strange that France was kept in the dark about the army operation that freed Betancourt. They said the rescue was planned over months in great secrecy and that even some members of Colombia's government weren't in the know.

But while France wasn't informed, the United States apparently was. The freed hostages included three Americans. U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield said U.S. and Colombian forces cooperated closely on the rescue mission, including sharing intelligence, equipment, training advice and operational experience. U.S. presidential candidate John McCain also said Colombia's president had told him in advance of the rescue plans

Presumably, the Colombians knew what they were doing.

Sarko had to scramble back to the Elysee Palace but managed to recover his position by collecting Dr Betancourt's children and posing with them for the cameramen, though he did stand in the background, doing his best to look statesmanlike. The children were flown to Colombia by Bernard Kouchner, the Foreign Minister and at the moment the government is basking in reflected glory.

More on Geert Wilders

Front Page Magazine follows up the story of Geert Wilders and the Jordanian attempt to extradite him.

In a brazen attempt to stifle free speech in the West, a Jordanian court recently summoned twelve European citizens to answer criminal charges of blasphemy and inciting hatred.

Among those sought by the court is Geert Wilders, the Dutch liberal politician who made the anti-Islamist film, Fitna. Released last March, the Dutch MP’s production caused an uproar in Islamic countries, since it equated Islam with violence. Now a Middle Eastern court would like to prosecute Wilders for the “crime.” (Ironically, a Dutch court dropped charges against him for inciting hatred against Muslims with his film the day before the Jordanian court issued its subpoena.)

The Jordanian court’s move is only the most ambitious attempt to silence debate about Islam. Until now, the preferred strategy has been to file civil lawsuits in western courts to intimidate critics. The latest version of what may be called the legal jihad is even more disturbing.

In one subpoena, issued in early June, the Jordanian court ordered ten Danish newspaper editors to travel to Jordan for the “crime” of having republished the “Mohammad cartoons” last February. The cartoons, first published in 2005, were also greeted with disturbances in Muslim lands. Seventeen Danish newspapers republished the controversial cartoons as a response to the discovery of an Islamist plot to murder Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard, a caricaturist, drew the most famous of those cartoons in the form of Mohammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, for which he is also included in the summons.

It is, of course, outrageous to have courts issuing summonses on behalf of groups with an obvious political agenda, in this case, something called "Messenger of Allah Unite Us", for something done in other countries where it is not a crime. We would never do such a thing in our civilized European Union, would we now.

If, as is presumed, the Jordanian court will try to issue an international arrest warrant, the people in question will have to rethink their future travel plans. As they all seem to be under police protection because of threats from other peace-loving, free-thinking groups and individuals, such as the man who butchered Theo van Gogh, this may not be such a big problem.

However, the boycott on Dutch and Danish goods has restarted, having been interrupted by, would you believe it, business considerations:

The boycott campaign actually began late last February but was suspended due to the losses Jordanian importers were incurring that had large stocks of unsold Danish and Dutch products.

The boycott, however, was resumed June 10. One million posters containing the logos of banned Dutch and Danish products will eventually hang in Jordanian businesses under the title “Living Without It.” The boycott will also be spread by television and radio ads, t-shirts, and bumper stickers.

As I recall the supposedly widespread boycott of Danish goods in the Middle East did very little damage to that country's economy and, in fact, encouraged other people to buy more lego and Danish cooking utensils.

It seems logical that all the businesses in question have to do is sit back and say: "Do your worst but don't expect any trade with us in future." Or words to that effect. Instead of which they do what businesses do best: they shake and shiver. Oh and grovel.

Dutch and Danish companies were instructed they could get their products off the boycott list if they, essentially, betrayed their nations’ values and their countrymen. The affected companies, according to The Jordan Times, were told to denounce the Dutch film and the Danish cartoons in the media both in Jordan and in at least one publication in their own country, support the Jordanian legal action taken against Wilders and the Danish newspaper people as well as the creation of an international anti-blasphemy law.

