The wages of neglect

One gets exceedingly weary of the hole-in-the-corner way the MoD is "playing" the war in Afghanistan. Its strategy is to keep us largely uninformed as to what is really going on, while devoting its resources to a steady trickle of propaganda which serves to obscure rather than reveal the truth.

It played exactly the same game in Iraq, feeding us with glowing "puffs" about the "derring do" of "Our Boys", and happy little "touchy-feely" pieces about how our caring-sharing troops were engaging with those nice Iraqis and how things were getting better all the time – when the whole campaign was going down the pan.

We saw the propaganda technique in full swing last week when, out of the blue, we get a graphic account of an operation in the Upper Sangin Valley "which has struck severely at the narcotics industry in Helmand".

"Waves of helicopter-borne troops caught the Taliban by surprise," we were told, "in a meticulously planned assault which helps finance the Taliban's insurgency." And then we got the political pay-off from defence secretary John Hutton, who happily twitters:

Our dedicated and professional forces have once again taken the fight to the enemy. Their bravery, coupled with the size and sophistication of our firepower, has cleared the enemy from large areas of Helmand bringing security and governance to more of the province. The seizure of £50 million worth of narcotics will starve the Taliban of crucial funding preventing the proliferation of drugs and terror on the UK's streets.

It is funny how military operations are always "meticulously planned", and no doubt this one was – like all the rest, although one suspects the MoD would not be publicising it otherwise. They leave those to their Boards of Inquiry and then keep schtum about the results.

Putting this operation in perspective, the local value of the Afghani heroin trade is in the order of £3 billion (as export income). By the time the drugs get on the streets at their destinations, they are worth ten times that – and sometimes more. Hutton's £50 million is in fact worth about £5 million as export value in the form of heroin. As crude opium in situ it is probably worth one tenth of that – about £500,000. That is not even chump change compared with the total value of production.

Even then, the figure is meaningless. The "industry" in Afghanistan is vastly over-producing. It is thus keeping back considerable stocks in reserve, to keep the price buoyant. It will simply replace this amount from stock and won't even miss it. That is one of the more sinister activities of the Taleban, they way they are manipulating the market. Thus, the loss of this small quantity of drugs will have no impact on the overall income and cause very little more than a minor, local inconvenience. It will certainly have no effect on the amount of heroin reaching the UK.

Without in any way downplaying what our troops achieved – they put their lives on the line for this operation - this is typical MoD spin. They talk up every "success" while never giving us the overall picture.

We saw them doing exactly the same in Iraq, talking up weapons cache seizures, which were minuscule compared to what was actually in circulation. On the other hand, they kept very quiet about major losses of equipment and wounded soldiers when, for instance, supply convoys got bounced - which was happening very frequently indeed.

The very great danger in hyping this up is that the MoD actually begins to believe its own propaganda, and starts to think it is achieving anything substantive. That again harps back to Iraq, when the Army mounted a huge programme of raids to capture weapons and bomb-making materials. When it paraded the seized material, one definitely got the sense that the MoD believed it was achieving something. But the raids made absolutely no difference to the rate of bombing and attacks.

Yet, when the US Army and Iraqis closed down the bomb-making factories in al Amarah and Maysan province, within a month, combat engineers doing mine clearance noted a sharp fall off in the number of bombs being laid. The MoD was deceiving itself that its activities were having any effect at all.

What we don't get is any sense of a balance sheet – what we are gaining in overall terms, and what it is costing us. For sure, we know that troops are killed – we know that because the MoD is obliged to tell us when a soldier dies, but it does not tell us of the injured.

What little information we get is statistically meaningless, because we can't relate to anything. The most detail we get is in "puffs" about heroic recoveries of British soldiers, who defy all the odds to overcome their injuries. This is in no way to denigrate these admirable people. It is to attack the MoD for the way it exploits their efforts as a tool of propaganda, giving a one-sided view without the bigger picture.

A little of that emerges in The Sunday Times today which publishes an article headed: "MoD hides rising injury toll of Taliban bombs". There, we are told that more than 100 British soldiers have suffered amputations and other debilitating injuries in the past year in Afghanistan, "according to previously suppressed Ministry of Defence (MoD) figures that reveal the true toll of the Taliban's roadside bombing campaign."

The number of troops losing limbs or eyes, suffering serious burns or permanent brain damage has increased dramatically since August 2007 when the Taliban intensified their efforts. During the past 18 months, 37 of the 71 British troops killed are known to have been the victims of roadside bombs or mines, but the number of troops disabled in the attacks has never been fully disclosed.

Figures now obtained by The Sunday Times show that 37 soldiers suffered "life-changing injuries" between April 2006, when they first deployed to southern Afghanistan, and the end of that year. There were 55 such injuries during the whole of 2007. Last year the figures more than doubled to 114 and there have been 12 cases this year.

Yet this is only one glimpse of the downside. We still don't get any details of how these troops were injured, under what circumstances, and whether – of crucial importance – they could be prevented.

One tantalising piece of information is that, while the MoD has bought better armoured vehicles in an attempt to counter the Taliban offensive, insurgents using such large amounts of explosives there is a limit on the protection afforded even by new Mastiff armoured vehicles. There have, we are told, been cases of soldiers in Mastiffs who were protected from a blast but who lost their legs below the knee as a result of the shock wave inside the vehicle.

We also learn that such is the scarcity of helicopters – which would provide a safer mode of transportation - that last week a British operation against the drug barons financing the Taliban had to use aircraft provided by the US marines. That, incidentally, is a detail curiously missing from the MoD "puff" on the operation.

Campaigners, says The Sunday Times claim the MoD is deliberately keeping the human cost of the war out of the public eye. All the MoD will admit is that 23 soldiers underwent amputations between December 2007 and November 2008, but said is was "unable to provide a breakdown of other serious injuries."

If that is what it is saying, that is a barefaced lie. The most comprehensive details of all injuries in theatre are kept, on a single computer database in Selly Oak, with complete details of all incidents. They are instantly accessible and can provide breakdowns of all the details needed.

Since the MoD is so sparse with its information, perforce, the only real way of measuring progress on the battlefield has been the death rate. This detail has traditionally been used by military historians and, of late, it has been the main metric (sometimes the only metric) on which the media rely. It there is a high number of deaths, the media get interested. If there is a period without casualties, the media goes to sleep.

The problem is that even this metric is now becoming heavily distorted. We saw recently a report in The Daily Telegraph on the extraordinary measures taken to airlift a dozen wounded servicemen out of Helmand province "in the largest and most complex medical evacuation since the conflict in Afghanistan began".

From that piece, we also learn that more than 20 troops a week are being evacuated by air from Camp Bastion and that the number of aeromedical evacuations has more than tripled since the first British forces entered Helmand in 2006 with 800 troops flown home in the past year.

Last year, we also saw a piece which reported that British battlefield casualties had been almost halved by radical new changes implemented by medics, bringing down the death rate on the front line in Afghanistan from almost a quarter dying from their wounds to one in eight.

The massive improvement in survival rates has been put down to "miracle bandages", a new tourniquet and the use of trauma consultants on board evacuation helicopters.

Significantly, the use of large Chinook and Merlin helicopters carrying an anaesthetist or emergency medical consultant plus four medics are the key factor. With most journeys in Helmand involving a two-hour round trip, the doctors can effectively set up a trauma station in the back of the helicopter keeping the patient alive until they reach the field hospital in Camp Bastion.

