Links added
InstaPundit (Glenn Reynolds). Slugger O'Toole (Mick Fealty).
Blogging from the Highlands of Scotland
'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step' - Diderot
Thursday, 6 February 2003
Links to other Weblogs
In the coming days and weeks I plan to add a number of links to other 'blogs' which I consider worthy of mention. I plan to include a variety of 'blogs' which comment reguliarly on current affairs and politics, in terms of the locations of those who post them, and their points of view. I happen to have [what I consider to be] a moderate 'right-of centre' view on many things, but whether someone classes him- or herself (or others do) as 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' will not be a major consideration for me. Provided the reasoning is fairly presented and cogently argued then I will consider them for inclusion - 'extremists' of whatever kind are highly unlikely to be considered. Weblogs which hide under a veil of 'anonymity' and most specifically those where there is no e-mail link to those who purport to post to them will under no circumstances be included, however amusing or interesting I may otherwise find them. I will mention briefly, and in passing, the names of blogs which fall into this category, without providing a link to them.
To start this off, two which fall into this category are SullyWatch and SmarterAndrewSullivan - there are many others highly critical of that person who do show their own names and who will appear here in due course.
In the coming days and weeks I plan to add a number of links to other 'blogs' which I consider worthy of mention. I plan to include a variety of 'blogs' which comment reguliarly on current affairs and politics, in terms of the locations of those who post them, and their points of view. I happen to have [what I consider to be] a moderate 'right-of centre' view on many things, but whether someone classes him- or herself (or others do) as 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' will not be a major consideration for me. Provided the reasoning is fairly presented and cogently argued then I will consider them for inclusion - 'extremists' of whatever kind are highly unlikely to be considered. Weblogs which hide under a veil of 'anonymity' and most specifically those where there is no e-mail link to those who purport to post to them will under no circumstances be included, however amusing or interesting I may otherwise find them. I will mention briefly, and in passing, the names of blogs which fall into this category, without providing a link to them.
To start this off, two which fall into this category are SullyWatch and SmarterAndrewSullivan - there are many others highly critical of that person who do show their own names and who will appear here in due course.
War to remove Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime is now almost inevitable
Tony Blair met today with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei in London to discuss the speech made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council yesterday.
Both UN officials now accept that the Iraqi regime is not co-operating fully and that its behaviour is deceitful.
According to a report of the meeting carried by the BBC, Mr Blix says that whilst Iraq continued to co-operate on the "process" of the inspections, such as granting access, he noted that the Iraqis were still failing either to present forbidden items to be destroyed or show evidence they had been destroyed already: "I hope at this later hour they will come to a positive response," he said. Mr ElBaradei is quoted as saying that whilst war is not inevitable, there must be "drastic change" in Iraq's co-operation. "The message coming from the Security Council is very clear, that Iraq is not co-operating fully," he said.
The BBC report that Mr Blair and Mr Straw also held talks on Thursday with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. The allies are seeking to ensure Iran does nothing to obstruct any future military action against Iraq.
It is true that Mr Powell's speech yesterday did not comprise the same level of 'evidence' as has been presented before to the UN in similar situations, but unless one is pre-disposed to disbelieve everything said by the United States, almost on principle (viz the Syrian Ambassador to the UN, following Mr Powell's speech), it is my view is that it contained very credible circumstantial evidence that the danger posed by Iraq to the region and the wider world is real, imminent (and ongoing) and growing. In a few years time the cost of stopping Saddam Hussein may be considerably greater - the ongoing situation wiith North Korea should be a salutary warning.
Tony Blair met today with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei in London to discuss the speech made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council yesterday.
Both UN officials now accept that the Iraqi regime is not co-operating fully and that its behaviour is deceitful.
According to a report of the meeting carried by the BBC, Mr Blix says that whilst Iraq continued to co-operate on the "process" of the inspections, such as granting access, he noted that the Iraqis were still failing either to present forbidden items to be destroyed or show evidence they had been destroyed already: "I hope at this later hour they will come to a positive response," he said. Mr ElBaradei is quoted as saying that whilst war is not inevitable, there must be "drastic change" in Iraq's co-operation. "The message coming from the Security Council is very clear, that Iraq is not co-operating fully," he said.
