Straw refused aid to Katrina victims

A request for EU aid for Katrina victims, made directly to the United Kingdom in its EU presidency capacity, was turned down last week by British foreign minister Jack Straw (left).

His refusal came at last week's disastrous meeting of EU foreign ministers in Newport, despite the Irish foreign minister, and others, calling for an organised joint EU aid operation.

According to one witness, Straw blocked calls "for rather vague reasons." He "inarticulately mumbled" that India might be upset because it had received no EU aid when the country was struck by floods. "It was clear that he did not intend to grasp this opportunity to give the EU more visibility," a senior official who attended the meeting said.

As a result, according to the Belgian daily, De Standaard, the twelve EU member states who sent aid have done so on an individual basis. Their efforts involved neither "EU" aid, nor EU money.

The EU commission was not directly asked for aid, as the request was made to the UK presidency. All the commission is doing, therefore, is handling the practical coordination via the Monitoring and Information Centre of the EU Commission's Environment Directorate. It is striking, says De Standaard, that this aid will not be labelled as EU aid. The EU has not allocated a budget either. The member states themselves will have to bear all the costs.

Of course, there was nothing to stop the commission making an unsolicited donation to the American Red Cross, but at least it had the (somewhat lame) excuse that it "wasn't asked". Mr Straw's excuse is somewhat less plausible.

Typically, the BBC got it wrong: "EU sends aid to Katrina victims" blared its website two days ago, its report archly ending with a dig at the US, saying: "…its call for European and international help shows that, after the divisions over Iraq, it has now realised that even superpowers need friends."

Friends it may need, but – contrary to the triumphal BBC report – the EU isn't one of them, and neither is British foreign minister Jack Straw.

COMMENT THREAD

Will Russia start reconstructing borders?

Russia, on the whole, has had tumultuous relations with her neighbours, the three tiny Baltic States. Without going too far into history, let us recall that Estonia, like the other two, became independent in 1920, via the Treaty of Tartu, signed on February 2.

Said independence lasted for twenty years. In 1940, "honouring" the secret clauses of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Red Army marched into all three countries and the Soviet government announced that they have all been received into the great family of Soviet Republics. And just to show that they now belonged to that family, immediate arrests, executions and deportations began.

It is generally assumed that one reason why the Soviet Union was unprepared for the German attack of June 22, 1941 was because the trains were running in the wrong direction. Instead of bringing soldiers to the western border, they were carrying human cargo east and running back empty to collect more.

The German invasion took in the Baltic states as well and there were more deportations though there was also some (in the circumstances almost understandable) collaboration against the Soviet Union. In 1944 the Red Army came back and the 1940 process was repeated. Somewhere along the line there were various referendums that showed without any doubt that all Balts wanted to be Soviets.

For the subsequent 45 years great efforts were made to Russify the area. The results of those efforts, the Russian population of those countries are still presenting a problem one way or another.

Still, the Soviet Union collapsed and Estonia's independence was recognized, again, together with that of Lithuania and Latvia, in 1991.

Last year the countries became members of the European Union, having joined NATO some time ago. It would seem that President Putin's plans to reconstruct the old Soviet area into a single economic and security unit would not include the Baltic States.

Unfortunately, it is not quite part of the collective Russian psyche to accept that territory has to be released. There have been constant meddlings through the Russian population and its supposed wrongs. It seemed that the subject was abandoned by Putin as he has not raised it with the EU for some time.

In 1996 a border agreement between the two countries was drawn up, which was to put an end to the disputes that have, in theory, dragged on since the forties. Now, we get the news that Russia has decided to withdraw from the agreement, which Putin had actually signed earlier this year, explaining that the agreement would allow Tallinn to "claim" land from Russia.

According to the Novosti news agency

“The Estonian parliament ratified the agreement in June, but modified its text to incorporate provisions of the 1920 Tartu peace treaty, claiming parts of the Narva region for Estonia, and to present the country's annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940 as an act of aggression.”

Estonia denies that this means any further claims on territory and, one suspects, that it is the point about the 1940 annexation that is really at stake. Noticeably, President Putin has refused to acknowledge that there was a certain aggressive aspect to the Nazi-Soviet Pact or its effect on the Baltic States, Poland, Western Ukraine and Moldova.

What, one might ask, is the reaction of the European Union to this rather curious development on its eastern border? None, it seems. At any rate, Russian politicians have pointed out that there is no evidence that the EU is standing behind Estonia in what they describe as a "bilateral dispute". It seems all disputes on the eastern border remain bilateral.

More pics of the "unreconstructed" border here.

COMMENT THREAD

Accountancy begins at home

The EU is to fund a project aimed at improving the system of managing state spending in Russia. This project will be implemented in Russia in the period ending 2006 and its budget totals €1.5m. The main target is an establishment of an efficient system for managing state spending on the basis of target-oriented budgeting. This, according to the report, "will contribute to enhancing better quality of decisions on allocation of budget revenue and making Russian executive authorities more result-oriented."

And how many years is it since the Court of Auditors were prepared to sign off the EU's own accounts?

COMMENT THREAD

So that's all right then

Never mind the growing entente between the EU and China, the EurActiv website has this on offer today.

"With shared values and responsibilities, and a common concern for secure democratic institutions, the United States stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the European Union.

The US Mission to the EU serves as a bridge for governments and civil society on both sides of the Atlantic. Formal structures that support 'Transatlantic Relations' between the US and the EU are already fostering active collaboration on critical issues."

What is it about Barroso's smile that makes one want to do something unspeakably and irredeemably violent?

COMMENT THREAD

Summit blues

We learn from The Times today that the G8 summit jamboree in July cost Edinburgh City Council alone some £2.7 million.

This is going to have to be picked up by Scottish taxpayers - yet another unwelcome bill as the City puts its claim to the Scottish Executive. And this pales into insignificance compared with the policing costs, which have been variously estimated of upwards of £100 million – to say nothing of the cost of importing all the heads of state and their camp followers.

Has anyone worked out the cost of a conference call – or even this - and made the comparison?

COMMENT THREAD

Christmas time for China

So, China and the EU seem to have settled their differences over the textiles quota dispute, in a deal, according to Reuters that Beijing is calling "equitable". In order to release an estimated 85 million garments stacked up in European ports, both sides, we are told, are to share the burden of the extra imports this year. The EU has absorbed half the goods, reallocating unused quotas for other goods, and Beijing has agreed to count roughly half of the blocked goods as part of its 2006 EU export quota.

"I hope that ... European member states will feel that this is a sensible, reasonable, burden-sharing arrangement that we need to introduce," says Peter Mandelson, after clinking champagne glasses with Chinese counterpart Bo Xilai. That much he hopes, but – call me cynical if you wish - anything that China labels “equitable” is bound to come at a very high price, making Mandelson’s tipple an extremely expensive luxury.

Already this week, we have learned that the EU, through the European Investment Bank, has decided to lend China €500 million to enlarge Beijing airport, at a special low-interest rate, repayable over 25 years.

Yesterday, we also head from The Financial Times that the EU is to fund China's development of a low-emission coal-fired power station, paying the (unspecified) difference between the cost of a conventional plant and one equipped to demonstrate technologies both for carbon capture and storage and for clean coal.

What the EU thinks it is doing can only be imagined, as China is way ahead of Europe in the development of nuclear power, not least with pebble bed technology and could well leave nuclear-averse Western nations trailing behind in the electricity generation stakes.

But this is only the start. In many ways, the Mandelson effort was a side-show as it coincided with the eighth China-EU summit, hosted by Chinese premier Wen Jiabao who met yesterday with Tony Blair, representing the presidency of the EU. And the joint statement, issued by the Commission reads like a Sears catalogue for governments and Christmas – if the Chinese believed in it – all rolled into one.

Running to 26 items, it celebrates the "progressive deepening of the relationship" between the EU and China which, says the statement, "is fast maturing into a comprehensive strategic partnership."