All this is being done for admirable reasons, and it is far too cynical even to suggest that the enormous effort made to prevent troops dying suits the MoD rather well. The fact is though, that with fewer troops being killed – when even quite recently they would have died – the war in Afghanistan is getting far less scrutiny than it might otherwise have done.

With 58 troops having died this year and last, and a ratio one death in eight applying when previously it would have been one in four, we might have seen 132 deaths but for the changes. Those extra 74 deaths would have brought the total from the current 126 to exactly 200.

These are, of course, rough calculations, but the point is made. With there having been 178 deaths in Iraq, a recorded death toll well in excess of that in Afghanistan would have drastically altered the media dynamics. There would have been far more reporting, much more comment, considerably more criticism and a great deal more political intervention.

What has escaped comment from those who have recently reported on the efforts made to keep injured troops alive is the apparently disproportionate effort being expended. From our extremely limited fleet of Merlins and Chinooks, no expense is spared when it comes to using them as flying trauma stations, but that leaves us even shorter of helicopters for operations, so we have to borrow from the Americans or send troops out in less safe forms of transportation.

Not for the first time do we observe that it would be gratifying if the MoD – as well as the media and politicians – devoted as much energy and resources to keeping troops alive and uninjured as they did to treating them and trying to keep them alive after they have been wounded.

That they could do more is indicated by a piece from Thomas Harding last week, in which he records an interview with Canada's defence minister who tells us that British forces in Afghanistan could "learn lessons" on how to properly equip troops on the front line.

This is an issue we have covered many times on this blog, noting how the Canadians are far more advanced in their force protection techniques, using equipment that we are only now thinking of buying, while still having considerable capability gaps.

With the death rate being contained by "artificial" means rather than by improved fighting equipment and tactics, the fear is that these words will fall on deaf ears. It has been difficult enough getting the MoD to focus on force protection and without constant pressure, there is great danger that we will see backsliding and a renewal of the complacency which has blighted the whole campaign.

As important, with the statistics being skewed – even if for the best of reasons – we are no longer getting any measure of what is going on, beyond the propaganda "puffs" from the MoD. Deprived of signals, we can only speculate, with suspicion that it is far worse than is painted and deteriorating rapidly.

Neither this government nor the MoD can be trusted to tell the truth, and nor can the media be relied upon to ferret it out. We can, under these circumstances, only fear the worst. We are now, in many senses, paying the wages of neglect.

I am cross-posting this on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

Bring out your unrest

Much to everyone's surprise, including the organisers, 120,000 people or so marched through Dublin yesterday in an "emotional and angry national demonstration over the Irish Government's handling of the economic crisis."

According to one report, the sheer size of the turnout meant it had to set off earlier than was planned, with the parade stretching the entire length of its mile route at one stage.

Hundreds more lined the streets of the city centre, many clapping and cheering, as both public and private sector workers came together under the banners of several trade unions for one the largest demonstrations ever seen in the capital.

The demonstrators marched past the Dail (Irish Parliament) for a rally at Merrion Square, where the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) general secretary David Begg accused a wealthy elite of "economic treason" by destroying the country's international reputation. "There is fear about how to keep body and soul together," he then told the crowd.

This is by no means the full extent of the fallout from the economic crisis. After Iceland, yet another government has bitten the dust, with the Latvian prime minister having resigned amid public unrest over his handling of the recession.

This, we are told, throws the Baltic state into political turmoil less than two months after his unpopular government launched an International Monetary Fund-approved austerity programme to avert a balance of payments crisis. An IMF mission is in the capital to review the programme's progress, and its findings may not be happy news for the young lady of Riga.

And, although there has been nothing in the headlines recently about Greece, the unrest there has not gone away. It seems to be entering a new dimension with the emergence of a "guerrilla group" called Rebels Sect.

It has been taking pot-shots at a local TV station, its second attack in less than a month. The group says that is had specifically targeted journalists because they represented a corrupt establishment and warned them that worse attacks would follow. "By attacking the channel, we are sending an ultimatum to all journalists," it says.

That is certainly and interesting development and points – perhaps – to a wider lack of appreciation of the fourth estate. No longer detached observers, they are seen as players – and as bad as the rest of them.

This and unrest in the French territory of Guadeloupe, where there have been violent demonstrations over low wages and living conditions, with at least one civilian killed, has had a senior aide to Sarkozy warning that many other countries risk seeing explosions of popular anger,

This is Henri Guaino, one of Sarkozy's inner circle of advisers. He has been telling Le Monde that without some commonly agreed rules on reasonable levels of protection and government intervention "more uncontrolled outbreaks of populism and xenophobia were likely".

"This crisis is already going through all the chapters of an economics textbook," he says. "We should be careful that it doesn't also go through a history textbook as well."

The UK, which has already seen unrest over the "British jobs for British workers" issue, may well be set to enter that textbook. Anarchists and anti-globalisation activists are plotting a mass demonstration against bankers in the heart of the City, for 1 April - the day world leaders arrive in London for the G20 summit. They are dubbing the event "Financial Fools Day" and are looking to cause mass disruption by blocking traffic and buildings.

Protesters hope to mobilise "anti fat-cat" sentiment among students and workers affected by the credit crunch as they demonstrate against the financial system, and are inviting activists to "set up camp" in London's financial centre.

If the Irish experience is anything to go by, they may well get larger crowds than they expect, especially as one anarchist blogger is claiming "inspiration" from Greece. With the G20 summit in London, this, he says, "gives us the opportunity to mobilise far larger than usual numbers on to the streets."

I suppose if they follow that inspiration to the logical conclusion, and they start taking pot-shots at journos, we could be in for some interesting times.

COMMENT THREAD

Lost before it started – Part 7

In this final part of our seven-part series, over on Defence of the Realm, we turn the tables and speculate on whether the British, despite the handicaps, could have succeeded. Reviewing what actually did happen after they had retreated to their final bunker at Basra airport, we believe they could.

That is the ultimate tragedy. Instead of attracting the contempt of the Iraqis and the disdain of the Americans – who will never really trust us again – we could truly have walked out of Iraq with our heads held high, without having to pretend we had achieved success. It was that close – and that far.

COMMENT THREAD

Now they tell us

Remember the rejoicing about Barack Obama's undeniable but rather less than landslide victory? All those who maintained that the only reason they were anti-American was because of the evil things that happened under President Bush (and that includes Tory Socialists) were dancing with joy. Metaphorically, in some cases but that does not matter.

High on the agenda was Gitmo. It will now be closed, we were told with huge delight. What of the inmates? Oh well, the Americans will deal with it but the wonderful thing is that this blot on the Western consicence will no longer be with us.

So, errm, was it such a terrible thing? Paul Mirengoff on Powerline alerts us to the report produced by the Pentagon at President Obama's request. It seems that conditions at Guantánamo Bay Military Prison did not violate the Geneva Convention. One wonders whether the Democrats and their supporters on this side of the Pond will make anything of it. Will they, for instance, suggest that the outcry about Gitmo had nothing to do with human rights and much to do with anti-Republican politics? That could not possibly be true. Will the Shadow Foreign Secretary make a statement about it?

Meanwhile, missile strikes on militant camps in Pakistan go on and the targets are ever wider, as the New York Times reports. This may or may not be a good idea militarily but, presumably, it is no better an idea than it was under President Bush. Is it? Will the Shadow Foreign Secretary say anything at all about it?

COMMENT THREAD

What fun

You have to get your enjoyment where you can these days, so at least we can snatch a little hilarity from a report in Deutsche Welle, which records the latest discomfort of the "colleagues".