Several companies have already complied. When informed of the stipulation that requires a denunciation be published in a Dutch newspaper, a spokesman for a Dutch food company that exports to Jordan said his company “…would print it if needed.”

But such groveling will only buy these companies a little time, as another Dutch company discovered. It had immediately distanced itself from Wilders and Fitna after the film’s release last March but still had products placed on the boycott posters.

The Dutch government did not fare much better in its appeasement efforts. One Dutch embassy official in Jordan said he was surprised his country was included in the boycott in the first place since his government had already printed statements in the Jordanian press distancing itself from Wilders’ film.

And, naturally, the Jordanian blackmailers’ demands have not stopped. Only last week, Dutch and Danish companies were told to put the boycott posters up in their own countries if they did not want their products blacklisted.

Perhaps to further intimidate Holland’s and Denmark’s populations, the Jordanians are also claiming their boycott campaign is causing these countries huge financial losses of over four billion Euros in four months. A Danish official, however, says that is ridiculous since his country only exported about $50 million worth of goods to Jordan in 2007.

Somebody remind me again why we are supposed to listen to businessmen on matters political. It's just as well that some unnamed Danish official has kept his head in all this hullaballoo.

An interesting snapshot

News of a major riot in southwest China has been percolating through since last weekend, with latest reports suggesting that as many as 30,000 people were involved.

The unrest in Guizhou Province was sparked by the local Chinese authorities' cover up of an alleged rape and murder of a 15-year-old female student. Residents in Weng'an county went on the rampage demanding justice after police had dismissed the case as a "suicide", not murder.

Angry locals swept and torched the police station, government buildings and dozens of police vehicles. The provincial government mobilised around 1,500 armed police to quash the rioters. Reports suggest that at least 200 people were arrested, including 30 high school students. Three people are reported dead and at least 150 injured.

This comes at a particularly sensitive time for China, which is counting down to the final days before the Beijing Olympics. The government has started a nationwide stability push to prevent any domestic unrest upsetting the Games or spoiling China's quest to present itself as a harmonious nation.

What is interesting, therefore, is that, despite China's state censorship, news was broken by a number of blogs which had posted photographs of the violence long before the official news agencies were admitting its existence. Blogs linked to the popular Sina.com Chinese website (www.sina.com.cn) showed pictures of thousands of people surrounding a police headquarters, riot police guarding the burning shell of the building, and burnt and overturned police vehicles.

That, in itself, is an interesting snapshot of life in modern China – where even this government cannot entirely control the flow of information. Whether the news of the riot supports the contention that China is on the brink is anyone's guess but, if it is, it looks like we have a better chance of finding out than we did previously.

One wonders, however, to what extent it will get media coverage. Comparisons are difficult but it is a fair bet that, had a riot of this size occured in the US - or Israel - with its freer access and better communications, it would have got far more exposure. As it is, there seem to have been no references to it in the UK print media.

COMMENT THREAD

Just "a question of when"

This is the view of German chancellor Angela Merkel, when asked on France 24 about the Polish ratification of the constitutional Lisbon treaty.

Her comment followed the news that Poland's President Lech Kaczynski had announced that he would only sign the ratification papers if Ireland approved the treaty in a new referendum. "If Ireland makes another decision - but not under pressure, and without changing its constitution - in the same way as the first, then Poland will not place a block on the treaty," he said.

In Poland, the move is being seen as domestic politicking by Kaczynski, trying to strengthen the role of the Polish presidency at the expense of the government. Others say it was about a campaign between Kaczynski and Prime Minister Donald Tusk over who will be elected president in two years.

Merkel is sailing above it all, saying that she is "confident" about the future of the treaty, although she does also have problems a little closer to home. Her own president, Horst Koehler, has also decided that he will not sign up until the German constitutional court has ruled on "legal challenges to the text."

The presidency, said Koehler has decided to heed a request from the Constitutional Court not to add his signature to the embattled reform treaty pending its ruling. "The president is respecting the request of the Constitutional Court," his office said in a statement.