The BBC report that Mr Blair and Mr Straw also held talks on Thursday with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. The allies are seeking to ensure Iran does nothing to obstruct any future military action against Iraq.
It is true that Mr Powell's speech yesterday did not comprise the same level of 'evidence' as has been presented before to the UN in similar situations, but unless one is pre-disposed to disbelieve everything said by the United States, almost on principle (viz the Syrian Ambassador to the UN, following Mr Powell's speech), it is my view is that it contained very credible circumstantial evidence that the danger posed by Iraq to the region and the wider world is real, imminent (and ongoing) and growing. In a few years time the cost of stopping Saddam Hussein may be considerably greater - the ongoing situation wiith North Korea should be a salutary warning.
Tuesday, 7 January 2003
Traces of the toxin ricin have been found in London - seven people arrested (one since released). The six remaining in custody are of North African origin, apparently.
The BBC report that the seven were arrested in the early hours of 5 January (Sunday last) under the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows police to hold suspects for seven days, from various locations in North and East London. It was confirmed today that traces of ricin had been found in material taken from an address in North London.
There is much talk that it might be another attempt by al-Qa'ida to conduct a terrorist outrage. Who knows? It could just as easily be some other terrorist group or individual, or even people acting on behalf of some foreign government (Iraq and North Korea spring to mind - see article below).
This poison is apparently not particularly suitable for use against mass targets as it must be ingested by or injected into the victim. It is thought this latter was the method used to murder dissident Bulgarian Georgi Markov, who was stabbed on Waterloo Bridge in London with a poisoned umbrella in 1978.
The BBC report that the seven were arrested in the early hours of 5 January (Sunday last) under the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows police to hold suspects for seven days, from various locations in North and East London. It was confirmed today that traces of ricin had been found in material taken from an address in North London.
There is much talk that it might be another attempt by al-Qa'ida to conduct a terrorist outrage. Who knows? It could just as easily be some other terrorist group or individual, or even people acting on behalf of some foreign government (Iraq and North Korea spring to mind - see article below).
This poison is apparently not particularly suitable for use against mass targets as it must be ingested by or injected into the victim. It is thought this latter was the method used to murder dissident Bulgarian Georgi Markov, who was stabbed on Waterloo Bridge in London with a poisoned umbrella in 1978.
The lessons we must learn from the frightening fact of North Korean blackmail and duplicity if we are to are to avoid similar problems in future - from Iraq and some other rogue nations.
The International Atomic Energy Authority (the IAEA is part of the UN) meeting in Vienna yesterday said it "deplores in the strongest terms" the removal by North Korea of UN surveillance equipment and has urged the North Korean government to re-admit the inspectors it expelled last month. Speaking to the 35-nation IAEA Board of Directors, director general Mohamed ElBaradei declined to set a deadline for North Korea to co-operate: "It's clearly a matter of weeks - I'd like to give diplomacy a chance to work and the DPRK(*) time." He added: "The international community is not ready to negotiate under blackmail. Unless the DPRK co-operates fully with the agency the matter will be referred to the Security Council."
* - North Korea's official name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
For its part, whilst the Bush administration is adamant it will not offer fresh concessions to North Korea to return to previous commitments, Ari Fleischer (White House spokesman) said that America would work "shoulder to shoulder" with South Korea in finding a solution.
However, according to a report in today's Daily Telegraph, US conservatives are starting to ask, outside of diplomatic channels, whether the Bush administration should withdraw troops from South Korea, leaving a seemingly ungrateful ally to fend for itself. According to the report, Daryl Plunk (a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank with close Pentagon connections) said a troop reduction was "under discussion, but at a pretty general level. If there is an outbreak of hostilities, 37,000 combat troops is not how it will be fought. It's a high-tech, cruise missile-type conflict now."