It seems that so many people in Europe now speak English as a second language that native English speakers have all but given up on learning other tongues. As a result, the EU is finding it harder and harder to find staff to interpret at meetings and translate official documents into English, just at the moment when it needs them most.

EU spokesman Pietro Petrucci complains that, "On the one hand, English is the language which is most in demand for translation and interpretation, but on the other, fewer and fewer English speakers are learning other languages."

Desperate officials have now sent out a call via YouTube for native English speakers to learn more foreign languages so that they can then find a job translating or interpreting in Brussels.

The poor little darlings really have got problems. There are 23 official languages in the EU, with more in the pipeline if countries such as Croatia join. All member states have a right to hear their official languages in EU meetings and to read documents in their own languages.

But in most of its new member states, English is by the far the most widely spoken foreign language. This is something the Frogs must hate. In 1997, 45 percent of EU documents were drafted in English. By 2006, the proportion had climbed to 72 percent.

In the same year, commission experts translated over 175,000 pages of official texts into English - the highest number of translations into any EU language, three times as many pages as were translated into major languages such as Spanish or Italian.

Moreover, the commission is facing a crisis. One third of the organization's 70 full-time English interpreters, and one in five of its 111 translators, are set to retire in the next decade. But because Britain and Ireland are notoriously the least enthusiastic linguists in the EU, there is an ever-decreasing pool of talent in which to trawl.

It seems that only 60 percent of Irish school graduates and 35 percent of Brits studied French in their final years at school, while just 18 percent in Ireland and 13 percent in Britain studied German. By comparison, 94 percent of German students, and 99 percent of the French, studied English.

The commission's pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears. Some 85 percent of all school children elsewhere in Europe are now learning English, which means native English-speakers have very little incentive to learn foreign lingos. All the good little foreigners are coming to the realisation that English is the only language that matters, while we can bask in our natural superiority, confident that eventually, they will all fall into line and we will no longer have to shout at them.

The only trouble is that the EU's idea of English is very different from that with which most Englishmen are familiar. Better described as "bureaucratese", it is largely incomprehensible, no matter which tongue is used. Strangely, once you understand some of the key words, the actual language matters very little. You find yourself baffled in all 23 languages if mood takes you.

Perhaps, therefore, the EU would be better off hiring translators for their obscure terminology, and the bizarre meanings they put on familiar words – like democracy. But then, if more people understood what they were really on about, their days would be numbered – and even shorter than they are already.

COMMENT THREAD

A wide-ranging debate

Michael Burleigh writes a good op-ed in The Daily Telegraph today. It happens to be about Afghanistan, but the sentiments expressed could be about anything. Specifically, he observes:

The failure to have a wide-ranging debate about Afghanistan and to reach any mutual conclusions has meant the policy drift of the past six years and the strategic confusion today.

In that context, I have been reading Kipling's poem on the British defeat in the Boer War, called "The Lesson". Its stark lines point to an unpleasant truth. The defeat was caused by military incompetence of the highest order, yet Kipling writes:

It was our fault, and our very great fault, and not the judgement of Heaven.
We made an Army in our own image, on an island nine by seven,
Which faithfully mirrored its makers' ideals, equipment, and mental attitude –
And so we got our lesson: and we ought to accept it with gratitude.

The brutal truth Kipling enunciates is that, in the final analysis, the defeat was our fault – "our" meaning the British nation. He then enjoins his readers that, "… the more we work and the less we talk the better results we shall get".

One has to differ with him there, and revert to Burleigh. Effective action follows in the wake of good policy, and good policy follows debate. Policy is not made in a vacuum. In a democracy, the people are part of that debate. And, in the nature of things, the "custodian" of that debate is the media.

In the final stages of crafting my own book – editing and re-shaping, honing the message and making sure that what I write is what I intend to say (it is interesting how that is not always the case … the words take over and have a life of their own), I explore in detail the role of the media in the Iraqi campaign. Again, the comments could apply more widely and thus I will bore you with a short extract:

As for the reporting of the occupation generally, while some were better than others, from no single source would it have been possible to develop a clear narrative, or to have gained any comprehensive – or any – understanding of what was going on. It is unlikely, therefore, that many journalists themselves had a good understanding of the situation.

But with the British public thus ill-informed, it was deprived of an opportunity to engage in the strategic debate. It could not because there was not one – the options on offer were for the Army to stay in Iraq, take the pain and achieve nothing, or quit. Small wonder that most people opted for the latter.

A "third way" – i.e., winning – was not even considered. In that single sense, the media's failure was every bit as profound as the politicians of which it was so often critical. It failed in its most fundamental task of reporting the news, and its analysis was too often trivial or non-existent.

By contrast, the US media hosted vibrant and very public debates on strategy, tactics and equipment. The discussion on the Iraqi Study Group was intense and the media coverage on equipment paved the way for Robert Gates to set up the MRAP programme.

In popular newspapers and on television there was considerable comment and discussion on the relative merits of different equipment, at a level which would be found in the UK only in specialist magazines, and perhaps not even then. Instead, the media gorged on the mantras. In addition to "underfunding", the legend of "overstretch" was frequently rehearsed.

The trivial superficiality of the modern media compares poorly with earlier eras. When more and better warships were needed to counter the threat from the Imperial German Navy, in 1909 the press took up the cry "we want eight and we can’t wait," demanding eight dreadnoughts.

In 1935, Lord Rothermere campaigned through his newspapers, The Daily Mail and Bristol Evening News, to force the Air Ministry to issue a specification for a modern, high-speed bomber. It was then that he purchased a Bristol Type 142 at a personal cost to himself of £18,500, naming it "Britain First". In a grand public display, he presented the aircraft to the nation for the Air Ministry to use as a test aircraft.

In March 1939, we saw lengthy and learned discussions from Capt Basil Liddell-Hart, engaged in earnest technical debate in the pages of The Times, exploring the merits of conscription and the acute difficulties of training and equipping impressed troops.

Throughout our martial history, the press – and then the "media" as broadcasting was included – had always taken a keen interest in our Armed Forces, and played an important role in ensuring they were adequately equipped.

The modern UK media did not. Yet there was no need for leaked memos or insider information. All it needed was an examination of the equipment the army was fielding, against what it could have had. From that, it could easily have been divined that the Army leadership had "sold the pass".

Equipment is the window which reveals the underlying thinking. But it is also the window into the very soul of an army. The equipment deployed in Iraq provided such a window.

There, the failure of the Army is a matter of record, no matter how the military and the politicians try to spin it. It was visible at the time, when many other things were not. But the media went to sleep. Thus, while it is conscious now of the failure in Iraq, it has no idea why it happened. More to the point, it took little part in trying to make things different.

Looking at the contemporary media on a wide range of issues, one is struck by the venality and the triviality, but one then has to think of what Kipling has to say. Is it our fault? We buy the newspapers, watch the television and listen to the radio. If they serve us with rubbish, that is because it is either what we want, or what we are prepared to tolerate. If it were different, these outlets would not survive.

However, saying and doing are two different things. We can all complain, but does it make any difference? What price debate when parliament is on holiday again and, even if it wasn't, no one would take any notice of it? But if it is down to us, we the people have to force the debate. If it is our fault for doing nothing, then we know how to remedy that. If we don't remedy it, then it really is our fault.

COMMENT THREAD

Lost before it started - Part 6

In this part six, over on Defence of the Realm, we look at the vexed question of under-resourcing. Throughout the Iraqi campaign, the mantras of "underfunding" and "over-stretch" were seen as the problems. More "boots on the ground" and more money were the answers to all ills.