The adoption of the treaty is being challenged by The Left, a radicial left-wing opposition party, and a member of the ultra-conservative Christian Social Union. And the court has not yet set a date to rule on the challenges.

With Sarkozy spitting out his dummy over the Irish, we now learn that the aim is to "have an escape hatch" prepared by the European Council in October, aiming to sway the Irish by offering them "political commitments". This would probably focus on guaranteeing the Irish a permanent seat in the European commission.

The French president's office is equally robust about Kaczynski, a senior Elysée source describing him as "difficult". "He has never been a particularly easy partner to work with in building and shaping Europe," the official. "I can't imagine how the [Polish] president can go against the will of the parliament. It's odd."

The main sanction being deployed is the threat to withhold agreement on any future enlargement, with Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, convinced that this will sort out Czech president Vaclav Klaus. "The Czechs will be persuaded in the end. Otherwise there can be no more enlargement," Kouchner says. "If [the Czechs] dig in their heels, they will start their presidency [in January] in great isolation," is the Elysée view – something which seems to Paris totally beyond the pale.

Czech deputy prime minister, Alexandr Vondra, is not taking it lying down. "We're not blocking anything," he retorts, calling for an end to the "mudslinging" that has followed the rejection of the treaty. His government has already conveyed to the constitutional court its view that the treaty does not clash with the Czech constitution. Prime minister Mirek Topolanek reached that conclusion at a cabinet meeting last Friday, the daily Lidove Noviny reported. No basic aspects of the Czech constitutional order would be altered if the treaty came into effect.

Political comment from Ireland itself is muted. A planned state visit by Sarkozy has been postponed until 21 July due to "pressure of work" while Europe minister Dick Roche is refusing to comment on developments. "I don't think the background noises coming from different member states should in any way impact on the decision we have to make," he says. "We have to work out where we go from here."

Roche is sticking to the line that it is too early to talk about holding a second referendum until the completion of a €250,000 study into the reasons for the "no" vote. "We want to just get the study done," he declares, adding: "… the one thing that already comes across time and time again is that Irish people are very positive about Europe and have not turned eurosceptic."

Whether they remain "positive" after all these shenanigans remains to be seen, but the one thing remains certain. The race is on to pull the Irish into line before the Euro-elections next June. The "colleagues" cannot afford to let those elections become an unofficial referendum on the treaty. With the presidents-three: Czech, Pole and German not playing ball, it could be a close-run thing, although the "colleagues" are not going to go down without a fight.

COMMENT THREAD

More global warming?

The Going-to-the-Sun Road, which connects the two sides of Glacier National Park in the Northern Rockies, is usually open by the first week of June. But huge amounts of snow still blanket the high country, in part because of record snowfalls in Montana this year. Now, the opening was delayed to today, the latest on record by a day, except for World War II, when the road was not ploughed at all.

Crews have been working on the Big Drift near the top of the road. At 70 feet deep, the drift was the plougher's biggest obstacle. It was also next to a cliff, making snow even more challenging to remove. A storm in mid-June dumped three to four feet of snow in the mountains.

It's not all bad news though – the farmers get more water – but the tourist industry is not having a good time of it. In Yellowstone National Park, some backcountry areas are blocked by snow and some rivers are high and muddy. "Our ongoing challenge is backcountry access," said Al Nash, a park spokesman. "We have high flowing water, mud and, in shady areas, snow. It just isn't accessible right now. It could easily be another month before we have access."

And the state climatologist has forecast a cooler and wetter July than normal. Er .. anyone for global cooling?

COMMENT THREAD

Not a minor spat

For months now, we have been warning that the French would be targeting the CAP as soon as they were in the driving seat.

Now it is coming to pass with the very public spat between Sarkozy and Mandelson over the WTO Doha round.

