The Pope's UK visit and the Foreign Office 'apology'

This story is undoubtedly an embarrassment for the British 'do no evil'(*) Labour government. The whole point of 'brain-storming' sessions is that ANY and EVERY idea may be aired, however bizarre it might be. But in normal groups (and certainly in most private companies that I am aware of) the ones that are completely off-the-wall are briefly discussed and then dismissed and forgotten about - they certainly don't appear in the minutes of such meetings! Evidently in the public sector, which we all pay for through our taxes, things are different; no-one seems to stop and think what they are doing and what they are trying to achieve. 'Evaluation' did not seem to form any part of this particular Foreign office exercise in 'diplomacy'.

Now that is my assessment of this deplorable lapse from a management point of view. It is yet one more sign of how useless Labour is at managing anything, let alone planning for the visit of what is technically the Head of State of a foreign 'country'.

Having written all this though, I do find it difficult in this particular instance to become too exercised about the Foreign Office lapse. The Catholic Church has become an increasiingly ridiculous organisation in recent years; it preaches certain moral codes to its adherents and to the world generally, then proceeds to cover-up for the criminal behaviour of its 'paid agents' (i.e. priests) in many of the countries of the world where it operates; it is only the vociferous action taken in many countries to expose the 'paedophile' behaviour of priests by victims and the civil authorities that has forced the Church, finally, to begin to address the cancer at its heart. That action, in the case of the US, backed up by justifiedly swingeing financial penalties. The Church is, when it comes to the essentials, as interested as any other party in protecting its 'patrimony' and the financial costs of allowing its miscreant behaviour to continue have had to be made too severe for it to contemplate allowing them to be perpetuated - as it had tried, for decades, to do.

A number of the suggestions in the Foreign Office document, whilst completely unacceptable in the context of a Papal visit, neatly highlight the contraditions and just plain 'wrongness' of a number of the policy stances of the Roman Catholic church:
- celibacy for its 'paid agents' (aka priests), with no outlet for the sexual urges of some of these people. There may well be many priests (and nuns) who are capable of channelling these desires into their lives of devotion to their faith, but it seems than more than a few have failed to live up to the standards expected, over decades and probably centuries, although we will probably never know about cases beyond living memory in the majority of cases;
- suggesting a 'Benedict' brand of condoms is quite funny, but it neatly highlights the monstrous banning by the Church of abortions or birth control methods, including condoms, even in cases of rape or to aid in the prevention of disease transmission. Truly evil policies.

As for suggesting that Pope Benedict should be invited to bless some civil partnerships during his visit, well this is just ridiculous of course, but it does again highlight just how out of touch the policy of the Church is. The suggestion was of course particularly offensive, and presumably designed to be so ('as a joke'), but of course the Church's policies on matters relating to homosexuality are not only outdated, but singularly offensive to millions of British and other gay and lesbian citizems of various countries, including me.

To summarise my whole attitude toward the forthcoming Papal visit, conditions should be arranged such that this visit may occur without undue incident and for those who wish to take part in the various gatherings that will be organised during his visit to do so in safety. So far as I am concerned that is the extent of the government's responsiblity. I certainly do not want our government to acquiesce in deed or word to any of the Catholic Church's teachings which offend against our laws and I do not want it to remain silent should the Pontiff criticise our laws whilst he is actually on British soil; he will be an 'honoured' guest here, but that gives him no special right to intervene in our domestic affairs - we certainly would not tolerate any other foreign Head of State (i.e. American or French, to take two random examples) making negative comments about our laws whilst on a visit here and I don't think an exception should be made for the Pope. The government's first responsibility is to its own citizens (including of course those who adhere to this particular faith, provided such adherence does not offend agasinst the legal rights of other citizens). If the Pope behaves himself whilst here, then he should of course be treated with courtesy, but certainly under no circumstance with 'adulation' at an official level and he should be told firmly that any criticism he makes of our domestic laws whilst he is here will not be tolerated. Any adulation that may be shown should be limited to fellow-adherents of his faith.

There is an excellent French saying which neatly encapsulates my attitude toward this Papal visit: "Faites comme si vous êtes chez vous, mais n'oubliez pas que vous êtes chez moi." ("Treat this country as if if were your own home when here, but don't forget you are [in fact] in my home.")

(*) - irony alert.

D-Day celebrations and that much-delayed Royal invite

Will we ever discover who was behind the decision not to invite Her Majesty the Queen or any other member of the Royal Family to the 65th anniversary commemoration of the D-Day Landings? I've been following what has been going on in the past week or so about this and wondering what the outcome would be.

I was nonplussed yesterday when I heard that President Obama had taken up the matter; he apparently considered it highly unusual that Her Majesty had not been invited and it seems his intervention may have been at least a part of the reason why Prince Charles has now received an invitation, although according to this article Clarence House had already been in contact with the French Presidency on the matter; not a 'dickie-boo' have we heard from the British Government.