COMMENT THREAD

A lesson in politics

Even with our venal media, I am mildly surprised that it hasn't thought important an interesting little drama being played out in Brussels. Actually, it isn't that little – we are talking about €5 billion. Until "quantative easing" gets fully under way, that's still a little bit more than pocket money.

The bottom line – if one can use such an indelicate phrase – is that the Commission has swiped €5 billion of funds, surplus to the EU budget. The money is currently under-spent, as is not uncommon, so it had decided to spend it on vainglorious projects of its own devising. But it has now been told that such misappropriation of funds is illegal.

Euractiv gives the lowdown, telling us that the legal service of the Council of the European Union – representing, loosely, the member states – has told the EU commission in no uncertain terms that the money is "legally unavailable". That's quite an interesting way of describing theft, but it will do.

The drama started on 28 January when the commission proposed to "reallocate" – i.e., steal the money from the budget, which should otherwise have been returned to member states. It had in mind support for "clean coal" projects, funding a grid for offshore wind farms and the extension of broadband internet connections in rural areas.

José Manuel Barroso put his own personal weight behind the projects, chirping that these would represent a "smart investment" for the EU, helping enterprises out of the recessions. The commission followed up with a statement declaring that: "Energy and broadband networks are both crucial to the future of the EU economy."

Well, the future isn't Orange – at least not for little José Manuel. On the eve of the General Affairs Council scheduled for 23-24 February in Brussels – where approval to this grand larceny was supposed to have been given – the legal services have strutted their stuff.

This is now being talked of in terms of a "blunder", which will not do José’s street cred any good, especially as Council permanent representatives are expressing "surprise" that the commission didn't clear the hurdles before announcing its initiative.

The commission is nevertheless trying to hold the line, claiming that it can "unblock" the money from the so-called "margin" between the 2008 annual budget and the ceiling for the EU's long term 2007-2013 financial framework.

At this point, this begins to look like Enron accounting, especially as the commission is talking about possibility of "retroactively revising the 2008 allocations". Never mind that the EU parliament approved the budget allocations, thus giving it the legal authority to spend the money.

But you just have to love budget commissioner Dalia Grybauskaite (pictured). Without so much of a blush on her pretty little cheeks, she happily tells us that, "this is a political question, not a legal or technical question."

It seems that the unblushing Grybauskaite has definitely got the hang of politics. Before politicians can give money away, they must first steal it from someone else. She has learnt her lesson well.

COMMENT THREAD

Not altogether surprising

The trial of three men accused of being involved in the murder of the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya has come to an end. All three have been acquitted by the military court in a move that is somewhat embarrassing to the Russian authorities.

The man who is supposed to have done the actual killing, Rustam Makhmudov, was not on trial as he is supposed to be hiding somewhere in Western Europe. Neither was anybody who was accused of organizing or commissioning the killing.

Makhmudov's two brothers, Dzhabrail and Ibragim, were accused of involvement and found not guilty to their and their supporers' understandably delight. Others found not guilty were former police officer Sergei Khadzhikurbanov and former FSB officer Pavel Ryaguzov who had been up on an extortion charge related to the case.

The prosecutors intend to appeal but it is hard to see what that will achieve, as the evidence of involvement seems to be quite weak and no principal has been arrested or charged.

According to an understandably more detailed report on the BBC Russian Service, Politkovskaya's family and colleagues on the Novaya Gazeta, another of whose journalists was murdered last month are certain that those acquitted today did have some involvement in the murder but nobody is too optimistic that the case will ever be solved.

It might be a good idea to remind our own hacks of this and other cases of Russian journalists being killed, attacked, imprisoned, beaten up or having their homes trashed whenever they complain about their difficulties.

COMMENT THREAD

Naïve or just plain arrogant?

It takes a really arrogant man to describe himself as being naive, adding immediately that being naive, if you are also ambitious, may not be the worst thing. Sometimes you just have to take your lance, charge downhill and to hell with the consequences.

There was much more sub-military language in Declan Ganley's address to the Henry Jackson Society last Tuesday and in the subsequent discussion; much talk of holding the line, leaving the trenches, the Irish people ("not me, it was the people") being the advance guard that needs the support of the rest of the people of Europe. [And yes, I know, I should have written about it before but other matters intervened.]

In parenthesis it should be noted that as far as Declan Ganley is concerned there is no difference between the EU and Europe and democracy means asking the people of Europe, whatever that might be, though he did acknowledge that there is no pan-European politics as yet. I shall return to this extraordinary muddle in thinking.

Several minutes went on a fiery announcement that he, Declan Ganley, was prepared to make any sacrifice to achieve his aim of restoring [sic] democracy to the European project. There is nothing more "they" can do to him. In fact, "they" have not done much to him anyway, except for calling him names. Big deal! Some of us have had to put with that for some time, on occasion losing jobs for not toeing the line. Hardly great sacrifices, particularly as some of the shocking names he was called were "eurosceptic" and "anti-European". As risk and sacrifice go, facing up to those words does not come very high on my list.

Of course, said Mr Ganley, almost succeeding in looking modest, other people have made far greater sacrifices for democracy. Nevertheless, he managed to draw an implicit parallel between himself and an (unnamed) commander of the Continental Army at Yorktown (not, I presume, Washington) who ordered a devastating artillery fire at his own home, suspecting that General Cornwallis had made it his headquarters.

What there was a shortage of in the talk and subsequent discussion is coherence in Libertas's stance. Just what is it Mr Ganley (oops, sorry he did say call him Declan because Mr Ganley is his father) wants to achieve? I managed to ask two questions, introducing myself as being from EUReferendum, clearly an unfamiliar name to Mr Ganley Declan. Congratulating him on his readiness to make any sacrifice for the cause I wondered whether it might not be wasted.

Even if the Lisbon Treaty fails and even if Libertas gains a large number of seats in the Toy European Parliament, almost all that he dislikes about the EU - lack of accountability, European legislation trumping national, European citizenship - would still be in place. Indeed, they are integral parts of the European project, which Mr Ganley Declan, according to his own repeated comments, supports.

Is he suggesting that the Consolidated Treaties should be torn up and a completely new structure created?

No, of course, not. Mr Ganley Declan is not, he assured us, a revolutionary (though he is ambitious and ready to take risks). The revolutionaries are those who sit in Brussels and create a system that takes power away from the people.

Though that statement had the air of being thought of at the last minute, it is closer to the truth than Mr Ganley Declan suspects - the European project is a revolutionary one. The problem is that it is more coherent than Libertas who seems to have no other spokespersons, gives it credit. To say, as Mr Ganley Declan did, that the problem is the Lisbon Treaty and there is no need for it because we still have the Nice Treaty and then to talk about the need for democracy is to exhibit a terrifying lack of knowledge.

However, he did explain that his main aim in getting himself and others of his ilk into the European Parliament is to ensure that people like me had a voice because at present we have none. They are not listening to people like me. They are not exactly listening to people like him, either, but Mr Ganley Declan obviously has a slight touch of the Obama about him. No, they are not listening and they are not democratic but once he is in the European Parliament, all will change because he is not prepared just to sit there and let business as usual carry on.

I did not bother to ask him what he was going to do about it in the Toy European Parliament because it was quite clear that he saw himself as considerably more savvy and knowledgeable about the EU (despite all evidence to the contrary). In fact, I was waiting for him to tell me not to bother my little head about it because he will ensure that my voice will be heard.

My other question was about the European President, something Mr Ganley Declan finds abhorrent, particularly as the people of Europe have not been asked whether they want one. The people of Britain, he proclaimed in ringing tones, should have a choice in this matter; they should be asked whether they want a European President.