The two sides endorsed a memorandum of understanding on labour, employment and social affairs and a joint statement on cooperation in space exploitation, science and technology development.

This included an expression of satisfaction at the China-EU cooperation within the framework of the Galileo programme and a call for "detailed talks on the conditions related to China's joining of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority". This is the management board of the whole enterprise, which runs the system, and China is to be part of it. And the EU is surprised that the United States is worried?

The two sides have also agreed to launch "a regular vice foreign ministerial strategic dialogue mechanism" by the end of 2005 "to discuss important international and regional issues and exchange views on bilateral issues of common concern" and a "move towards early negotiations on a new China-EU Framework Agreement." The leaders have instructed their respective services to "expedite preparatory work with a view to concluding at an early date an agreement that will reflect the full breadth and depth of the strategic partnership between China and the EU."

Furthermore, flying in the face of US treaty commitments that underwrite Taiwan's independence, the EU side "reaffirmed its continued adherence to the one China policy", thereby recognising China's claim to ownership of Taiwan. And, on top of that, the EU reaffirmed its willingness to continue to work towards lifting the arms embargo.

Of course, as part of the EU, Britain – or, at least the British government – wholly subscribes to this statement. And, while we cosy up to China, forging a "strategic alliance" with a country that has pledged to invade Taiwan if it declares itself to be an independent state, the United States is strengthening its "strategic partnership" with Australia, leaving the UK in the cold.

I bet Mr Wen Jiabao is enjoying more than a glass of champagne.

COMMENT THREAD

The realignment continues

Last month, I posted a story about how Australia, militarily, was becoming more closely aligned with the United States, and slipping away from the orbit of the Euro-obsessed British. This was followed by a posting from my colleague on the nascent Anglosphere, which confirmed this dynamic.

Now, from the The Australian comes yet further evidence in an article headed "Australia to share US secrets".

US President Bush, it reports, has issued a decree changed US national disclosure policy, upgrading Australia to the highest rank of intelligence partner that the US has in the world. Australia's new status is equalled only by Britain and vastly expands the quantity and quality of US intelligence our agencies receive.

In the 50 years of the US-Australia alliance, writes The Australian, Australia has never before enjoyed this level of access to American intelligence. The agreement ranges from tactical and operational military information through to comprehensive national assessments.

Increasingly, Australian agencies will have direct access to US intelligence systems. Australian military personnel in the Middle East, for example, can already directly access US intelligence databases and real-time battle space imagery.

The new relationship occurs at many levels. Canberra now has a permanent senior officer stationed at the US Strategic Command in Nebraska (pictured right). US Strategic Command is responsible for integrated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, space and global strike operations, information operations, integrated missile defence and command and control.

It is the most sensitive intelligence hub in the US military network and to have Australians stationed there at high levels of seniority is a sign of the depth of the intelligence relationship. Australia gains access at all levels - to US raw intelligence, to US assessments of the intelligence and to real-time operational information and planning.

This has meant Australia further upgrading its own security because the US is extremely sensitive about who shares such information. Australia's new status is a sign of the growing trust the US has in the Australian military and intelligence community. Co-operation between Canberra and Washington in these fields has grown exponentially as a result of both the war on terror and the joint operations in Iraq.

In an editorial today, The Australian elaborates on this development, declaring that the change in Australia's status shows the reserves of trust that exist with our major ally. It is also a testament to the close relationship between Mr Bush and John Howard (pictured left), adding that: "the US alliance is, of course, the foundation of our security. Less well understood is the way the huge US defence budget subsidises our own military and intelligence spending, making it easier for Australian governments to provide the social services we value."

Continuing on this theme, it emphasises similar issues to those which have made the "special relationship" so valuable to the UK. "In recent times," the editorial says, "the closeness of this relationship, which is based on shared values and a history of helping each other out in times of conflict, has been expressed in many ways, including the free trade agreement signed last year and Australia's commitment to the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq. The new intelligence symbiosis, which among other things will help us fight terror in our region, is a further example of how the US alliance materially benefits Australia."

That "symbiosis" may be helping Australia now but, as far as the UK is concerned, informed sources report to us that British defence companies are experiencing "severe difficulties" in obtaining sensitive information from the US, suggesting that, far from enjoying equal status with Britain, in fact, Australia is now in a more privileged position.

This can hardly be a surprise. Amongst the more dubious articles of the "secret treaty" which we highlighted last month is "mutual recognition" of security clearances for the personnel from the signatory states.

Thus, according to the innocuous-sounding "Framework agreement" concerning measures to facilitate the restructuring and operation of the European defence industry, Part 4 (Article 23) defence workers from France, or Germany or German or any other of the signatory nations who have been given security clearance by their own country can be allowed full access to British defence secrets, and without even the British authorities having to be notified.

There plenty of examples of US sensitive technology having leaked from European firms to China, so there can be no surprise that things are getting tougher for Britain. As we cannot even control access to our own secrets, why should the Americans trust us? But, when Australia is cementing serious relationships with the US, and we are left out in the cold, it really is time to ask where we are going. Can we really afford to accept an Anglosphere that excludes the UK?

COMMENT THREAD

Vive la liberté?

We are all more or less used to the distortions provided by the main stream media that has acquired the soubriquet MSM, which makes it sound as if it were some terrible disease that probably causes autism. Well, perhaps it is.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in France where large sections of the electronic media are owned by the state and the newspapers are controlled one way or another through political pressure.

We can recall the lack of proper discussion in the run-up to the war in Iraq when L’escroc Chirac was given unlimited and unchallenged airtime, President Bush merely quoted by a newsreader and French politicians who supported the war, such as the impeccably left-wing Bernard Kouchner, not allowed anywhere near a camera.

Is it any wonder, we ask, that the French populace or, at least, those of them who watch the official media, tends to be a little paranoid on matters to do with foreign affairs?

There are times when the French political establishment and the media it controls oversteps the marks of all decency. One such case is the famous “shooting” of the twelve year old Muhammad al-Dura at the beginning of the second intifada in 2000.

The image of the terrified boy crouching with his father and shortly afterwards lying at his father’s feet shot by a heartless sniper winged its way round the world, caused a great outcry, did a great deal of damage to Israel, took attention off the fact that it was the late unlamented Chairman Arafat who had broken off the Oslo negotiations and ordered the intifada and – worst of all – became a symbol for numerous other Palestinian children who blew themselves and Israeli (Jewish and Arab) children in the name of Muhammad al-Dura.

Now, some years on, it appears that not all is well with that story. Its creation and broadcasting was investigated in detail as was the role of France-2, the channel responsible for it, controlled as it is by the government.

The details of the original story, the doubts that arose immediately, the threats, denials and cover-ups are told in this month’s Commentary magazine by Nidra Poller, a journalist and writer, domiciled in Paris. I do not think anything needs to be added by this blog.

COMMENT THREAD

Germany calling

The tempo of the German election is increasing, with the screening of a 90-minute television debate yesterday, aired on all four main German TV channels. By one account, challenger Angela Merkel did quite well, getting the better of Schröder on the vital issue of the economy.

With Schröder's Social Democrats trailing the opposition Christian Democrats by around 11 per cent in the polls, the odds seem very much in favour of Merkel. However, between a third and a half of German voters are said to remain undecided as to how they will vote on 18 Sept, so it would seem that the contest could go either way.

What to make of the article by Ambrose Evans Pritchard today in The Daily Telegraph? He paints a rosy picture of the German economy, reporting that Germany has overtaken America to become the world's biggest single exporter. Its trade surplus is now greater than that of China, Japan and India combined, reaching a staggering 16.8 billion euros in June alone. The profits made by German companies are running at over 33 per cent of national income, the highest in 40 years.

Deutschland AG has knuckled down, he writes, and it is now up to the German state. Should Merkel win the election, her putative finance minister, Paul Kirchoff, wants a 25 per cent flat tax and calls for the abolition of 90,000 tax rules.