There are several possibilities I can see for this ginormous 'gaffe', some more likely than others, but I list some of those I can think of, for the record:
- The French and the Americans had intended it to be solely for their two nations (possible, but unlikely, I'd have thought);
- Gordon Brown muscled in on the invite (sounds plausible to me);
- British Prime Minister Brown had been informed by the French about their plans and had suggested as it was the 65th, rather than the 60th or 70th anniversary, a Royal attendance was unnecessary (sounds plausible to me); it's possible he may even have advised The Queen of this during one of their Tuesday-evening meetings (highly unlikely);
- Possibly The Queen Herself decided that it was not an important enough anniversary to warrant Her attendance (very highly unlikely I'd have thought); She might even have decided that She is too old to attend, specially as it's 'only' the 65th anniversary (so unlikely as to be almost impossible to imagine, but I list it here for completeness);
- President Sarkozy had wanted to make it only for himself and President Obama as a way of boosting his domestic profile (possible), and in any case there continues to be resentment amongst certain French that they were liberated at least partly with the help of their old rivals the British (possible, but probably not a major consideration in the France of today).

There are a number of other even more tortuous explanations for this outrageous omission and yes, I do believe the omission was completely outrageous. My own sickening feeling is that it was Gordon Brown who engineered the omission, as he may have thought he could use his attendance there, without any Royal, to boost his own increasingly shaky hold on the leadership of the Labour Party and on power as Prime Minister. The real story is unlikely ever to be revealed (at least within the life of this Government or perhaps the life of Her Majesty, too) and is probably only known to Her Majesty, Prince Charles, Gordon Brown and perhaps President Sarkozy. I doubt very much that the American were aware of it until it started to become a public scandal. If I were The Queen I would certainly take my revenge on whoever was responsible, possibly in Her own funeral arrangements, by pointedly snubbing the relevant people or their political successors and ensuring they are not invited; that might mean either the Leader of the Labour Party at the time, whoever that is, or the President of France, whoever that is. Personally I feel that the decision to exclude the Head of State of the country which did more than any other to ensure that Nazi tyranny would not prevail is utterly and completely outrageous, even if it did not do that on its own and particularly had need of the Americans to assist, however late, in the project. I really do not feel that the perpetrators of this decision should escape completely, however long it takes - and I hope that Her Majesty will live on for quite few years yet.

However, revenge IS a dish best served cold and I hope that She will not let the matter lie completely unanswered; no doubt Charles will be dignified on 6th June, but I hope He snubs very politely, but pointedly, and unmistakably whoever caused this gaffe.

Sarko estime que Brown a commis des erreurs sur l'économie

French President Sarkozy has no doubt committed a diplomatic gaffe in declaring (BBC here) quite so explicitly what most other people think, including of course one rather loud motorhead pundit. Sarko expressed his view that the recent temporary VAT rate cut 'has not worked'; well, it's true!

However can I just say it is refreshing to know that Gordon Brown's stellar reputation [not] is now a world-wide phenomenon and shared by a very wide variety of people. Including me. When's he going to realise the game is up and either call an election or step down to 'spend more time with his family'?

How undiplomatic!

No political content here, but this just struck me as appalingly amusing:

JERUSALEM — Israel has recalled its ambassador to El Salvador after he was found naked, bound and drunk, according to Israeli media reports confirmed Monday by a government spokeswoman. The longtime diplomat, Tsuriel Raphael, has been removed from his post and the Foreign Ministry has begun searching for a replacement, said ministry spokeswoman Zehavit Ben-Hillel. .... Ben-Hillel said the reports were accurate and that Raphael has been recalled, although he did not break any laws. "We're talking about behavior that is unbecoming of a diplomat," she said.

- I'll say!
(thru The Council of Lemurs)

After this example of Israeli 'diplomacy', I thought it would be fun to dredge up other recent incidents of acts calculated to enliven relations between otherwise friendly countries:

- John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, on a US Presidential candidate. Gauche, or what?!

- Segolene Royal, French Socialist Presidential candidate on Quebec and its position as part of Canada. It brings to mind a speech made by French President Charles de Gaulle in Quebec many years ago, no?

- A few years ago, admittedly, but still thrilling in its lack of sensitivity to a larger neighbour during a [recurrent] financial crisis, not to mention that it shows a complete disregard for the diplomatic niceties; Uruguayan President Jorge Batlle tells it like [he thinks] it is on the subject of Argentina: "The Argentine situation is an Argentine problem: a bunch of thieves from top to bottom."

- And of course who can forget Boris Johnson MP giving us his considered views on Papua New Guinea and the lessons its "cannibalism and chief-killing" has for the modern-day British
Conservative Party, even if that is light relief when compared to:

- The efforts of Patricia Hewitt MP and Robin Cook MP to improve Anglo-Indian relations with an 'ethical' foreign policy; sad that India didn't see the joke! Nor of course did Prime Minister Tony Blair! This followed Cook's earlier sterling efforts at ethical diplomacy whilst he was Foreign Secretary, offering to act as a mediator between India and Pakistan in the Kashmir crisis, an offer which was stingingly rebuffed by the Indian Prime Minister. Oops!

There's lots more, but that's probably enough for now ...