Very well, said I, suppose the people of Britain are asked and vote against the idea; but suppose across Europe the people of it vote in favour; we shall get a European President whether we like it or not. I am sorry to say that Mr Ganley Declan did not answer the question, possibly because he was too busy assuring everyone that he was not a withdrawalist, not a revolutionary and not a eurosceptic. In fact, he wanted to save the European project because if it carries on the way it is going, there will be serious calls in many countries for withdrawal and that would be a tragedy.

This was one of the themes of his talk. The European project, in his opinion has come a long way and must not be undermined by those in Brussels who want to put an anti-democratic spin on it; who are shocked by the fact that people, who ought to be the owners of this project, do not want to march in lockstep with them. If they are allowed to go their own way, the withdrawalists will become strong and the project will disintegrate.

The problem with that is, as all our readers will instantly realize, that the project never had a democratic aspect to it. Clearly Mr Ganley Declan has never read a certain book that the boss and his colleague, Christopher Booker, wrote, in which they clearly explain the anti-democratic nature of the project from the very beginning.

Now, this would not matter if one said openly that democracy is a so-so idea, a recent and not very successful experiment and, maybe, it is best to move on. But that is not what Mr Ganley Declan is saying. He sees himself as the man whose appointed role it is to restore democracy to "Europe" or the European project.

We do not need the Lisbon Treaty, which has all those undemocratic and even anti-democratic ideas in it; we already have the Nice Treaty and can go back to it. Presumably, he has not read the Nice Treaty either and has forgotten that the Irish voters tried rejecting it once but were bullied and cheated into voting it through. Hardly the behaviour of a democracy. No wonder he did not answer my question about the European President.

Furthermore, Mr Ganley Declan keeps talking about the people of Europe and the need for them to have their democratic rights restored and to speak up about the way these are being stolen from them. Those who are doing the stealing, we were told several times, are using the well-tried method of "divide and conquer". They ask the people of individual member states and discard those results if they are not the ones the eurocrats want to hear. Now, if only the people of Europe united and stood up to these dastardly tactics …

Well, what? It seems Mr Ganley Declan does not understand exactly what he is saying. At best he believes in a perestroika: if we change things a little bit here and there the whole project will miraculously become what we always wanted it to be. Except that it was not clear to me or to a number of people in the audience what the aim of the exercise is – just what is it Mr Ganley Declan wants to achieve beyond getting a group of like-minded and woolly-minded individuals into the Toy European Parliament.

He was also very coy about his plans in the UK and one cannot help feeling that he is leaving the putting together of his pan-European list of candidates (the only one, as he proudly explained) very late. Those elections are in June.

COMMENT THREAD

In the heart of our democracy

At the risk of turning this blog into a Vaclav Klaus "benefit week", we have to record that, this morning, this fine upstanding man addressed an adoring audience of MEPs at the EU parliament in Brussels.

In something akin to sticking his head into a lion's mouth and then jabbing it in the stomach with a blunt instrument, however, he made the slight tactical error of suggesting that current EU practices "smacked of communist times" when the Soviet Union controlled much of eastern Europe, including the Czech Republic and when dissent or even discussions were not tolerated.

"Not so long ago, in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that permitted no alternatives and therefore also no parliamentary opposition," said Klaus. "We learned the bitter lesson that with no opposition, there is no freedom."

The "colleagues" though were in a forgiving mood, listening intently – between cheers and applause – when he addressed specifically the role of the august House, telling MEPs that, "Since there is no European demos - and no European nation - this defect can not be solved by strengthening the role of the European Parliament."

Bruno Waterfield thought this a storming speech, "the best I have ever heard in that place," he writes. Clearly, many of the honourable members agreed wholeheartedly. As happened in Paris, they were so overcome by emotion and gratitude that, at this point, a large number were forced to leave the chamber to seek fresh air and aid their rapid recovery.

Such are the vagaries of the foreign languages spoken in the House that many of the gasps of delight and approval sounded to some ears like boos – even Bruno was slightly confused for a moment, recording some of them as such.

But it is very clear that they were simply agreeing with Klaus when he told then that, "The most important task is to make sure that debate over problems is not silenced as an attack on the very idea of European integration." There is nothing the members like better than debating over problems, so what they were told must have come as music to their ears.

"We have always believed," he told them, "that being allowed to discuss such serious issues, " and defending everyone's right to present a different opinion - no matter how much may disagree with it - "is at the very core of democracy."

Avril Doyle, a particularly fine example of Euro-MP mindset, according to Bruno, was so evidently appreciative of these fine sentiments that she had trouble modulating her gentle voice and thus overcome only managed to deliver something which Bruno rather unkindly describes as a "screech".

All the poor lady was trying to do was compliment Klaus for his courage in trying to influence a second Irish referendum. But he seems to have misreported her – you can never trust these hacks – having her say: "debate is a recipe for chaos." No democrat like Avril Doyle could possibly have said that.

Anyhow, the Czech media seems well pleased with the respect accorded to their president, although one journalist – like Bruno – seems also to have been confused by the quaint habit of the parliamentarians making cheers sound like boos.

She thus records that the MEPs' reaction to his speech amused (but probably did not surprise) president. How could he be surprised when he received such great approval?

Happily, the EU parliament press service recorded the great event most fully, noting the grateful response of parliament president Hans Gert-Pöttering, who described Mr Klaus's views as "an expression of the diversity in Europe".

Quite rightly, he pointed out that "in a democracy it's the view of the majority that counts". Without the EU parliament, he said, Europe would be in the hands of bureaucrats. And that would never do.

So wise was that comment that the "wide majority of MEPs" – many of them having overcome their emotions and struggled back into the chamber - "strongly welcomed Mr Pöttering's response." Mr Klaus must have been so pleased with his morning's work in the heart of our democracy.

COMMENT THREAD

Lost before it started – Part 5

Having looked at the effects of policy on the conduct of the campaign in Iraq, in this fifth part, over on Defence of the Realm, we look at the Army's response to criticisms, and its broader response to its own failures, reflecting on the nature of the problems which affect the Army high command.

COMMENT THREAD

Guardians of our freedom

Our man in Brussels, namely Bruno Waterfield, is hot on the trail of the latest in the long saga of the euroweenies' attempts to create a European Army.

The latest plan, he writes - which has "influential support in Germany and France" – is to set up "Synchronised Armed Forces Europe", or SAFE. This, he tells us, is a first step towards a true European military force.

It isn't the first step, of course – the "colleagues" have been trying for decades - but this certainly is another step down the road towards European military integration, giving teeth to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

What brings it to the forefront is an "own initiative" report going in front of the EU parliament today, authored by one of our favourite "stage" Germans, MEP Karl von Wogau – a doyen of the European defence establishment. He has been at the forefront of the EU defence agenda for many years, one of his earlier reports setting out the objectives very clearly indeed.

In opposing – or even trying to understand – what is happening though, there is a conceptual problem. A "European Army" as such does not involve serried ranks of soldiers all done up with white gloves, tasteful cravats and blue berets adorned with the ring of stars. It is much more subtle than that, and our Karl is right in there, making it happen.

The key word is "inter-operability", a concept we've been writing about for ages, going right back. This is in the frame with von Wogau's current report. He is looking for a "dynamic to further development of co-operation between national armed forces so that they become increasingly synchronised". For "synchronised", read "inter-operable".