Ambrose makes the point that, compared with an apparent resurgence of Germany, Britian is looking lacklustry, with our state taking 45 per cent of GDP by 2006, against 46 per cent for Germany, on OECD data. It does not take much extrapolation, he writes, to see that Britain could soon be Europe's sick man again, gasping and choking with the worst of the big-government sclerotics. Writes Ambrose:

I am not sure that Britain's debate on Europe has quite caught up with fast-moving events on the ground. We love to hate the Franco-German axis, but it did deliver the stabilising compromises that held the EU's north and south together. The task of holding Europe together may now fall to Britain, since no other EU state can possibly do it. Or Britain could opt for the entirely different strategy of Anglo-German condominium, creating a fresh EU axis, this time run on free-trading, pro-American lines - and let the Latin chips fall where they may. Unwise perhaps, but very tempting.

This analysis is interesting, but I am not sure it goes far enough. The profitability of German firms has largely been through buying up – or setting up – enterprises in the cheaper central and east European states, at the expense of jobs in Germany. In the UK, the government has been able to keep employment buoyant largely through a massive recruitment in the state sector, on the back of increasing income from financial services, which now account for nearly a third of the economy.

Germany does not have this resource to fall back on and the Merkel recipe will be viewed as bringing more job cuts in the short-term, and reduction in state benefits, without any immediate prospect of relief. What is not possibly realised abroad is quite how much Schröder’s Social Democrats are playing the anti-American card, to which we to which we referred to earlier, but a graphic illustration of this can be seen from this picture of a recent election rally – redolant more of a third world country, like Iran, than a supposedly civilised country like Germany.

With the New Orleans debacle being milked for all its anti-American potential – as living demonstation of how the US "capitalist model" fails - the Schröder line may have more resonance than has been anticipated. He may give Merkel a run for her money. On that basis, we could see Britain facing a stronger anti-American alliance on the Continent, being drawn further away from the special relationship but with very little chance of dominating the EU agenda.

This notwithstanding, the British economy certainly gives the impression of being built on "funny money", but, unlike Ambrose, I do not see any possibility of an "Anglo-German condominium". We may be on our way to becoming the "sick man of Europe" again, but never as sick (I hope) as the strand of German politics exemplified by the picture above.

COMMENT THREAD

The new face of Conservatism

With a strong measure of indifference, we learn that the Europhile campaigning group Britain in Europe is finally to fold its tent at the end of the month and slink off to merge with its parent organisation the European Movement.

Somerset House in central London has been chosen as the venue for the closing down party, when the grandees and Euro-luvvies will no doubt assemble to swap notes on how unfair life has been to them.

That much can be gleaned from the the valedictory press release , which complains of a "hostile press and a well-funded eurosceptic lobby". However, it says, "there is still much to do to improve public understanding and engagement in the importance of Britain's membership of the EU, not least in relation to our country's future prosperity and security."

"We hope," it concludes, "that all our supporters will continue to make the case for Britain in Europe and that, when a new consensus on the future direction of the EU is reached, we will all once again join forces to ensure that Britain remains at its heart."

Meanwhile, those former members of Britain in Europe who move over to the European Movement "to improve public understanding and engagement in the importance of Britain's membership of the EU," will no doubt find a warm welcome from one of its high profile vice presidents, none other than the Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke QC MP – the new face of Conservatism.

Cartoon courtesy of (i.e., swiped from) The Guardian

COMMENT THREAD

Short-changing the Army

The series of "Booker is wrong" letters to the Sunday Telegraph, attempting to rebut his pieces on the Europeanisation of the UK armed forces, continues apace. This week, we have Andrew Simpson of Bath, who offers what must qualify as the most bizarre contribution to date.

Under the heading, "I helped pick the Panther", Simpson reveals that he was formerly the MoD desk officer who initiated the Future Command and Liaison programme, which resulted in the procurement of the Panther vehicle (illustrated right), but he also tells us he is currently a consultant to Iveco – the builders of the vehicle.

Mr Simpson now feels so strongly about his employer's product, that he writes to tell us that he "cannot allow the gross errors of fact in Christopher Booker's article on defence procurement to go unchallenged." He is, he tells us, "the only person to have been intimately involved in this programme from initiation to contract award."

With such splendid qualifications, Simpson then takes Booker to task for referring to his employer's product as being "obsolescent". "Nothing could be further from the truth," he asserts. "Development of the base vehicle was started by Iveco as recently as 1999. It is as close to a state-of-the-art vehicle as is currently available, featuring a highly innovative protection system." Before dwelling on this specific point, it is as well to acquaint ourselves with what this "state-of-the art" Panther is replacing.

Firstly, it will take over close combat reconnaissance from the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Tracked) (CVR(T)) series, better known as the Scorpion/Sabre series (illustrated left), vehicles which have done good service but are now urgently in need of replacement.

But, it is also being supplied to combat engineers, as their reconnaisssance and liaison vehicle, replacing the venerable but perfectly servicable FV 432, an example of which can be seen on the left. From the illustration can be seen the kind of kit that engineers carry into battle, and this is – theoretically – a ten-man vehicle.

The "state-of-the-art" Panther is, at best a five-seater and, in order to fit the radio, one or two seats have to be removed. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the Panther is already believed to be suffering from space constraints and the Engineers are rumoured to want a trailer.

None of this, of course, is mentioned by Simpson, who focuses on Booker's reference to the US up-armoured Humvee, which could have been bought for £100,000 as against Simpson's employer’s £413,000 Panther. "Humvee-based designs were considered and rejected by the MoD because that vehicle lacks the necessary protection and reliability for the role," writes Simpson. "Indeed, the Humvee itself is widely recognised as being obsolescent.”

Needless to say, Simpson misses the point. It is not so much the design of the Humvee or even the Panther which is obsolescent. It is the concept – the idea of having a general purpose vehicle to carry out a wide range of different tasks. We already showed you one possible alternative to the Humvee, the M1117 Guardian - which even at twice the price slated is still cheaper than the Panther. But the proposed replacement for the CVR(T) series should actually look something like the Sika Combat Vehicle (pictured above).

This is the fruit of the US Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS)/UK Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) programme - a joint US-UK venture, originated in 1996, with an in-service date of 2007.

In February 2000, however, the project was cancelled when the US Congress shifted funding from the FSCS to a more ambitious, all-embracing concept known as the Future Combat System (FCS). The British government could have continued with the project but chose not to, writing off an expenditure of £131 million. So, while the US continued its development, the MoD issued a specification which led to its purchase of the Panther.

Interestingly, when the MoD came to shortlist the contenders for the contract, the Pather was not included in the selection. The Iveco vehicle was only entered after the short-list had been announced, at the insistence of the MoD, which then went on to select it as the winner, despite cheaper and probably better contenders, not least the South-African-built RG31, used by the US forces and £124,000 cheaper than the Panther.

Whichever way you look at it, the Army has been short-changed, and so has the taxpayer. Still, there is always a silver lining – at least Mr Simpson has got a nice little earner with the winner of the contract he helped to award.

For our latest report, see here.

COMMENT THREAD

Not a pretty sight

The end of the seventeenth century was something of a catastrophe for the Ottoman Empire. In 1683 they were finally defeated outside Vienna; in 1686 they lost Buda (now part of Budapest); in 1696 they lost Azov to the Russians.

That the subsequent Treaty of Carlowitz (1699) was not as bad as it could have been was due partly to the fact that the Turks rather painfully had to learn the art of diplomacy and partly because the European powers were watching each other carefully and were not going to let anyone get above themselves.

In his recent book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and the Midle Eastern Response, the world-famous Middle East expert, Bernard Lewis, has this to say on the consequences:

“When things go wrong in a society, in a way and to a degree that can no longer be denied or concealed, there are various questions that one can ask. A common one, particularly in continental Europe yesterday and in the Middle East today, is: “Who did this to us?”. The answer to a question thus formulated is usually to place the blame on external or domestic scapegoats – foreigners abroad or minorities at home.