This has been building up for some time now, ever since the European Council on 19 June when the French president took a swipe at Mandelson over the Irish referendum. With the WTO talks have been played strongly by the Irish farmers, Sarkozy was keen to put the trade commissioner in the frame.

There was nothing accidental in this – and nor was it personal. There is a French agenda here and anyone getting in the way was going to get both barrels.

The second barrel came during a television appearance to mark France's accession to the EU presidency, when Sarkozy accused Mandelson – and WTO chief Pascal Lamy - of seeking a WTO deal that would lead to a 20 percent cut in European agricultural production and a ten percent reduction in its agricultural exports.

"That is 100,000 jobs lost. I will not let that happen," Sarkozy said, adding that such cuts were unacceptable: "in a world where there are 800 million poor people who cannot satisfy their hunger and where a child dies every 30 seconds from hunger".

It was yesterday that Mandelson "hit back" on BBC television's Newsnight, claiming (rightly) that he was being "undermined". "Europe's negotiating position in the world trade talks is being weakened and I regret that," he declared, then going on to say:

It is very disappointing because the mandate on which I am negotiating in the world trade talks - and trying on Europe's behalf to bring them to a successful conclusion - has been agreed by all the member states.

What has barely registered however, is that Sarkozy was not alone in his attack on Mandelson's position, having been joined by Angela Merkel yesterday, before the Newsnight programme. She was saying that "an agreement would not be reached on the back of German agriculture," adding that her government would accept the agreement only if it provided a "fair and balanced offer."

Actually, we have been here before. But, with the next WTO meeting scheduled for 21 July, now is not the time to unstitch the "common position" laboriously agreed by the 27 member states – at least, not if you want the talks to succeed.

But, of course, neither Merkel nor – particularly – Sarkozy want success, hence the latter inventing spurious statistics which the EU commissioner has been at pains to rebut. Far from costing 20 percent of production and 100,000 jobs, Mandelson says stiffly, that the figures are "not recognised by the commission." EU agriculture production, he says, "would decrease on average by 1.1 percent, whilst employment in agriculture would come down by 2.5 percent."

Pointedly, Mandelson reminds Sarkozy that "This assessment was shared with Member States in March 2008", ostensibly leaving the French president nowhere to go - not that that will stop him. As for the tugging of the heart strings, with the reference to "a world where there are 800 million poor people who cannot satisfy their hunger and where a child dies every 30 seconds from hunger", Sarkozy is being more than a little disingenuous.

Imperfect though it is, the agreement on the table is an important and desperately necessary liberalisation measure, which will do much to kick-start developing world economies. And, as we have pointed out here and on our sister blog, the lack of this liberalisation is causing real damage as well as costing lives.

Mandelson spells it out in detail in his rebuttal of Sarkozy's charge, saying:

The Doha round is a global negotiation which will stabilise and lock in the openness that has guaranteed our welfare over decades, and has lifted 100s of millions of people around the world out of poverty. This is not about individuals – not me, not Pascal Lamy, not President Sarkozy. It is about giving the global economy a shot in the arm in order to be able to face the current economic pressures and help keep the global economy buoyant in years to come.

Food protectionism will not feed the world. A fair, balanced and carefully sequenced liberalisation of agricultural markets over time can contribute to solving the current food crisis. It will enhance efficiency of food production and ensure better access to food. The DDA is central to such liberalisation. We have not sacrificed European farm production in negotiations, but rather have been successful in defending core interests while opening new markets.

A Doha deal would also contribute to fairer farm trade by ensuring that poor farmers would no longer be forced to compete with subsidized farm goods from the rich world. Their production would rise, and South-South trade in food would be given a boost.

Mandelson warns that disunity within the EU would get in the way of progress towards a successful conclusion to the seven-year Doha Round. "If we fall back and retreat from our position," he warns, "that is simply going to result in others stepping back from their own offers, walking away from the negotiating table, and it will bring the world trade talks to almost certain collapse."

He adds: "And we will see that collapse at the ministerial meeting that is going to take place in a few weeks' time in Geneva. That's how urgent this is."