For modern armies to fight together, they must have common structures, command and control systems, equipment, doctrines and much else. If these are too different, disparate national armies on the same battlefield are simply a disorganised rabble – even worse than at present. However, the crucial point is that, if the armies of the EU member states are properly "synchronised", this makes them a single army in all but name. The don't need to wear the "ring of stars" or blue cravats.

Further to the point, since the level of commonality will be unique to those formations, they will not be able to fight with anyone else … like the United States. "SAFE", therefore, is a powerful weapon of integration.

Von Wogau makes absolutely no attempt to hide his agenda – in that, at least, he is honest. He points out in his report before the EU parliament today that the EU "needs to develop its strategic autonomy through a strong and effective foreign, security and defence policy. "This is needed," he says, "in order to promote peace and international security, to defend its interests in the world, to protect the security of its own citizens …".

This, in a nutshell, sums up all that is objectionable about the "project". The ESDP is needed to promote the EU's interests and protect the security of "its own citizens". This is the supranationalist agenda writ large, completely submerging the interests of nations, yet using their resources to do so.

The core of the "SAFE" idea definitely promotes that agenda, suggesting a "European statute for soldiers" which would govern "training standards, operational doctrine and freedom of operational action." It would encompass issues relating to "duties and rights, "as well as "the level of equipment quality, medical care and social security arrangements in the event of death, injury or incapacity."

Crucially, "SAFE" also embodies the principle of "a Europe-wide division of labour in military capabilities." That would mean, to take an extreme example, one country would supply the infantry, another the tanks, yet another the artillery, one other the communications systems, while others would provide the logistics, catering and the medical services. Command and control would, of course, be provided by the EU.

That actually encapsulates the principle of "interdependence", one which has applied for decades to the EU's industrial policy. Applied to the ESDP, it would mean that no single member state would have autonomous armed forces, capable of acting independently – which is exactly what the "colleagues" have in mind.

The actual plan, as you might expect, is a lot more devious. They are talking about sharing military intelligence gathering, common communications systems, shared (i.e., EU managed) satellites - including Galileo, which is freely quoted as a model - all key elements without which modern armies can't operate.

The "European Army" thus becomes a group of nationally-funded formations each so deficient in one or more key capabilities that they can only operate when they come together as a whole, under the EU umbrella. It's not what each army has, so much as what it doesn't have - not what they can do but what they can't do.

And then the individual national components are so heavily "synchronised" that they can only work with each other, and not anyone else - back to inter-operability again. They can fight within Nato, but separately, but only as part of a European component - alongside but not with US or Canadian forces. The idea of Nato forces being "synchronised" goes out the window.

Although this issue is emerging just now with von Wogau's report, it was actually rehearsed in much more detail late last year by that other "stage Hun", Hans-Gert Pöttering.

Speaking at the "Seventh Congress on European Security and Defence" in Berlin in November, he went well beyond the idea of "closer co-operation between autonomous national armies" and identified precisely the issues we have highlighted: "quantum improvements in the areas of joint command structures, equipment and operations."

To achieve these aims, says Pöttering, "we need a link between the current situation, characterised by armed forces which are partly interoperable, but still organised on a purely national basis, and the distant objective of a European Army."

Note those words carefully: a link between the "current situation" and "the distant objective of a European Army". That link, Pöttering tells us, is "SAFE". Not least, "it has positive associations and is easy to remember". Thus, he asserts, it "can help us move the work of developing integrated European structures forward."

One cunning little plot to move that agenda "forward" is an agreement between the Netherlands and German armed forces which now allow their reservists to fulfil their duties in the other country's army. The Belgian armed forces are already open to soldiers from all the EU Member States and thus "stand as a model for all 27 armies in Europe."

That is the eventual aim, whereby "European citizens" will be able to join the armed forces of any member state, as of right. Since an oath of loyalty to any one state would be a barrier to entry, that would have to go. National military regulations would be replaced with the "European soldiers' statute".

Another jolly little scam is to expand the "institutional exchange programme for professional soldiers". Known as Erasmus-Militaire, this would increase the number of exchanges between member state armed forces, thus giving the process "an entirely new dimension". Before too long, any ambitious officer will learn that he has no prospects of promotion until he has been on his euro-exchange posting to acquire his programming.

None of this will be compulsory in the first instance. Von Wogau and Pöttering both are talking about voluntary "opt-ins". This allows countries like the UK to deny they are participating while, all the time, gradually implementing provisions.

One thing you can see happening, for instance, is the "European soldiers' statute" surreptitiously being absorbed into Queen's Regulations. They will keep their name but will be gradually emptied of unique national content and "synchronised" with the European model. That is the way our provincial government does things.

Bruno Waterfield cites Geoffrey Van Orden, who opines on the whole idea. He complains that British ministers are "in denial". They are, he says, "sleepwalking towards a European army and seem to have little awareness of what is going on."

That isn't exactly what is happening. In the Brown government, there is actually little enthusiasm for Euro-militarism. But within the MoD and elsewhere there is a caucus of strong Europhiles. They are forever pushing at the boundaries. Every now and again, they are thrown a chunk of meat to keep them quiet. The trouble is, they devour it and come back for more.

Some – but by no means all – of this agenda will find its way into the British defence system and lodge like a virus, ready to break out when the time is right. The strongest antidote is Afghanistan – where our close operational relationship with US forces means that we have to be more "synchronised" with the Americans than the euroweenies.

After all, it was Afghanistan campaign that did for the British contribution to the ERRF. End the campaign in Afghanistan and there is nothing to stop the euroweenies running amok.

By that measure - as long as we are fighting them alongside the Americans - that makes the Taleban the best guardians of our freedom – of which our independent armed forces are a central part. That is a very sobering thought.

COMMENT THREAD

Waffle, waffle

If anybody is interested in reading real ministerial waffle, they are welcome to have a look at the short debate that followed a Private Notice Question in the House of Lords on February 12.

The Question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their justification for denying Mr Geert Wilders entry into the United Kingdom.

was put down by Lord Taverne, not one of the usual suspects and, indeed, most of those who took part in the debate were not that either. I did rather like the beginning of Lord Pearson’s intervention:

I suggest to the Minister—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.

The Minister did not reply to that, or to Lord Pearson’s further point that none of this would have happened if Mr Wilders had suggested the banning of the Bible, or to any of the various points made by the noble lords and ladies. His excuses were various: he could not respond on hypothetical point; he did not know how the matter came to the attention of the Home Office (a very good question asked by Lord Peston); he had not had time to be briefed; and, anyway, he really did not know anything that had anything to do with the subject.

So there we are. Now we know.

For all the fine talk …

… the lower house of the Czech parliament yesterday voted to ratify the constitutional Lisbon treaty, with a majority of 125 votes cast to 61 against. It still needs to be approved by the upper house, where it needs a three-fifths majority, and then Klaus has to sign the ratification papers.

The vote was shepherded by europhile prime minister Mirek Topolanek, who seems to be about as popular in the country as Gordon Brown is here. Not ratifying the treaty "would bring us nothing," Topolanek told the MPs before the vote, adding that "even he" was not "rejoicing" over every aspect of the treaty.

Deputy prime minister Alexandr Vondra churned out the usual platitudes – usual because they seem to be part of the universal vocabulary of the pols – saying: "It's a responsible step preceded by a thorough, democratic debate". He wants the Senate to follow "as soon as possible".

I must say, it's a jolly posh parliament (pictured), which just goes to show that environment isn't everything. You can make crap decisions no matter what your surroundings, as indeed we see in Westminster so often, when the MPs are actually there – which seems to be something of a rarity these days.