The Ottomans, faced with the major crisis in their history, asked a different question: “What did we do wrong?” The debate on these two questions began in Turkey immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Carlowitz; it resumed with a new urgency after Küçük Kaynarca [another disastrous agreement]. In a sense it is still going on today.”

I would not dare to disagree with anything Professor Bernard Lewis ever says about the Ottoman Empire, modern Turkey or the Middle East (he having forgotten about a hundred times as much as I am ever likely to learn) but I do not think he is right on continental Europe. Not yesterday but today does it keep asking “Who did this to us?” Alas, in this respect Britain is a European, not an Anglospheric “can-do” type country.

How else can one explain the extraordinary and quite sickening outburst of schadenfreude, described by my colleague? This is not, incidentally, the first time that we are witnessing vicious nastiness of this kind.

When the dollar seemed weak and the American economy was sinking, there was a great deal of glee on this side of the pond. Tee-hee, those uppity Yanks. Things are going bad for them. A little sober thought demonstrated that if America sneezes, we all catch cold and things going bad for the Yanks means things going even worse for us.

Then, as the American economy started to turn round slowly while the “superior” European model remained in recession and the even more “superior” British model continued on its ruinous path of squeezing the private sector in order to bloat the public one, other cries went up.

Apparently, it was all the fault of the Americans that the European economies were doing so badly. That nasty man Alan Greenspan, would not manipulate the American currency in such a way as to help the failing European “superior” model. Well, of course, that is not Mr Greenspan’s job. It is to ensure that the Federal Reserve policies help the American economy. Whether he has done well or badly can be and will be argued over but what cannot be doubted is his wholehearted dedication to that aim.

What the effect of Katrina will be in the long run remains to be seen – five days not being the long run precisely. From a left-wing Keynesian perspective the immediate results are good – more money spent on public works, huge projects that will employ thousands of people.

The German government, for one, seems to have grasped that there will be effects felt in Europe as well. Chancellor Schröder haqas released some emergency oil supplies to help the Americans and the Europeans. Incidentally, German help has actually been sent to the United States, well ahead of NATO, EU and British.

My own guess is that while politicians will go on squabbling and apportioning blame (alas, the Democrat Louisiana state government and the Democrat New Orleans mayor will find that their inefficiency and misjudgements will catch up with them) the people on the ground will start rebuilding as soon as they can, probably better than before. That is the usual pattern with natural disasters in America. It used to be in Britain and Europe as well.

But never mind all that. Things are going badly for the Yanks. Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice! We do so every time something goes wrong. Every bomb in Iraq elicits more jollification than horror; every corporate scandal makes us ecstatic with glee to the point where we forget about our own corporate problems and, above all, about the malfeisance that is normal to our public sector.

No agreement on the Iraqi constitution? That’s not a sign of a reasonably healthy political debate but a set-back for Bush and his plans. Tee-hee again.

Hundreds, maybe thousands of people killed as a result of a natural disaster compounded by political ineptitude on the local level? Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Should we not offer help and support? What to the Yanks? They are rich, they can do it themselves. And, indeed, they can though whether they will be quite so ready to help us next time we run whimpering to them, remains questionable.

Underlying all this is not just the “green-eyed monster which doth mock/the meat it feeds on" (well, didn’t do Othello any good) but also a desperately clutched sense of superiority. Ho-ho-ho, this would not happen in our own highly “superior” and “cultured” part of the world.

Some of it would not happen. As Alexandra Colen points out in Brussels Journal, Europe, by and large, does not have large natural catastrophes. This is not a great achievement on our part but a simple matter of geography.

When things do go wrong, as they did with the flooding of the Netherlands and large parts of Central Europe in 1954, the results can be just as catastrophic.

Then again, the highly civilized Europeans are awfully good at making their own disasters. I am not talking about the major ones, like the various wars, concentration camps and gas chambers but more recent events.

Instead of rejoicing at the supposed lack of American success in Iraq, it is high time more people in Britain had a look at the situation in Basra, where under the benign British gaze, as we have mentioned a couple of times earlier, the Shi’ite militias have installed their own violent and oppressive regime and through which, one suspects, explosive material is imported from Iran.

The Italian Red Cross has admitted that in its own highly superior fashion it abuses its privileges to smuggle out known terrorists, whose subsequent career appears not to concern their “saviours”. But hey, it is all the Yanks’ fault. They just seem to see things in black and white, right and wrong. One has to be flexible and subtle and cultured.

What do we have nearer home? In 2003 the summer was hot and for a few days there was an unusual though not unique heat-wave. Nothing as bad as Katrina, that may result in thousands of deaths. However, the European heat wave produced 15,000 deaths in France and about 5,000 in Italy. Can’t blame the Yanks this time.

Katrina is not the only natural disaster in the news recently. There were the floods in Central Europe that seemed to affect precisely the same areas they affected last time and precisely with the same results. Is anybody ever going to learn any lessons?

The Portuguese forest fires were caused or, at least, exacerbated by a neglect of the brushwood that should have been cleared out. Is anybody going to learn any lessons?

And what of our own “superior” society? After the thankfully small bomb explosions in July it took a month for London Underground to open up all the lines, including the vital Piccadilly Line. Retailers in London lost millions because of this chaos and inefficiency. (Not that London Underground is anything to boast of at the best of times.)

While we are on the subject of those bombs, we are still not going to have an enquiry on the nagging question of how the intelligence and security services managed not to have the slightest idea that it might happen. Nor is anything going to be said about the response to the emergency on the day and in the immediate aftermath. Next time round we shall have the same problems. Londoners can but hope that nothing approaching 9/11 will ever happen here. Our substitute for Giuliani, Hizonner the Mayor Ken Livingstone will weep crocodile tears and preside over a complete destruction through inefficiency, misjudgement and misallocated funds.

With a bit of luck, though, something will go wrong in the United States – it is a big country, after all – and we can all sit back and laugh at their discomfiture. Above all, we can sneer at the various constitutional complications without bothering to understand them, while we hand over what is left of our political, constitutional and legal structure to the European Union.

COMMENT THREAD

Get over it

Almost without exception, in their coverage of the American hurricane disaster, the newspapers today exhibit the very worst of the nascent anti-Americanism in Britain, combined with the jeering superiority inherent in our "cultured", know-all society. Even the much revered newspaper, The Business, succumbs to the disease, with such a sickeningly partisan editorial that I cannot even bring myself to link with it.

What is missing from the coverage, however, are a few salient facts, to put the disaster into perspective. Firstly, there was the sheer severity of the storm and its effect on the infrastructure. Two photographs, taken by American Red Cross photographer Gene Dailey, convey something of the fury, the like of which I have not seen in the mainstream media.

The first (left) shows Hurricane Katrina after its worst, taking in a view of Biloxi, Mississippi, showing a scene across the bay and the collapsed casinos in Biloxi. Only something of the raw power of the hurricane comes over here, but those who complain of the delay should appreciate that the winds kept the helicopters grounded for two days after the height of the storm. They cannot fly in winds above 40 knots, and earlier intervention would have added to the casualties.

The second (right) showns the bridge leading from Ocean Springs to Biloxi. This was destroyed by the high winds and wave action. What is more, all roads leading in and out of Biloxi were destroyed or under water. When the water subsided, Highway 110 remained as the sole route in and out of the city. And that is the crunch. With the devastation spread throughout the State, the media simply is not conveying the enormous difficulties the rescuers experienced in getting to the scene of local disasters.

The third of the pictures, of the aftermath, shows that even large buildings were no match for Katrina's fury. One can only imagine the sheer, terrifying violence of the storm and wonder just how well London would have survived such an elemental force and - for that matter- how well Red Ken would have managed the aftermath.


The fourth of our photographs is the "killer", quite literally. It, and many more are published by the Junkyard Blog. The scene depicts Municipal (mainly school) busses in their depot in New Orleans, which should have been used – but were not – for the local evacuation plan, which was never implemented.