The trouble is that is what both Merkel and Sarkozy are relying on. Their core votes come from the farming lobbies in their respective countries and both know full well that these have the capacity to cause endless political strife. Thus, both are prepared to sacrifice the millions in developing countries who need this deal, all for narrow domestic political advantage.

This is not a soap opera – this is for real and a great deal is at stake. Sarkozy cannot be allowed to get away with this.

COMMENT THREAD

Do as you are told …

"The Irish either will be asked to vote again, in a rerun of Ireland's second referendum on the Nice Treaty in 2002 - or Ireland's people will be bypassed," says Sarkozy.

Bruno Waterfield has the details here.

COMMENT THREAD

The right to a job

There has been a certain amount of fuss recently over the case of the sued hairdresser. The story is readily available in the MSM so I shall sum it up very quickly indeed. Ms Sarah Desrosiers runs a hairdressing salon in King's Cross, which specializes, as she puts it, in "funky urban hairstyles". I am not sure I know what it means but whatever it is the business has been successful. As it happens I know two young women whose hair is always beautifully cut, who had followed Ms Desrosiers when she left the big salon she had worked for and set up her own business.

In other words, we are talking about a talented, hard-working, entrepreneurial young woman of the kind this country needs many more of. Whether we are going to have them after this particular episode remains questionable.

Ms Desrosiers's problems started when she interviewed another young woman by the name of Bushra Noah for the position of a junior against her initial decision as the latter was not local. Ms Noah, it seems, pleaded for an interview and, according to Ms Desrosiers, arrived and behaved as if she had already got the job. In the circumstances, it is legitimate to ask whether she had been put up to this by some organization or other. Remember Shabina Begum? If not, see here, here and here. Come to think of it, whatever happened to Ms Begum?

The main problem with Ms Noah (there seem to have been several) was her refusal to remove her headscarf or allow even a wisp of hair to show from under it. (Actually, that is a nonsensical attitude anyway, as even the most devout Muslim women are allowed to take their scarves off in the presence of other women merely.) Ms Desrosiers considers, with some justification, that a hairdresser should show her own hair to the customers and be part of the hairdressing scene. The fact that this might sometimes put off potential customers is a calculated risk the hairdresser takes.

Ms Noah, who had already been rejected by 25 other hairdressing salons, sued Wedge, Ms Desrosiers’s business, for discrimination and hurt feelings. The story hit the media and support for Ms Desrosiers was widespread within and outside hairdressing circles. To this day if one reads comments on some of the very flip and silly articles on the subject one can see where popular sympathies lie.

Eventually, the tribunal decided that there was no direct discrimination, no word having passed about religion, race or ethnicity, merely about the headgear but there was indirect discrimination, whatever that might be, and hurt feelings. Ms Noah has been awarded £4,000 on that basis. Apparently, being rejected for a job is a sign of indirect discrimination and hurt feelings. I wonder whether I should have sued some of the people that did not employ me in the past for whatever reason they had.

Some of the reactions in the blogosphere have been predictable in concentration on giving in to Islamist pressure and multi-cultidom. But there are wider issues at stake here.

First of all, there is the question of what constitutes indirect discrimination, a concept defined in Directive 2000/78/EC and thus being outside the ability of Parliament to do anything about as being:

(b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless:

(i) that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, or

(ii) as regards persons with a particular disability, the employer or any person or organisation to whom this Directive applies, is obliged, under national legislation, to take appropriate measures in line with the principles contained in Article 5 in order to eliminate disadvantages entailed by such provision, criterion or practice.

According to the article in the Daily Mail, for which I hope Ms Desrosiers received enough money to pay off Ms Noah:

But with regard to the issue of indirect discrimination, they found that Sarah had pursued a "legitimate aim - that aim being to promote the image of the business".

However, the burden of proof was on Sarah to prove that her means of achieving that legitimate aim was proportionate.