COMMENT THREAD

Lost before it started – Part 4

The earlier parts deal with the emergence of the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) and the Army's response to it – how this led to a "major restructuring" of the Army which took precedence over the war in Iraq, condemning troops to using second-hand equipment while the General dreamed of their powerful new "toys".

We also saw how, as the strategic situation in Afghanistan deteriorated, the fantasy collided with reality and Gen Dannatt was forced to concede that the Army would have to be equipped to fight the real war. In this part, over on Defence of the Realm we have a look at the "fantasy Army" as might have been, and find it still casts a long shadow over the operational capabilities of the Army.

COMMENT THREAD

Not wanted in Paris

Vaclav Klaus was speaking in Paris recently. He took the opportunity while there to complain that although in the last twenty years he had given hundreds of speeches and lectures throughout the world, not many of them had been in Paris. In fact, his last one was in 2003.

Ever sensitive to the subtle nuances of international discourse, Klaus confessed to have picked up some slightly negative vibes, suggesting that his prolonged absence from the speaking circuits of gay Paree might just have had something to do with his choosing the "wrong topics". It is either that or it could be that his views were "politically incorrect", he said.

One cannot even begin to imagine why this might be the case, although Klaus has discerned something which approaches less than wild enthusiasm when he speaks about Europe and the European Union.

This lack of rapture seemed especially prevalent when he offered some analysis (he called it criticism, although I do not know why) of "the currently dominant European ideology" he called "Europeism".

It is a measure of the man's sensitivity, which must have gone down so well amongst his cultured audience, that he half-apologised for suggesting that, in the last couple of years, "this loosely structured, rather heterogeneous, not coherently described, formulated, analysed and defended 'conglomerate of ideas' has achieved an enormous strength and that it influences our thinking, our policies, our way of life more than we are aware of."

Even if they did not have the first idea of what he was talking about, the French-speakers listening to him would have enjoyed the gentle cadences of that last sentence. And they cannot have helped but enjoy his helpful summary of his understanding of "Europeism". The main aspects, he told them, comprise:

the belief in social market economy, and the demonisation of free markets

the reliance on civil society, on NGOs, on social partnership, on corporatism, instead of classical parliamentary democracy

the aiming at social constructivism as a result of the disbelief in spontaneous evolution of human society

indifference towards the nation state and blind faith in internationalism

the promotion of the supranationalist model of European integration, not its intergovernmental model

Deferring to his learned audience, recognising that they would be entirely familiar with the French political, philosophical, economic and sociological discourse, he tactfully suggested that he was not altogether in complete agreement with this "doctrine". He also recognised that his stance might be slightly at odds with "the deeply rooted and centuries old views of the French intelligentsia." How they must have loved that.

And that, he tentatively surmised, could also have something to do with the fact that he was not regularly invited to speak in Paris.

Then, in a spirit of openness and tolerance - with not a hint of recrimination - he gave his audience every opportunity to measure the soundness of his views, as he led them through the following tenets:

The undergoing weakening of democracy and of free markets on the European continent, connected with the European unification process, is a threatening phenomenon especially for someone who spent most of his life in a very authoritative and oppressive communist regime. I consider, therefore, the marching towards an ever-closer Europe (which is one of the crucial tenets of Europeism) a mistaken project. This ambition was the main building block of the European Constitution and it remains without substantial change in its new version, in the Lisbon Treaty.

The gradual shift from liberalising and removing all kinds of barriers towards a massive introduction of regulation and harmonisation from above, the ever-expanding, overgenerous welfare system, the innovative, and more sophisticated forms of protectionism, the continuously growing legal and regulatory burdens on business, the markets undermining quasi-competition policies, the Single Currency arrangements, are all very real. They weaken and restrain freedom, democracy and democratic accountability, not to speak about economic efficiency, entrepreneurship and competitiveness.

Hastening then to remind his audience that he did "care about Europe" – not that they could have been in any doubt - and that for his country, "EU membership has never had any alternative," he then offered a very slight, barely noticeable caveat, so mild that it would have passed by all but the most attentive listener - of which there must have been many.

His support for the EU, he said, "does not imply that we are willing to accept the dogma that the forms and the methods of the EU institutional arrangements don't have alternatives." In a land where the tumbrels once rolled, and la Madame did a roaring trade, hardly anyone could have disagreed with that, nor with Klaus's cautious suggestion that, "To take one as sacrosanct, as the only permitted and politically correct one, is unacceptable."

The right of the people to say "yes" or "no" to the European Constitution or to the Lisbon Treaty, he ventured, "or to any other similar document should be considered sacred." This right, he added, represents the genuine substance (and meaning) of Europe. The attacks on those who dare say "no" to the attempts to accelerate the deepening of the EU, which is the essence and aim of the Lisbon Treaty, are attacks against the true nature of Europe.

How they must have cheered this staunch defence of freedom and the rights of the common man, as they opened their hearts to embrace a suggestion that "global warming alarmism," was an "ideology" that had "gradually turned into the most efficient vehicle for advocating extensive government intervention into all fields of life and for suppressing human freedom and economic prosperity."

Even those who had by then been so overcome with admiration at such noble sentiments that they had been forced to leave the room would, had they been acquainted with it, have shared Klaus's frustration that this ideology had not been sufficiently challenged both inside and outside of climatology.

They would doubtless have heartily agreed with his view that, "We keep hearing one-sided propaganda, but do not hear serious counter-arguments." And how could they possibly have disagreed with his eminently sensible assertion that, "the debate should go beyond climatology."

Once Klaus had so generously expressed other such thoughts on this subject, and then given so freely of his advice on the financial crisis, there surely can only have been one conclusion amongst the throng – that he had been excluded from Paris for far too long.

With such liberal, far-seeing and elegant views, it cannot be long before Klaus is fêted throughout the salons of Paris, welcomed freely to deliver his ideas so that all may imbibe from them.

And then again, perhaps not.

COMMENT THREAD

BS

Not M&S anymore. Are they going to close down their stores when the wind stops blowing?

COMMENT THREAD

Nothing changes …

This man obviously didn't pay his bribes to the right people ... and this one David Mills took one from the wrong guy.

We are told that the real story is too complex to expect any non-Italian to understand it. Half of the courts of Italy are trying to nail Berlusconi and get rid of him. David Mills is only a casual victim of this absurd story.

The Italian justice system is in a state of total anarchy. Half the prosecutors are trying to bring down the government (they have done that already a few times in the last 15 years). The other half is either trying to build a career on preposterous trials or trying to eliminate competing magistrates.

Our informant tells us that it would be ridiculous, if it was not tragic.

COMMENT THREAD

Armageddon Jones

We've kept off the financial crisis for a while, not least because it's too depressing. But another good reason is that, since no one seems really to know what is going on – still less what to do about it – we saw no great reason to add our ha'porth of ignorance to the pot.

Fully paid-up member of the sky-is-falling-in-brigade is, of course, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whose columns would have us permanently hiding our heads under the pillows.

Unfortunately, Ambrose is right enough times – albeit on a longer time-scale than he usually predicts – for it to be easier to mock than take him seriously. That way, at least, you don't see the bus that hits you and you can be happy right up to the time of your oblivion. That, I suspect, is the way most people feel about the gathering crisis. And hey! It might never happen!

What has a horribly ominous ring to it though is Ambrose's latest piece which tells of Eastern European currencies crumbling as a wave of fears take over, buoyed by a mounting of debt crisis. Where have we heard that before?