What the dire, lame-brained, ill-natured hacks and the archair pundits seem not to realise is that disaster response, and the preparations for disaster, are primarily City and State responsibilities. Conscious of the constitutional and legal niceties, the Federal Authority – short of declaring martial law - can only respond when requested by the State Governor. And, for all those pathological Bush-haters out there, they would do well to remember that both city and State administrations are Democrat.

What, I suspect, the response of the British media actually shows is an underlying jealousy of America, a childish, half-formed resentment that the USA has "usurped" the role of Great Britain as leader of the free world. It manifests itself in this petty, carping, dismal negativity, that erupts in the guise of objective news reporting, evident in the ill-concealed glee with which reporters linger on every aspect of bad news and ignore the good.

From this same well-spring stems the evangelical "Europeanism", driven not so much by any great vision of the role of Europe, but by a smouldering resentment of the fact that, in so many things, the Americans do things so much better.

For all the people who seem so much to delight in the misfortunes of America, however, there is only one real message: Get over it.

Photographs: Gene Dailey/American Red Cross

COMMENT THREAD

Solana is back from his holidays

And he has hit the ground running. Well, sort of. Straightaway he went to the Middle East to see if the EU could do a bit of meddling …. woops, sorry …. offer help that would lead to the implementation of the road map which might conceivably lead to some form of peace in the area but not as long as the EU keeps pumping money to the Palestinian Authority without ever bothering to find out what happens to it. (I expect the last bit did not figure high on Solana’s agenda.)

The EU Foreign Affairs High Panjandrum held talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen. The main point of discussion seems to have been the possibility of sending EU troops as border monitors between Gaza and Egypt. As the European Voice sums up:

“Following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, which is due to be completed this month, the EU might send border monitors to assist the Palestinian Authority, as long as both sides agree.

But major obstacles remain to the plan. Diplomats said that EU involvement comes on the condition that a deal on customs is done between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt.

The plan also hinges on the EU being involved in negotiations on the text from the beginning.

There appears to be agreement between the parties that the Palestinians will be responsible for goods and people leaving the Rafah crossing in southern Gaza for Egypt.

But Israel still wishes to retain some control over entry into the strip because of security concerns.”

Unsurprisingly, the Israelis remain “doubtful that a complete takeover of customs and border duties by the Palestinian Authority would not reduce security”. Presumably, the Israelis are also aware of the EU’s tendency to overlook certain peccadilloes on the part of the PA and, indeed, Hamas. Another school bus blown up? Oh heck, boys will be boys.

So, it is not at all certain that there will be an agreement for the EU to move into the Gaza and supervise border security. A delicate situation, as one diplomat of unknown origin has described it.

As a matter of fact, it is all a bit more delicate even than Solana seems to realize. There appears to be an assumption among Western foreign policy circles that there are two sides only to the Palestinian problem. Well, two-ish, as it is not clear that the PA, Fatah and Hamas are all on the same side and Al-Qaeda has already threatened Abbas with all sorts of repercussions if he arrests any of its members in Gaza.

There are other participants as well. For example, when Secretary of State Rice made her now notorious statement after the Gaza withdrawals, assuring the Israelis that this was just the beginning and they will have to do a good deal more and forgetting to mention that the Palestinian organizations should do something as well, the first angry reaction came from … Jordan.

King Abdullah, who, incidentally was one of the first leaders to extend condolences to the United States and the people of the stricken areas and to offer help, was a little more annoyed last month.

According to DEBKAfile of August 21 [no longer available on the net]:

“In notes to US president Bush and Israeli PM Sharon over the weekend, the king warned that any further steps, including Israeli withdrawalsfrom West Bank territory, would be deemed violations of the 1995 Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty - if coordinated only with Washington and the Palestinians. He stressed Jordan would not put up with aIsrael-Palestinian settlement that failed to address Jordan's sovereignty, its interests in the Jordan river basin and the border crossings and in shared strategic issues, such as security and water resources.”

In fact, most security negotiations in the area have had a major input from Jordan, something the State Department may have overlooked when providing the Secretary of State with her briefing.

The latest news is that King Abdullah is about to visit Jerusalem for talks with Prime Minister Sharon.

Jordan has always been worried at the break-down in security, should there be serious Israeli withdrawals. The appearance of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Gaza, the continued attacks on Israeli and other targets and the behaviour of the Hamas “warriors” are not conducive to calming fears. Of course, as the Palestinians seem to have forgotten, the King of Jordan has other ways of dealing with the problem.

As far as the EU and Gaza are concerned, there is yet another big player on the scene: Egypt and, for some reason, Solana does not seem to have talked to the Egyptian government or security services. A big mistake.

As agreed, Egypt has already taken over border control with Gaza. But it has also done a great deal more. Again, according to DEBKAfile of August 22 [quoted here in full]:

“A high-ranking 100-man Egyptian military delegation has taken de facto charge of Palestinian security forces in the Gaza Strip and is handling talks with Hamas to avert an outbreak of terrorist violence.

DEBKAfile's military sources report General Ibrahim Shukri heads the team of three Egyptian generals and several colonels and majors. The same general also led the probe of the October 15, 2004 al Qaeda Taba bombings. His appointment betokens Cairo's anxiety over the threat of al Qaeda terror infiltration of the Gaza Strip.

Our sources add that all Palestinian operations, including the deployment of 24 battalions in the evacuated territory are coordinated with Israel indirectly througha direct channel set b y by General Shukri and Israel's Shin Beit HQ.

A second Egyptian general, Muhammed Ibrahim, is in close communication with the Hamas to guard against wildcat action including gunfire on Israeli targets. General Mustafa Bakri has taken practical command of Palestinian security andintelligence units in Gaza.

The other members of the Egyptian team have divided Gaza into sectors and assumed command of the Palestinian battalions. They have installed their own communications and logistics networks in the Egyptian embassy building in Gaza. The high-powered Egyptian military presence has all but edged Palestinian chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his ministers out of the game.

Egyptian officers in command of the Palestinian units call the interior minister Nasser Yousef by the contemptuous Nasser Yuosif meaning Nasser the Sad Case or Mr. Useless. Israeli officers in dialogue with Palestinian opposite numbers check first with the Egyptian officers for their approval of agreements.

Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia visit to Damascus Sunday, Aug 21, was ordered by Gen. Bakri. He was told to persuade Syrian president Bashar Assad to force the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashal to let the Israeli pullout go through without interference.”

All of this activity makes one wonder whether the EU and its “foreign ministry” actually understands what is going on in the area. One cannot help agreeing with the American Enterprise Institute scholar David Frum that the Gaza pull-out may well have been a case of Sharon calling the West’s bluff.

He may have been successful. The West, especially the EU and its members, while castigating Israel, never really wanted or expected a swiftly concluded pull-out from Gaza. Now they are running around like headless chickens.

COMMENT THREAD

The EU is too busy creating disasters to help relieve them

Following on from our observations on the somewhat mute response from the EU on the Katrina hurricane disaster, and from Tony Blair representing the EU presidency, Booker offers a trenchant piece in his column today. "As the appalling scale of the tragedy unfolding in the southern United States became apparent", he writes, "one dog remained conspicuously quiet in the night."

By Wednesday, messages of sympathy were flooding in from all over the world, from the Queen, the Pope, President Putin and heaven knows who. But from the EU in general, and from Tony Blair in particular, as its current president, there was nothing - until Friday, when the Downing Street website reported, between mentions of Baghdad and Beslan, that Mr Blair had sent a letter to President Bush.

There was no mention of sympathy but only an offer of EU "assistance". Curiously, however, this was replaced later in the day by a brief statement saying that Mr Blair had written a letter to Mr Bush expressing Britain's sympathy, but no longer referring to the offer of help from the EU.