Some people, generally those who think that the current President Bush is a waste of space (i.e. most Democrats and supporters of former President "slick Willie" Clinton, not to mention many pusillanimous governments in Europe and elsewhere), have drawn an unfavourable contrast between the apparent desire of the US administration to treat the Iraqi regime with unwarranted severity whilst seeming to soft-pedal with the North Koreans. The 1994 agreement made by the then Clinton administration with North Korea, in order to defuse the last confrontation with that nation, was probably the best that could have been achieved at the time; I am not one of those who is prepared to say that the Clinton 'solution' was merely a brushing under the carpet of a continuing problem, even though it may have turned out that way. If the North Korean regime was less quixotic and xenophobic than it seems to be, the 1994 agreement could have formed the basis for a genuine and hopefully somewhat more prosperous future for the citizens of North Korea, with much of the financial aid for the reconstruction of the country coming, no doubt, from near-neighbours South Korea and Japan – both of whom would undoubtedly have been glad to pay the price if it meant a reduction in the danger posed to them by President Kim’s regime.
The danger is that North Korea might respond militarily, using the longish-range missiles it is known to possess and the nuclear warheads it is thought, and feared, to possess already. Whilst the US administration continues to endeavour to remain calm and statesmanlike when speaking publicly about North Korea, I personally have no doubt that there is a feeling of quiet desperation and helplessness in private and that similar feelings exist in both Seoul and Tokyo. What if the posturing and threats coming from Pyongyang are not mere 'bluff'? With most countries, one can count on a certain measure of enlightened self-interest to stay the hand of those who do not have the genuine interests of their citizens in mind, but such considerations do not seem to be at the forefront of the North Korean government's thinking. A recent report I read on North Korea, by one of the few 'western' (well, he in fact Russian, which makes his comments all the more startling I think) journalists permitted to visit the country recently, categorised the situation there as without doubt the most repressive and bizarre society he had ever witnessed. Some of my former colleagues (in a major international bank), who visited the country in the late-eighties and early-nineties on business, found their stays there to be without any doubt the most restricted and controlled they had experienced anywhere – people who, like me, were accustomed to visiting and living in some of the most repressive and poverty-stricken countries on the planet, with regimes varying from extreme left-wing to extreme right-wing. The country’s ruler, for he appears to be in sole effective charge, seems to have few scruples restricting the acts he might be prepared to order, the population seeming to be completely in thrall to his will.
So the need to tread warily in dealing with North Korea is, to me, clear. The second economic power in the world (Japan) and another significant economy (South Korea) could easily suffer major population loss if this situation escalates into a war in which nuclear weapons are at risk of being used. The risk is real and the responsibility on the world’s only superpower is great. I don’t agree with everything this US administration does (by any means), but their cautious approach in practise, however volatile their rhetoric sometimes sounds, seems to me to be reasonably re-assuring.
So what is the difference with Iraq? Saddam Hussein is a cruel and vicious despot, everyone seems to agree (even the pusillanimous nations I referred to above), who similarly has his citizens under almost total control. However, just for the moment, his posturing and strutting is probably a major danger only to his own country and those countries unfortunate enough to be within striking-range of the relatively short-range missiles he is thought still to possess. Horrific as the prospect is of chemical and/or biological weapons being used internally (again, let us not forget) or against other countries in the region (again, in some cases, too), he is not thought yet to have nuclear warheads to launch.
In other words, there may still be time to stop Saddam Hussein before he can engulf the region, and perhaps the wider world, in devastation. In the case of North Korea I suspect that it is too late for direct action against it to be contemplated, without the definite likelihood of devastating retaliatory strikes against countries in the region and perhaps farther afield, too. It is a horrible dilemma – as a Briton born some years after the end of World War II, our country found the will to struggle on alone largely through the will of one man (I do not think it necessary to name him, because most will know perfectly well to whom I refer), until the United States was propelled into the war against its isolationist instincts by the attack on Pearl Harbour. I do not relish the thought of another major war and would accept gratefully the results of any diplomatic breakthroughs which mean that Iraq and North Korea (and some other nations, too) can face the future with optimism for the genuine well-being of their peoples. Nor do I envy Bush, or indeed Blair, both of whom have the job of trying to achieve this. I do not believe either man is a warmonger, even if they quite naturally have as their primary role the protection and interests of their own countries. Enough said.