She was not able to prove her contention that employing someone with a headscarf would have the negative impact on her business's stylistic integrity that she feared.

In other words, Ms Desrosiers had shown no discrimination based on anything that was irrelevant to her business but the tribunal, made up of people who have, presumably, never had much to do with running anything to do with real enterprise, arrogated itself the right to decide whether "her means of achieving that legitimate aim was proportionate". The person who runs a business, who has taken all the risks and has put in all the work is not, according to this, qualified to judge such matters for herself without the wise guidance of the state's myridons. The fact that if she makes the wrong decision Ms Desrosiers will be punished by losing clients and, thus, profits is not an argument these people understand.

Secondly, there is the issue of being entitled to some job you happen to covet. Ms Noah's "strongest" argument was that she had always wanted to be a hairdresser and was being prevented from fulfilling her overwhelming ambition. Why anyone who thinks women should not show their hair should have that ambition is beyond me. Furthermore, I understand that she is now studying some other trade so the ambition has not proved to be overwhelming enough.

The question is does having that ambition entitles you to a job, whether you are qualified or suitable. The message to many of our young people is that it does. That is why we get all that whingeing about people wanting to be dancers but not getting any jobs from girls who have clearly never done any training.

There is legal support for this point of view on its way in, yes, you guessed it, the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty. Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (and most lawyers think that Britain's opt-out or opt-in or whatever you want to call it is not worth the paper it is written on) is entitled: "Freedom to choose occupation and the right to engage in work". Sounds fine. Why should one not be free to choose an occupation or engage in work?

However, the first item in that Article reads:

Everyone has the right to engage in work and pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

This goes some way beyond nobody, particularly the state, having the right to prevent you from doing the work you want to do. This gives everyone the right to get the job they think is right for them or have always dreamt of having. I predict many more cases of the kind Bushra Noah engaged in and even fewer small businesses expanding.

Don't we have enough on?

One does not know whether he is being deliberately provocative, but the Boy Miliband is "set to take on the eurosceptics" by saying he supports Sarkozy's, proposals on EU defence – not that we actually know what they are!

This is according to The Guardian which has advance sight of a speech Miliband is to deliver today. The Boy is to say that "Europe" must develop its military capabilities along the lines proposed by the EU's French presidency if it is not always to wait for America and Nato to be ready to intervene.

Miliband will also say: "What strikes me about the French priorities for their presidency is how closely they tie with our own ambitions for the EU, as set out in our global Europe policy statement last autumn whether on energy and climate change, migration, near neighbourhood policy and the next steps on European defence."

There he goes again: "our ambitions…" meaning, of course, his. He must know that they are not ours. Otherwise he might have been tempted to allow a referendum. But this slime cannot resist the temptation to put the boot in.

Even then, he has the nerve to reflect on Ireland's no vote, conceding that the "EU lacks a clear mission". He will say that "the spreading hostility" towards it "reflects exasperation with seven years of institutional debate." Er … no. It reflects our exasperation that we’re still in the damn thing, but never mind.

Nevertheless, Miliband will admit that the Irish rejection has shaken the confidence of EU leaders. But all he will do is acknowledge that the Irish result "cannot be dismissed out of hand". It has a message for us, he will say. “We will not get Europe right if we offer a tin ear to the people."

Despite that, that is precisely what he intends to do. Almost certainly knowing that such a move will perpetuate the unpopularity of the EU, he will praise the French for saying they are willing to reintegrate into Nato's command structure, and will insist that a stronger European defence policy does not mean Nato stops being the cornerstone of European defence.

This man is either barking, or he thinks we are. An EU defence identity is the antithesis of a strong Nato, and the Euros have been doing their very best to undermine the Alliance ever since Maastricht. It is only because they still need US firepower and money that they haven’t tried to get rid of it completely.

Strangely though, he invokes the Balkans wars in the 1990s, which he says demonstrated, unless Europe can develop its own capabilities, it will be consigned always to wait impotently until the US and Nato are ready and able to intervene.