Inevitably there has been an ironic contrast between the US's seeming inability to cope with such a catastrophe on its own doorstep and the efficiency of its remarkable response last January to the South-east Asian tsunami. While spokesmen for the EU (and the UN) poured out their sentimental and ineffectual verbiage, the US, Australian and Indian navies were rapidly on the spot, deploying the resources which saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Two weeks after that disaster, the European Commission's president, Jose Manuel Barroso, boasted that the EU had given €2 billion in aid (about £1.4 billion - three quarters of it raised in private donations to charities). But the prime minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, sternly responded that his country did not want aid from the EU. It wanted a repeal of the crippling tariff imposed by Brussels on Thai shrimp imports, which had cost his country, the world's largest prawn exporter, £3 billion since 1997, twice as much as the aid the EU was now offering.

Those tariffs had been imposed to protect the French and other EU fishing industries, which hoover up vast quantities of prawns off the coast of Africa, under "Third World fishing agreements" for which EU taxpayers have shelled out well over £1 billion.

Embarrassed by this revelation, Peter Mandelson, as the EU's trade commissioner, promised at the time to consider trade concessions to the Thais worth "tens of millions of euros". He repeated his promise again on a visit to Thailand in April. So far nothing has happened.

Now, just as Mr Mandelson is yet again plunged into embarrassment by the "bra wars" fiasco, threatening tens of thousands of European jobs to protect the textile industries of France and southern Europe from Chinese competition, he is being urged to impose a further penal tariff on imports of Thai maize, which French and Hungarian growers protest are undercutting them by 50 per cent. Last week the head of the biggest food company in Thailand, the world's fourth largest maize exporter, flew to Paris to plead that this proposed "EU anti-dumping" measure threatened thousands of Thai jobs.

So while the EU prepared to inflict further catastrophic damage on the economies of the Third World (with the aid of that supposed "free-trader" Mr Mandelson), it was too busy, it seems, to send any formal expression of sympathy to the country it loves to hate, America. That antipathy was also exemplified last week by President Chirac's pledge of vast sums of EU money to enable French and German firms to devise an internet search engine to rival Google, and protect Europe against this expression of "Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism".

No doubt Mr Blair's offer of EU "assistance" over the Katrina disaster will be appreciated. President Bush might note, however, that Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's "commissioner for external relations", was looking forward last January to the EU having its 5,000 strong "crisis management force" ready by 2007. For the people of New Orleans and Biloxi, it may come a little late.

And, while the EU is belatedly offering "assistance" now, there has been no formal statement of sympathy from the EU Commission and, given the largesse the EU has dispensed elsewhere, it would not have the commission to have donated a token €1 million to the American Red Cross. However, we are sure that our readers are more that happy to venture where the commission fears to tread.

Photo courtesy of American Red Cross.

COMMENT THREAD

Why the levees broke

It was all the fault of the French apparently. A law instituted in 1724 by a French colonial governor, whose name was Perrier, of all things.

COMMENT THREAD

More news from the fount of moral superiority

This is becoming an every-day event: SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) has had to lift diplomatic immunity again, in order to give the FBI a free hand to arrest another UN diplomat.

This one is another Russian, Vladimir Kuznetsov. As the Washington Times puts it:

“The FBI arrested Vladimir Kuznetsov Thursday night at his Bronx home. He is accused by the Justice Department of laundering money that was paid to a U.N. procurement officer who has admitted seeking bribes in exchange for inside information on the oil-for-food program and other U.N. missions.”

The procurement officer in question, Alexander Yakovlev, arrested some months ago, has been, as they say, singing like a canary. He agreed to co-operate with the FBI immediately, and further arrests have been expected since then. Mr Kuznetsov’s is the first one.

Mr Kuznetsov has worked in various budget-related positions at the UN and is or, rather, was the “chairman of the powerful Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, or ACABQ, a 16-member body that reviews and amends the secretary-general's budget proposal before it goes to the full General Assembly”.

The Russians, on the other hand, seem to be unable to make up their minds whether they should lift his diplomatic immunity or whether he actually has such an immunity. According to UN rules the chairman of that particular committee is its only member with immunity (even though it has now been lifted).

This particular scam, which resulted in Mr Kuznetsov allegedly finding out about the fraudulent scheme that involved kick-backs and money laundering and him taking a share of the “profits” in order to pay the money into his own off-shore company, called Nikal Ltd with accounts in an Antiguan bank.

The whole affair was uncovered by the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services, or OIOS, as part of an overall investigation into the procurement department. The Independent Inquiry Committee under Paul Volcker has said it was unaware of Mr Kuznetsov’s involvement.

One wonders whether another committee or inquiry might uncover some other interesting activity.

Mr Kuznetsov has pleaded not guilty. Mr Yakovlev is not named in the indictment, though there are clear references to him.

COMMENT THREAD

Chirac in hospital

The BBC News website is reporting that Chirac has been admitted to the Val de Grace military hospital in Paris for treatment for a "a minor vascular incident" that has slightly affected his eyesight. An official spokesman says he is expected to remain hospitalised for about one week.

Naturally, the French authorities are downplaying this problem, although this condition has been associated with congestive heart failure and is regarded by some as a risk factor. No doubt the president will be getting the best of treatment in the hospital which was originally scheduled to treat his friend Yasser Arafat when he came to Paris to die last year.

The is no hint that the same fate awaits Chirac, although it has been observed that his early demise, while still in harness, would solve a number of problems for the state prosecutors.

COMMENT THREAD

Which one would you prefer?

The online journal Defense Industry Daily criticises Booker for attacking the MoD’s decision to buy the Italian-built Panther light armoured vehicle at £413,000 each instead of the up-armoured Humvee at £100,000 each.

Even the US, writes DID, is upgrading its armoured fleet, buying in vehicles such as the M117 Guardian (illustrated left). As it happens, the US recently purchased 724 of these vehicles on a fixed-price contract of $258.8m, which equates to $357,458 or £194,092 each - i.e. less than half the price of the Panther.

If you were a soldier in hostile territory, exposed to bombs, mines and gunfire, which would you prefer? The Panther (right), or the Guardian (above)? And, if you were – as you most certainly are – a taxpayer, which would you prefer, £413,000 or £194,092? Well, you have not been given a choice. The MoD have already decided that the Pather is the best vehicle for the British Army.

That, dear readers, is part of the price we are paying for European defence integration.

COMMENT THREAD

Mandy in trouble

According to a Reuters report, EU member states have failed to agree on how to release millions of Chinese trousers, t-shirts, pullovers and other items that are blocked at EU borders.

Little Mandy is going to have to pack a fresh set of knickers as negotiations are going to continue over the weekend. But he looks as if he is in for a hard time as he is complaining that there is "a lack of a unified EU approach on freeing up the goods". Welcome to the reality of the EU, chuck.

However, with an optimism belied by the severity of the current situation – with retail groups throughout Europe lining up to take their own governments or the commission to court – Mandy is claiming that this will not weaken his hand in separate talks with China starting on Sunday. And just who does he think he is kidding?

"I still want and expect member states to agree to unblock the goods. It's a matter of tactics, not principles," he told reporters after a day-long meeting of negotiators.

A more realistic – or honest – "EU diplomat" put a somewhat different spin on the affair, admitting that the: "Talks collapsed ... Too many member states did not agree to lift the block ahead of the negotiations with the Chinese".

"We said to Mr Mandelson that we can go only so far," said a representative from an unnamed member state – one which had opposed letting in the goods before China agreed to give up some of its future EU quotas.

With or without agreement from the "colleagues", little Mandy will have to meet Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai in Beijing on Sunday for talks ahead of a summit of EU and Chinese leaders on Monday.

Bo said yesterday he was confident of solving the problem. But then, as the Chinese hold all the cards, he can afford to be confident. Little Mandy, however, might not like the solution.

COMMENT THREAD

Off-topic but somehow relevant

Sighted in Canary Wharf this afternoon: a young man in a t-shirt with the following (only slightly ungrammatical message):

"Some people are only alive because it is against the law to kill them."

Go figure, as they say over the pond.

COMMENT THREAD

Gays beware

According to Pink News, gay men have been warned to stay well away from Gosforth Park in Newcastle next week as the British presidency is to hold an EU Council meeting in the nearby Marriot Hotel.