Another year begins. I hope everyone has a Peaceful, Happy and Successful 2003 and beyond.
A somewhat belated start to the year I’m afraid; I spent most of December trying to fight off a bad cold and sore throat, not forgetting headaches and nausea thrown in for variety. Fortunately, by about a week before Christmas I had more or less recovered and had an enjoyable time, specially as I enjoy entertaining groups of people at home with good food and wine. Our New Year here has begun cold – I estimate we had about –9C or –10C here last night .… brrrrr!
However, whether 2003 will be a particularly happy one, for people in a number of parts of the world, is somewhat doubtful in my view. The article immediately above this one deals with North Korea and Iraq and the problems they pose, in their different ways, to the security of their own citizens and their neighbours. And of course there is the continuing internecine struggle between the Israelis and Palestinians; I doubt if this problem will be 'solved' in most of our lifetimes.
The only glimmer of positive news so far as the success/prosperity aspect of wishing people a Happy New Year is concerned is the forecast by Morgan Stanley’s investment strategist, Byron Wien, that the US stockmarket will be up 25% by the summer. I’m not quite sure how I view his forecast that France will threaten to pull out of European Monetary Union during the year. Ah well …
The International Atomic Energy Authority (the IAEA is part of the UN) meeting in Vienna yesterday said it "deplores in the strongest terms" the removal by North Korea of UN surveillance equipment and has urged the North Korean government to re-admit the inspectors it expelled last month. Speaking to the 35-nation IAEA Board of Directors, director general Mohamed ElBaradei declined to set a deadline for North Korea to co-operate: "It's clearly a matter of weeks - I'd like to give diplomacy a chance to work and the DPRK(*) time." He added: "The international community is not ready to negotiate under blackmail. Unless the DPRK co-operates fully with the agency the matter will be referred to the Security Council."
* - North Korea's official name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
For its part, whilst the Bush administration is adamant it will not offer fresh concessions to North Korea to return to previous commitments, Ari Fleischer (White House spokesman) said that America would work "shoulder to shoulder" with South Korea in finding a solution.
However, according to a report in today's Daily Telegraph, US conservatives are starting to ask, outside of diplomatic channels, whether the Bush administration should withdraw troops from South Korea, leaving a seemingly ungrateful ally to fend for itself. According to the report, Daryl Plunk (a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank with close Pentagon connections) said a troop reduction was "under discussion, but at a pretty general level. If there is an outbreak of hostilities, 37,000 combat troops is not how it will be fought. It's a high-tech, cruise missile-type conflict now."
Some people, generally those who think that the current President Bush is a waste of space (i.e. most Democrats and supporters of former President "slick Willie" Clinton, not to mention many pusillanimous governments in Europe and elsewhere), have drawn an unfavourable contrast between the apparent desire of the US administration to treat the Iraqi regime with unwarranted severity whilst seeming to soft-pedal with the North Koreans. The 1994 agreement made by the then Clinton administration with North Korea, in order to defuse the last confrontation with that nation, was probably the best that could have been achieved at the time; I am not one of those who is prepared to say that the Clinton 'solution' was merely a brushing under the carpet of a continuing problem, even though it may have turned out that way. If the North Korean regime was less quixotic and xenophobic than it seems to be, the 1994 agreement could have formed the basis for a genuine and hopefully somewhat more prosperous future for the citizens of North Korea, with much of the financial aid for the reconstruction of the country coming, no doubt, from near-neighbours South Korea and Japan – both of whom would undoubtedly have been glad to pay the price if it meant a reduction in the danger posed to them by President Kim’s regime.