"That means a genuine role for the EU in conflict prevention and crisis management whether it is providing the civilian experts - the police trainers, judges, civil servants and aid workers - that are needed alongside the military, or deploying soldiers from national armies in roles where Nato is not engaged," the Boy will say.

Nothing of this makes sense, as it was the political inertia rather than any lack of firepower that left the EU on the sidelines in the Balkans. Creating an EU Army is not going to solve that. If anything, it will make it worse.

For Britain though, which is actually committed to two theatres, while the French politicos are only playing in Afghanistan and avoiding Iraq altogether, we really do have enough on without having to deal with the French ambitions for military glory – on the back of their allies as always.

And what Miliband really does not understand about all this is that we are quite prepared to be very nice to the French – who are very nice, brave people – until and or unless we are shoehorned into too close alliance with them. Lovely as they are, we prefer to keep our distance.

And that applies to him as well - and no, I'm not going to put a picture up of him... can't stand the sight of the man.

COMMENT THREAD

Outsourcing the war

Throughout our dissertation on the Afghan war runs the central theme that the active “shooting war” and the reconstruction programme are not (or should not be) separate activities but an integral part of the whole, the two dovetailing together and feeding off each other.

We have also made the point that restoration of the agricultural base is the key to success: fix the agriculture and you fix the nation, we wrote. To that extent, military priorities – and all others – should be directed at that endeavour.

In this tenth part, we argue that, in terms of policy, however, the reality was that, at the beginning of the reconstruction programme, agriculture was so low down the pecking order that it was not run directly by the US government – or even the Afghani government. Instead - like many of the reconstruction activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan - it has been subcontracted to a private company under contract. In effect, a vital part of winning the war has been outsourced.

Read more on Defence of the Realm

What is happening in Burma?

Remember the horror stories? The shrieks of frustrated rage and hysteria when the NGOs and the tranzi aid organizations were not allowed into Burma by the nasty military regime who insisted on distributing aid themselves?

Just a few days ago the G8 leaders were once again pressurizing the Burmese government to let in aid workers to help with the devastation caused by the cyclone. Of course, they were mainly concerned with watching for signs to progression towards a civilian government and clearly thought that an influx of tranzis will strengthen that progression. Past experience of tranzi activity in some of the worst kleptocratic regimes in the developing world would undermine that hope but the G8 leaders are nothing if not optimistic.

Of course, it is not entirely true that the Burmese military junta – a fairly nasty bunch of rulers, though they pale into insignificance next to our old friend Robert Mugabe or his friend, President Omar Bongo of Gabon, Africa’s longest lasting leader – let in no aid at all.

As we wrote at the time here and here, the US Navy did go in and help though under supervision by the government. Unlike the UN, the American sailors did not consider this a reason for withholding much-needed aid, though early last month they, too, decided that enough was enough. There were too many difficulties in the way.

Meanwhile the "international community" continued to collect money from governments but also from foolish individuals and organizations, who clearly did not bother to ask what was happening to their donations, stockpile food and look for signs of hope that they might be allowed to go in.

So what has happened? Well, errm, it seems that the news is not that bad and, in fact, probably considerably better than the stories coming out of Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, where victims of the tsunami are still in need of aid.

Dire warnings that cyclone survivors in Myanmar might fall prey to disease and starvation failed to take into account the survival instincts of those affected, aid agencies and disaster experts say.

The resilience of the people — along with the skills of Myanmar citizens working for local and international humanitarian agencies — proved to be the most critical survival weapons and helped mitigate the limited access allowed to foreign disaster experts, they said.

U.N. agencies and private humanitarian groups agree a feared second wave of post-cyclone casualties did not take place. And barriers the junta put in the way of foreign aid appear not to have caused a measurable increase in deaths from illness and lack of food.

"These parts of Myanmar are visited by cyclones almost every year, although not of the same scale," said Ramesh Shrestha, the UNICEF representative in Myanmar. "Hence people were quite able to adapt to this sudden impact."