The park is popular with gays for "cruising", but they have been told that the likes of home secretary Charles Clarke will be attending the meeting, with other interior ministers of the EU member states. This has led Mesmac, a local gay community group (funded in part by the regional health authority), to warn gay men to stay away from the area.

The original information came from Northumbria Police, provoking some controversy. Local politicians have asked why the local council (which passed on the information to Mesmac) felt the need to spend public money warning the gay community of the event.

More to the point, why is it that only the gays get the warning? I would have thought that all the citizens of Newcastle were in equal danger – or perhaps not.

COMMENT THREAD

Rats to join sinking ship

The Czech Republic has set 2010 as the country's new target date for adopting the euro.

COMMENT THREAD

There must be a better way

The odd thing about the piece in The Times today, headed "Brussels wants immigrants to swear allegiance to EU", is that it wasn't in the Daily Telegraph. David Rennie, the Telegraph Brussels correspondent, filed copy, but nothing appeared in his paper.

It was picked up on the day by the England Expects blog. It immediately saw the point, reporting verbatim what Franco Frattini, the Italian Commissioner for Justice and Home affairs had said:

I am in favour of exploring the possibility of having a dialogue with representative communities of immigrants and trying to identify something whereby, as in France, you can get every immigrant to declare respect for national and EU law and the charter of fundamental rights. I feel this is worth exploring at a European level.

This was (correctly) translated by The Times as "immigrants to Britain will have to swear an oath of allegiance to EU laws and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, rather than the Queen, under a proposal announced by Brussels."

As England Expects observes, "what we seem to be talking about is some pan-European oath for any migrant to the EU… Thus at long last the EU will have found some people whose primary loyalty will be to the Brussels institutions, rather than to the country which hosts them (and in most cases pays through the nose for the privilege)."

The press office will then deny it, saying "Oh no, we don't mean that. This is just one of many options that are currently being discussed. You are just myth making as usual you nasty British Eurosceptic". Then a couple of years down the line, as they have spotted that resistance to the idea is not firm. "This? Oh this is merely a planning exercise, it is a technical logistical process, it has no force in law, don't worry about it".

Then when kiddies are singing the Ode to bloody Joy in school a few years later. "Well you cannot complain now, if you wanted to complain you should have done so five years ago when the legislation was being mooted".

But there is an unwarranted note of optimism here: England Expects adds: "Well today is five years ago. Now is the time to act against this invidious measure. Let them know that we do not want an oath of allegiance to the EU in no uncertain terms, and the idea will be taken off the table."

For sure, the idea may be taken off the table, but it goes back in the cupboard, and a few years later it will be taken out, dusted off and the "colleagues" will try again. And they will keep trying, and trying until they get their way. Time and again we fight these battle, we lose many but at least we seem to win some, until they come up again.

We really cannot continue with this. There must be a better way.

COMMENT THREAD

And I though I was joking

In March of this year, I wrote what I thought was a spoof on the "Single European Tank", venturing that the EU had finally found a means of abolishing war through applying such rigorous health and safety requirements to military equipment that it would no longer be possible to operate it.

But, as they say, truth is stranger than fiction. The Daily Telegraph today reports that "Noise at work rules threaten to knock out Army's tanks", recounting how: "Defence chiefs are fighting to prevent the Army's tanks being stopped in their tracks by the introduction of a European directive on vibration and noise at work."

The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations and the Control of Noise at Work Regulations, it says, have left officers scrambling to discover if the military's armoured vehicles break the rules. But with a slim chance of reducing vibrations in a Challenger 2 tank and the Warrior armoured vehicles, the Ministry of Defence will be seeking an exemption from the rules by invoking an "opt-out" clause.

Soldiers who travel in the back of tanks and are subjected to substantial jolts and constant noise will have to suffer the discomforts until at least 2010 when the regulations become law. "Because it's damaging to the human body we are out to ensure soldiers are looked after like civilians," an MoD official said. "Where necessary and practical we will modify equipment and we do have the opt out which we will use if necessary."

A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive, which is implementing the legislation, said "national security" considerations could mean certain employers were exempt. "If you are in a combat situation then clearly it will be difficult to bring in these regulations," he added.

But then, if you bring in these regulations, it will be difficult to have a "combat situation". Surely that is the point?

COMMENT THREAD

Not fit to run a whelk stall

The first high-profile meeting of the British presidency has been a shambles, leaving foreign secretary Jack Straw embarrassed and the press corps fuming.

The meeting, of the General Affairs Council, was being held in Newport Gwent, although heaven knows why, when reporters racing against deadlines watched their stories disappear into the void as the high-tech communications network rigged up for their use crashed repeatedly.

This gave Reuters a delicious opportunity to report a "visibly pained" Straw telling the final news conference: "I am embarrassed about it. I am very sorry about it, all right?" adding, "As soon as I leave this briefing... I am going to find the people I think are responsible and encourage them to deal with it and to offer them some career advice."

This, however, had only been one element of the debacle. Tempers had flared earlier on as journalists complained at what they called the heavy-handed security at the talks. One German journalist told how he was escorted out of the meeting and back to his hotel after he complained about the queues into the hotel hosting the meeting.

Other niggles abounded, with reporters baffled by occasional bans on smoking in some parts of the grounds outside the building, and miffed to find – crime of crimes - that even the sugar laid on for coffee had run out by midday.

This is the presidency that, incidentally, was going to settle the EU budget, reform the CAP, sort out Africa's problems and lead the negotiations on Turkey's accession. On this performance, however, Straw and his not-so-merry-men are not even fit to run a whelk stall.

But then, you knew that already.

COMMENT THREAD

The fragrant Commissioner is back

Dear me, just like old times. There is the fragrant Margot in fluffy bunny mode.

She and her husband apparently painted their old house and discussed whether anybody cared to do hard physical labour any more. Presumably, people who earn their living that way might but I do not suppose the fragrant one meets anyone so inferior.

There is a great deal of chatter about the books she has read, what she thinks of them all and what she thinks of detective stories in general: “mostly totally meaningless and sometimes cruel stories”. W. H. Auden, she ain’t. For one thing he would never use an expression like “me and my husband”. Yes she does. Honest.

Towards the end of the posting she goes into serious mode.

The killing of the Sri Lankan foreign minister, the Portuguese forest fires, floods in Europe, Katrina and the inevitable pious sentiment: we shall see more of this with the “accelerating climate change”.

Does she mean that as a result of the climate change, accelerating or otherwise, we shall see more foreign ministers assassinated? Who knows what goes on in that fluffy little head? After all, she seems not to have noticed that there have been forest fires, floods and hurricanes in the past and what we have seen this year is not the worst ever.

Then there is a mysterious entry about TB returning to Sweden and hitting 60 children in a school. Just one school? Seems rather odd. I wonder if that has anything to do with the accelerating climate change?

Nothing, however, can beat the sheer silliness of her last paragraph:

“Chinese clothes piled up in European ports has naturally been dominating the news reporting lately. The Commission is trying to find a practical way to deal with the problem and to unblock the goods as soon as possible seems like a sensible solution in the interest of European consumers as well.”

Apparently, it all just happened, possibly as a result of the accelerating climate change and the all-wise Commission is trying to sort it out. Has the fragrant Commissar not grasped that it was the Commission that had caused the problem in the first place? Not on its own, of course, but with the help of the Council of Ministers, but this notion, first propagated by Trade Commissar Mandelson that the problem just kind of arose and nobody is at fault, seems to be popular with commissioners if not with retailers or the public.

COMMENT THREAD

Solidarity with the people of New Orleans

It is not only the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition (who he?) that have been resoundingly silent on Katrina and its effects. Not a squeak has been heard from Hizonner the Mayor of LondON, normally so vociferous on subjects that are not precisely his concern, such as Middle Eastern politics.

The London Assembly? Well, they are still discussing how the name change of Veritas-UKIP to One London might be interpreted: as a daft move or, more probably and infuriatingly, a smart one.