The danger is that North Korea might respond militarily, using the longish-range missiles it is known to possess and the nuclear warheads it is thought, and feared, to possess already. Whilst the US administration continues to endeavour to remain calm and statesmanlike when speaking publicly about North Korea, I personally have no doubt that there is a feeling of quiet desperation and helplessness in private and that similar feelings exist in both Seoul and Tokyo. What if the posturing and threats coming from Pyongyang are not mere 'bluff'? With most countries, one can count on a certain measure of enlightened self-interest to stay the hand of those who do not have the genuine interests of their citizens in mind, but such considerations do not seem to be at the forefront of the North Korean government's thinking. A recent report I read on North Korea, by one of the few 'western' (well, he in fact Russian, which makes his comments all the more startling I think) journalists permitted to visit the country recently, categorised the situation there as without doubt the most repressive and bizarre society he had ever witnessed. Some of my former colleagues (in a major international bank), who visited the country in the late-eighties and early-nineties on business, found their stays there to be without any doubt the most restricted and controlled they had experienced anywhere – people who, like me, were accustomed to visiting and living in some of the most repressive and poverty-stricken countries on the planet, with regimes varying from extreme left-wing to extreme right-wing. The country’s ruler, for he appears to be in sole effective charge, seems to have few scruples restricting the acts he might be prepared to order, the population seeming to be completely in thrall to his will.
So the need to tread warily in dealing with North Korea is, to me, clear. The second economic power in the world (Japan) and another significant economy (South Korea) could easily suffer major population loss if this situation escalates into a war in which nuclear weapons are at risk of being used. The risk is real and the responsibility on the world’s only superpower is great. I don’t agree with everything this US administration does (by any means), but their cautious approach in practise, however volatile their rhetoric sometimes sounds, seems to me to be reasonably re-assuring.
So what is the difference with Iraq? Saddam Hussein is a cruel and vicious despot, everyone seems to agree (even the pusillanimous nations I referred to above), who similarly has his citizens under almost total control. However, just for the moment, his posturing and strutting is probably a major danger only to his own country and those countries unfortunate enough to be within striking-range of the relatively short-range missiles he is thought still to possess. Horrific as the prospect is of chemical and/or biological weapons being used internally (again, let us not forget) or against other countries in the region (again, in some cases, too), he is not thought yet to have nuclear warheads to launch.
In other words, there may still be time to stop Saddam Hussein before he can engulf the region, and perhaps the wider world, in devastation. In the case of North Korea I suspect that it is too late for direct action against it to be contemplated, without the definite likelihood of devastating retaliatory strikes against countries in the region and perhaps farther afield, too. It is a horrible dilemma – as a Briton born some years after the end of World War II, our country found the will to struggle on alone largely through the will of one man (I do not think it necessary to name him, because most will know perfectly well to whom I refer), until the United States was propelled into the war against its isolationist instincts by the attack on Pearl Harbour. I do not relish the thought of another major war and would accept gratefully the results of any diplomatic breakthroughs which mean that Iraq and North Korea (and some other nations, too) can face the future with optimism for the genuine well-being of their peoples. Nor do I envy Bush, or indeed Blair, both of whom have the job of trying to achieve this. I do not believe either man is a warmonger, even if they quite naturally have as their primary role the protection and interests of their own countries. Enough said.
Another year begins. I hope everyone has a Peaceful, Happy and Successful 2003 and beyond.
A somewhat belated start to the year I’m afraid; I spent most of December trying to fight off a bad cold and sore throat, not forgetting headaches and nausea thrown in for variety. Fortunately, by about a week before Christmas I had more or less recovered and had an enjoyable time, specially as I enjoy entertaining groups of people at home with good food and wine. Our New Year here has begun cold – I estimate we had about –9C or –10C here last night .… brrrrr!
However, whether 2003 will be a particularly happy one, for people in a number of parts of the world, is somewhat doubtful in my view. The article immediately above this one deals with North Korea and Iraq and the problems they pose, in their different ways, to the security of their own citizens and their neighbours. And of course there is the continuing internecine struggle between the Israelis and Palestinians; I doubt if this problem will be 'solved' in most of our lifetimes.