Putting form on the fears, Ambrose tells us that Hungary's forint fell to an all-time low on Monday, and Poland's zloty slumped to the lowest in five years on plunging industrial output. Half of all loans to the private sector in Poland are in foreign currencies so borrowers face a severe debt shock after the 40 percent fall of the zloty against the euro since August.

Then we get Hans Redeker, currency chief strategist at BNP Paribas, observing: "We're nearing the level were things could get out of hand."

The problem here is that the main backer of Eastern European debt is Germany, so the debt crisis has the potential to undermine what is traditionally Europe's strongest economy. And, as we all know, 'cos we're all experts on this, when German economies go down the tubes, the whole of Europe suffers in very nasty ways.

The sheer scale of the crisis, as it unfolds, is blunting the senses. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is saying that East Europe may need as much as €400bn to help it refinance its loans and inject fresh capital into the banking system. That is such a huge amount of money that it is beyond imagining, yet it is chicken-feed compared with some of the figures being touted.

No doubt, someone will come up with yet another imaginative rescue package, that no one understands and no one believes will work, all to stave off what everybody believes inevitable, the collapse of the monetary system and with it the euro.

It is getting to the point where it is rather like an crowd in the street, watching the interminable drama of a potential suicide standing on a roof above, threatening to jump. After a while, the crowd loses patience and the chant goes up: "Jump! Jump! Get it over with!"

The trouble is that we are all on that roof, shackled together – one goes, we all go. Let's hope there is someone out there with a bloody big net. Ambrose seems to think we might need it.

COMMENT THREAD

The name of the game

A correspondent observes that, in his commuting days, when travelling up to London by train on Monday mornings and back on Friday afternoon/evening, he was amazed at the number of military officers doing likewise.

They were attending the MoD for defence procurement exercises that ended up years late and miles over budget. There were sufficient of these guys to have manned another war.

This completely misses the point.

COMMENT THREAD

Surely not

It is not easy to get to a story before the boss does but I think I managed it this time. Glenn Reynolds has linked to this Times article that tells us a great deal about our own greenies and their hypocrisy. Green for thee but not for me, is the motto. I am shocked, I tell you, shocked. And this does not even list the number of times luminaries such as Gwyneth Paltrow and her unspeakable rock-star husband fly around the world in private jets. (Have you noticed that there are never any plans to tax those extra hard, only the cheap airlines?)

Lost before it started – Part 3

In Part 1, we saw that Tony Blair had committed the bulk of the UK's long-term deployable forces to the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF). Part 2 saw the 2003 Defence White Paper, heralding a "major restructuring" of the Army and the official emergence of FRES, in order to meet the commitment – just at a time when the Army was taking on the occupation of Iraq and needed to keep its options open.

We also saw the Army enthusiastically embrace the restructuring, using it to reactivate an 80s equipment project and acquire a fleet of new armoured vehicles. General Sir Mike Jackson then started reshaping the infantry to accommodate the new equipment – even though it would not be available for many years. With this going on, the war in Iraq took second place, the Army there having to make do with 14-year-old second-hand Land Rovers.

In Part 3, now up on Defence of the Realm, we see a new Chief of the General Staff take over – General Sir Richard Dannatt. And the madness goes on.

COMMENT THREAD

The joke's on us

It's a while back since we had a look at the European vanity project, aka Galileo, but like everything the euroweenies do, it doesn't go away just because you're not looking at it.

What brings us back is a highly entertaining reversal of fortunes, where the vainglorious ambitions of the Euros seem to be colliding with the inscrutability of their former strategic partners, the Chinese.

To appreciate what turns out to be a huge irony, we have to go back to 2001 when the Galileo system was in its early stages of going nowhere, and the US started raising the alarm about possible interference with the established US GPS system.

This was more or less resolved in 2004 and eventually, by June 2007 a deal was cemented whereby the two systems would be compatible and could therefore share the sky in some sort of harmony.

Meanwhile, also to the consternation of the Americans, the euroweenies were doing a separate deal with the Chinese, bringing them on board as "development partners" for Galileo, with the very real risk that they would exploit the technology for military purposes.

The concern had its effect because, despite – or so they thought – the euroweenies milking them for €200 million for their stake in the project, the Chinese were frozen out of the management team which was to run the system.

In what now becomes a deliciously convoluted story, the Chinese meanwhile decided to develop their own Beidou navigation network from a regional system to a fully functional global network, comparable with GPS, Galileo and the Russian Glonas. That, as Taylor Dinerman pointed out in 2006, would raise exactly the same compatibility problems that had confronted Galileo and GPS, with potential interference between systems.

Now, as Asia Times and, more recently, Dinerman report, the Beidou system – now known as Compass - is steaming ahead, with the Chinese aiming to make it fully functional by 2015.

In setting up their system, Chinese representatives have informally resolved with the US potential problems with co-ordination of frequencies. Recognising the status of GPS as a "legacy" system with a prior claim to its frequencies, China is prepared to respect the status quo and not interfere.

Not so with the euroweenies, however, where compatibility issues between Compass and Galileo most definitely have not been resolved. With China's schedule now edging ahead on the launch stakes, the inscrutable ones are taking the view that it has equal rights to pick its operating frequencies as do the Euros.

The result is that Compass could end up interfering with Galileo's high accuracy Public Regulated Service (PRS) signals. This is the part of the system which will be available on subscription and will also be used for military purposes - not that it's a military system, of course. But, with the Chinese system up and running, PRS will be pretty much useless for military purposes unless China allows access to the frequencies.

Not content with this, the Chinese are also seeking to build into their system some "product differentiators" - enhanced capabilities and unique signals and/or services – which will give them a competitive advantage over Galileo and GPS. With their eyes on the lucrative Asian applications market, that will leave the poor old Euros decidedly in the cold.

To add to this jolly tale, the Chinese have also acquired sophisticated UHF-band satellite communications jammers and have probably developed indigenous systems, which today give them capacity to jam common satellite communications bands and GPS receivers. Galileo's card has also been marked.

The combined effect of these various initiatives is set to create even more difficulties for the Euros than they have experienced already, further diluting the attraction of a system that has been struggling to get off the ground. To add insult to injury, the Chinese have also made good use of the €200 million stake with which they bought into Galileo.

Having acquired considerable technical know-how from the Euros on developing ground infrastructures for satellite systems – as part of the "partnership" deal - all but about €10 million has been spent on application development and ground infrastructure in China itself. This technology is now being seamlessly integrated into the Compass programme.

While the Euros might have been under the illusion that the Chinese would move away from the US GPS system and join with their anti-American tryst, China has never had any real intentions of joining in. It has always had ambitions for its own independent system. The Chinese have got far more out of the "co-operation" with the Euros in terms of technical know-how, system management and market access than they ever put in, and are now ahead of the game.

The ultimate joke – if your sense of humour takes you that way – is highlighted by Dinerman. The Galileo system was originally intended by Jacques Chirac to prevent Europe from becoming the "technological vassal" of the Americans. With the frequency conflict, it has now produced a situation where the EU is going to be subservient to the Chinese.

Reports, says Dinerman, have it that the Euros are "very angry". It's a tough old world out there, and it looks like it's not getting any better for their pet project. It would all be rather funny if it wasn't for the fact that the British taxpayer already has better than a £200 million stake in the damn thing and we are going to have to pick up a hefty chunk of the bill when it tanks. The Chinese may be laughing – not that they would do so in public – but it looks like the joke is on us.

As for the poor benighted Euros, Dinerman has the last word. "Decades from now," he writes, "it may be that people will see Galileo as having been a wise investment, one that gave Europe a valuable tool with which to assert itself on the world stage."

Or perhaps not.

COMMENT THREAD