Myanmar's government said this week that a survey undertaken jointly with the U.N. and the regional Association of Southeast Asia Nations found no post-cyclone deaths related to lack of assistance, though the findings are preliminary.

Please don’t get us wrong, say the experts who went in:

No one is saying Cyclone Nargis was not a tragedy of epic proportions or that Myanmar's military government was justified in turning aside offers of outside aid.

We, on this blog, will certainly agree with the first part of that statement but not the second. The results show that the Myanamar (that’s Burma for the rest of us) government was fully justified in turning away those tranzis and, possibly, even in not accepting aid, certainly not aid with as many strings as the UN and the various agencies affix to it. Or, for that matter, aid that involves quite as much luxurious living and destruction of local economy as much of tranzi activity produces (see my colleague’s analysis of the situation in Afghanistan).

There is, however, a bigger issue here and one that surely people will face as the news from what is really happening in Burma filters through? After the initial help is aid-giving the best way forward? If you tell people they will have aid, they will sit and wait for it to arrive, complaining but not doing much. If there is no aid coming, could it be that people simply get on with reconstruction? Just asking.

While we are on the subject of asking, what is happening to all the money the various NGOs, aid organizations and tranzis in general collected for the special purpose of helping the people of Burma? Will it be used for other purposes, such as the welfare of the aid agencies?

What of the stockpiled food and equipment that did not go in? Will it be used somewhere else or allowed to rot? Just asking.

Holland asserts the importance of free speech

Reuters reports that:

Dutch prosecutors said Monday that they would not take action against a politician who angered Muslims worldwide with a film critical of the Koran because he is protected by the right to free speech.

People may have been offended by some of the things Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party may have said in his anti-Koran film or in interviews, but that did not mean that he did not have have the right to say it.

Mr Wilders is still under protection because of the various threats (not to be taken lightly in Holland) by people who believe in free speech, honest, but think it should be linked to "respect".

Interestingly, the article points out that:

The film sparked calls for boycotts of Dutch products in some Muslim countries, but did not lead to the kind of violence that was directed against Denmark in 2006 after newspapers there published cartoons that featured the Prophet Mohammad.

Hmm, one wonders why that is so. Could it be because no Imam has travelled round the Middle East with fraudulent evidence, inciting violence?

UPDATE: In the meantime we have received a link to a Dutch blog, which points out that Geert Wilders's problems have not gone away. The Dutch government is merely washing its collective hands.

Reality check

By the end of last month, less than ten days into our journey, the number of British casualties in Afghanistan had increased to 110, reported as the highest number of British deaths in the land campaign in any one month, since the start of operations in 2002.

Despite that, Gerard Baker of The Times wrote a bullish column telling us to: Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror”. Covering both the Iraqi and Afghani campaigns, he breathlessly announced that Al-Qaeda and the Taleban were "in retreat", the surge had worked in Iraq and Islamism had been discredited.

This is our ninth posts in our series "Winning the war" in Afghanistan. Read more on Defence of the Realm

Wrong prediction

This evening I attended a discussion about the American presidential election, organized by APCO Worldwide, more on which in another posting. APCO was also the sponsor of Iain Dale's Guide to Political Blogging in the UK 2007 - 8, to which I contributed. This evening I finally acquired a copy and looked through the contributions.

Needless to say I checked my article, which I called "The British blogosphere is still teething". I hold to all my criticism of the British blogosphere but I found that my vaguely optimistic prediction about the future has turned out to be wrong.

Having groused about the British blogosphere at length, I shall finish on an optimistic note. There are many indications that the European issue in its latest manifestation, the reissued Constitutional Treaty, now known as the Reform Treaty, is injecting toughness into the blogosphere, which may well find that the battle to be fought over this will make it grow up.

I was wrong. The battle did not make the British blogosphere grow up. With one or two exceptions it has remained in the juvenile stage while the clogs are marching on.