The only glimmer of positive news so far as the success/prosperity aspect of wishing people a Happy New Year is concerned is the forecast by Morgan Stanley’s investment strategist, Byron Wien, that the US stockmarket will be up 25% by the summer. I’m not quite sure how I view his forecast that France will threaten to pull out of European Monetary Union during the year. Ah well …
Thursday, 19 December 2002
"Iraq in material breach" says Secretary of State Colin Powell
Just a few moments ago I watched a live newscast of Colin Powell announcing the United States initial conclusions after studying the 12,200 page dossier supplied by Iraq in apparent compliance with UN SCR 1441. As expected (by me, anyway) the US has concluded that Iraq is in material breach of various of its obligations. This appears to confirm reports I heard earlier today that [even] Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector, has reached a similar conclusion.
It is difficult to see that military action against the Iraqi regime, as currently constituted, can be long delayed...
Just a few moments ago I watched a live newscast of Colin Powell announcing the United States initial conclusions after studying the 12,200 page dossier supplied by Iraq in apparent compliance with UN SCR 1441. As expected (by me, anyway) the US has concluded that Iraq is in material breach of various of its obligations. This appears to confirm reports I heard earlier today that [even] Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector, has reached a similar conclusion.
It is difficult to see that military action against the Iraqi regime, as currently constituted, can be long delayed...
Monday, 16 December 2002
Just how dark are the secrets of the Roman Catholic Church in England?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor is this evening at the centre of new allegations concerning the transfer of priests involved in paedophilia to parishes where they were not supposed to be in contact with children. In the case discussed in this evening's 'Newsnight' programme (BBC2), it seems that a priest has been placed in a home immediately opposite a primary school and that he has been taking Mass regularly and become involved in the teaching of children - apparently without the Church's knowledge, or so we are led to believe (an interview with a Church official seemed to indicate this; the person involved described the allegations revealed in the programme, if true, as 'insensitive' - well, that's one word for it, I suppose).
During the programme a Labour MP who took part in the programme called upon the Cardinal to resign, saying that the Church had still not taken on board the gravity of its past (and perhaps present) conduct. This story will no doubt develop in coming days.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor is this evening at the centre of new allegations concerning the transfer of priests involved in paedophilia to parishes where they were not supposed to be in contact with children. In the case discussed in this evening's 'Newsnight' programme (BBC2), it seems that a priest has been placed in a home immediately opposite a primary school and that he has been taking Mass regularly and become involved in the teaching of children - apparently without the Church's knowledge, or so we are led to believe (an interview with a Church official seemed to indicate this; the person involved described the allegations revealed in the programme, if true, as 'insensitive' - well, that's one word for it, I suppose).
During the programme a Labour MP who took part in the programme called upon the Cardinal to resign, saying that the Church had still not taken on board the gravity of its past (and perhaps present) conduct. This story will no doubt develop in coming days.
Friday, 13 December 2002
Cardinal Law of Boston resigns, at long last!!
A full report on this wonderful day is carried by the BBC, but it seems this odious individual has finally given something approaching an ‘apology’, but some of his critics in Boston have suggested that an apology is not nearly enough. "These are not the actions of someone who is repenting," Mike Emerton, a spokesman for Voice of the Faithful, is quoted as telling BBC News Online.
As a damage limitation exercise, this resignation is perhaps a start, but I think the Catholic Church is deluding itself if it imagines that it will not be forced to face severe penalties, financial and other, which whilst they will never recompense for the harm caused by the Church by its flagrant flouting of the criminal law will, perhaps, demonstrate that it is not above the laws of countries in which its agents operate.
It remains to be seen whether Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor in England will ultimately be forced to follow Cardinal Law into well-deserved career oblivion.
A full report on this wonderful day is carried by the BBC, but it seems this odious individual has finally given something approaching an ‘apology’, but some of his critics in Boston have suggested that an apology is not nearly enough. "These are not the actions of someone who is repenting," Mike Emerton, a spokesman for Voice of the Faithful, is quoted as telling BBC News Online.
As a damage limitation exercise, this resignation is perhaps a start, but I think the Catholic Church is deluding itself if it imagines that it will not be forced to face severe penalties, financial and other, which whilst they will never recompense for the harm caused by the Church by its flagrant flouting of the criminal law will, perhaps, demonstrate that it is not above the laws of countries in which its agents operate.
It remains to be seen whether Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor in England will ultimately be forced to follow Cardinal Law into well-deserved career oblivion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)