It is best not to let these people cogitate too much. One London has gone into action by declaring London’s solidarity with the people of New Orleans, writing to the United States ambassador to that effect and calling on all and sundry to support the move and to donate money through the American Red Cross.

For the rest of the story, read the inevitable blog.

COMMENT THREAD

There's a surprise

Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach of Ireland will today come out strongly in support of the CAP. Unsurprisingly, the Irish Farmers’ Association has already welcomed what they see as a kick in the general direction of Prime Minister Blair who rather vaguely and unwisely expressed the view that the CAP should be reformed or even abolished.

Of course, it meant nothing, since Mr Blair cannot achieve either of those aims and Mr Ahern is not expected to name names in his accusations against people who are making “negative and simplistic comments about the CAP [that] are driven by self interest”. Comments if favour of the CAP are not, of course, driven by anything as vulgar as self-interest.

At least, Mr Ahern is expected to be quite clear about the aims of CAP. Some waffle about it being good value for money (without specifying of who is paying the money and who is getting the value, if any) but mainly, he will say, that

“… to abolish or undermine the Common Agricultural Policy would weaken the entire European project at a time when Europe needs strengthening”.

Funnily enough, Mr Ahern has been facing some criticism on a different but related aspect. The NGOs are getting at him. Rather blithely he promised five years ago to increase Irish spending on overseas aid to 0.7 per cent of GNP.

A fortnight or so before the UN General Assembly meets to discuss the possibility (remote at the moment) of member states handing over that famous 0.7 per cent to them to be distributed as aid to developing countries or, to be quite precise, their kleptocratic and oppressive governments as well as the various aid agencies, the latter are beginning to get restive.

Hans Zomer, of the NGO umbrella organisation Dochas, has reminded Ahern that

“It was at this very same forum five years ago that the Taoiseach promised to increase aid to reach the 0.7% target. Since then, the Government has announced it will not reach the target by 2007, but has not given us an alternative plan.”

Well, of course, no prime minister who wishes to retain his political career would ever seriously hand over large amounts of money like that either to the unaccountable and scandal-enmired UN or the NGOs.

The Make Poverty History charities, watching the prize slipping away from them, are rather desperately suggesting that the date should be rescheduled to 2010, to make sure that the world’s poor see that “we” do not break our promises to them.”

Seeing how many of the world’s poor have made it clear that it is not aid but a fair crack at trade that they would like and seeing that even the NGOs have had to agree reluctantly that not much will happen as long the developing countries have the sort of political regimes they have, one wonders whether Mr Zomer thinks that everybody’s memory is as short as his own:

“This need for leadership has never been more pressing, given the attempts by some countries to undermine the fight against poverty in the run-up to the UN Millennium Summit in two weeks’ time.”

One of the strongest ways of undermining the fight for poverty is to hang on to the CAP, as Mr Ahern is doing. (Not because it benefits the people who might vote for him, honest, guv.)

The second one is to hand aid money over to NGOs who have no particular interest in changing the situation in the “client” states and the governments who have even less interest in changing anything.

But that, I suspect, is not what Mr Zomer and his ever more anxious colleagues mean.

COMMENT THREAD

Clarke – an unmitigated disaster

The Daily Telegraph in its leader today raises important points about Kenneth Clarke and his leadership bid.

There are three serious anxieties which must be allayed if he is to become its leader, it says, but we need detain ourselves only with one:

Famously, he remains a committed Europhile. His blithe dismissals notwithstanding, the rejection of the European constitution and the travails of the euro have not halted the project of ever-closer union, but merely driven it underground.

The recent brouhaha over clothes imports, or this week's news about mooted European rules preventing the deportation of terror suspects, demonstrate the lively and protean nature of the beast. Mr Clarke's recanting of his former support for British membership of the single currency is insufficient. Conservatives want to know not merely that a leader would not cede further sovereignty to Brussels, but which powers, if any, he would bring home. The former spokesman of Britain in Europe has a tough task ahead of him here.

That is the central point. Such is the momentum of integration that, for it to continue, a British government just has to do nothing and the project will roll on.

A Conservative government under the leadership of Clarke would most certainly not take an aggressive stance with the EU, in demanding the return of powers to the UK. What we would seen as we have seen with the current Tory leadership, is that “Europe” would remain off the agenda, while the Party concentrated on those few domestic issues where some power remains with the British government.

Clarke himself, in his op-ed in the paper argues that "We have to be an effective and aggressive opposition which can take on and defeat not just Tony Blair but the man who will lead Labour into the next general election - Gordon Brown."

But much of the "opposition" to how we wish to run this country comes not from Tony Blair or his successor, but from "Brussels", which is our real government in the majority of policy areas. Unless Clarke is prepared to take this on, he is useless.

Even then, his approach is still flawed. We must halt the Liberal Democrat advance into the Tory core vote - and reverse it – he writes, and we must persuade more people to vote Conservative. "This is not just - or even primarily - winning back lost voters. It is offering a natural home in the Conservative Party to people who have never voted Conservative or even thought of doing so."

This, to say the least, is bizarre. There are six million voters out there who once voted Conservative and do so no longer. But Clarke knows that many of those were disillusioned by the Conservative stance on Europe. He will never recover them, so he wants to pitch for "people who have never voted Conservative or even thought of doing so". To do that, he will have to reinvent the Party, whence it will not longer be the Conservative Party, leaving the core vote disfranchised.

Perhaps that is the real objective, but the only beneficiaries will be New Labour – and UKIP. By that, and any other measure, Clarke would be an unmitigated disaster.

COMMENT THREAD

Katrina update

Mark Steyn and Instapundit are mounting a "blogburst" to galvanise support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Islamic extremists, meanwhile, are rejoicing in America's misfortune, giving the storm a military rank and declaring on Internet chat rooms that "Private" Katrina had joined the global jihad. With "God's help," they declared, oil prices would hit $100 a barrel this year.

Methinks expressions of solidarity with our American cousins would not go amiss. The American Red Cross is accepting donations and Instapundit is listing alternative charities.

COMMENT THREAD

Double standards

Just over eight months ago, when the tsunami hit the countries of east Asia, world leaders were vying with each other to demonstrate their nation's generosity, with gushing concern for the victims of the disaster.

No nation was more generous with immediate practical help than the US, but right up front – in the gushing stakes - was José Manuel Barroso, president of the EU commission. He could not wait to high-tail it out to the disaster area, to hog the television limelight as he pledged other peoples' money to countries affected by the tsunami.

In the wake of the unprecedented disaster occasioned by Hurricane Katrina, however, I cannot trace a single statement of sympathy from the EU, despite the massive loss of life and appalling damage. Barroso, Solana and even the fragrant Margot seem not to have noticed. Although Queen Elizabeth II has offered her sympathy on behalf of the UK, there does not appear to have been an official statement from Tony Blair on behalf of the EU presidency. American lives, it seems, don't matter to the EU.

This is in start contrast to messages of sympathy from other leaders. They include the Pope, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's President Hu Jintao, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, and even a clutch of European leaders, including Chirac, Schröder and Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis Even OPEC sent a message, signed by its president and Kuwaiti Minister of Energy, Sheikh Ahmed Fahad al-Sabah.

As for offers of aid, in January, not only were governments falling over themselves, our television screens were saturated with details of how to donate to victims of the disaster. And what do we see now? Interestingly, Venezuela's government, which has had tense relations with Washington, offered humanitarian aid and fuel, while Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum Corp. pledged a $1 million donation for hurricane aid. Israel also offered specialist assistance.

From the EU though, not even a token gesture and absolutely nothing on our television screens. (For those of you who wish to help, however, the American Red Cross is accepting donations.)

Yet, next time there is a major disaster in the world, the Americans will be expected to be at the forefront of the relief effort, with the EU in particular, acting as cheer-leader for greater funding. The US could be forgiven then for looking askance at the EU and its double standards.

COMMENT THREAD