Thursday, July 17, 2008
Reports of looting greatly exaggerated
Remember all those stories of Iraqi museums and archaeological sites being looted after the Coalition invasion; all those accusations of chaos brought in by the nasty Americans and their equally nasty allies? Many people do remember them and repeat them. They remember slightly less well that there were subsequent stories - much smaller articles on less popular pages - that a good many of the museum treasures had not been looted but hidden by curators and were now being repositioned.
Of course there had been looting in Iraq - back in the nineties when apparently illicitly lifted treasures appeared in Western arts sales rooms. Except that they had been lifted by members of Saddam Hussein's government.
Now we get an interesting story about the archaelogical sites. Thanks toClarice Feldman's posting on American Thinker we can read an article in theWall Street Journal that tells us that stories of those lootings were seriously exaggerated as well.
A recent mission to Iraq headed by top archaeologists from the U.S. and U.K. who specialize in Mesopotamia found that, contrary to received wisdom, southern Iraq's most important historic sites -- eight of them -- had neither been seriously damaged nor looted after the American invasion. This, according to a report by staff writer Martin Bailey in the July issue of the Art Newspaper. The article has caused confusion, not to say consternation, among archaeologists and has been largely ignored by the mainstream press. Not surprising perhaps, since reports by experts blaming the U.S. for the postinvasion destruction of Iraq's heritage have been regular fixtures of the news.I'll bet it's caused confusion. Almost as much confusion as the acknowledgement by newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times that the surge in Iraq is working and the situation is improving by leaps and bounds. Not to mention caused by the fact that Barack Obama'swebsite has wiped all criticisms of the surge.
The rest of the article gives an account of archaeologists producing results of how much has been looted and destroyed before going to see for themselves (is that how archaeology is done these days?) and how surprised they were to find that those preliminary calculations were wrong.
According to the Art Newspaper article, "The international team ... had been expecting to find considerable evidence of looting after 2003 but to their astonishment and relief there was none. Not a single recent dig hole was found at the eight sites, and the only evidence of illegal digging came from holes which were partially covered with silt and vegetation, which means they [were] several years old." Furthermore, the most recent damage "probably dated back to 2003," to just before and after the invasion when the Iraqi army maneuvered for the allied attack. (According to other experts, looting probably took place when the Iraqi army first moved out of areas near sites to counter the invasion.)As an erswhile amateur archaeologist (well, a gopher on archaeological sites, if we are going to be honest) and a great admirer of heroic archaeologists, I was saddened to see that their successors have joined the NGO-tranzi brigade of using inaccurate data to oppose Western actions. But then, what can you expect from an organization called the World Archaeological Committee (WAC)?
Neither the British Museum pair nor Prof. Stone responded to my calls seeking comment. The British Museum press official for the Middle Eastern department cautioned that the official report had not yet been compiled, but it seemed that the article was generally accurate. Certainly none of the experts have denied any of it. In the article, Dr. Curtis "admits that he was 'very surprised' at the lack of recent looting, but stresses that ... 'it may not be typical of the country as a whole, and the situation could be worse further north.'"
No doubt. But how could previous assessments have been so wrong, and why would one expect anything to be worse elsewhere? In phone conversations with me, both Donny George and Lawrence Rothfield argued that the eight sites were all known to be well-protected. Dr. George was able to itemize each one: "Ur was an Iraqi airbase and then a U.S. airbase. Uruk Warka was protected by guards from nearby tribes -- we always knew that. Ouelli is largely prehistoric and of no use to looters..." And so on. But Dr. George, perhaps the world's leading authority on the subject, also conceded that the greatest damage done by looters had generally occurred in the 1990s, in Saddam's time. Prof. Rothfield said that the no-fly zones back then had allowed illicit digging to occur.
What will be Zimbabwe's future?
Some people would argue that Zimbabwe has no future – the country has effectively collapsed and its population, for the most part, barely manages to exist, while its tyrannical president and those close to him are leading a luxurious life, thanks to the Chinese control of platinum production and, let us not forget, to the ever gullible West that keeps providing him, his friends and relations with money and platforms for his poisonous attacks.
However, the truth is that there is always a future, though in the case of Zimbabwe it is anything but bright. As I mentioned before, few things are more depressing than attending discussions with people who are knowledgeable about that country.
For all of that, both my colleague and I write about Zimbabwe not just because it is one of the real horror stories in the world at the moment but also because the country has become a symbol, a distillation of all that has gone wrong with many parts of the developing world, particularly Africa and of all the mistakes that the West has made and continues to make, not least because of the activity of the NGOs and transnational organizations.
Yesterday the International Policy Network (IPN) held another lunch-time discussion about Zimbabwe. This time it was led by Rejoice Ngwenya who is the Director of the Coalition for Market Liberal Solutions in Harare – a brave and optimistic man. Well, he is alive and can even get some money from the West to help his mother and buy food for himself.
It was rather good to hear from Mr Ngwenya about the importance of the economic collapse, engineered to a great extent by Mugabe himself and the various placemen in the establishment. For example, there is a 10 million per cent inflation in the country, which makes any discussion of living standards a sick joke. This was caused largely by the Reserve Bank printing a great deal of money in order to finance the government's debt and to ensure that the ruling elite had its wealth to play with.
How is one to overcome this problem on the assumption that there will be a post-Mugabe future for the country? How is any trust in the currency to be restored? Normally, a huge inflation of this kind has to be stopped by a ruthless reform by a government: the introduction of another currency or a deliberate recalibration of the existing one so the number of noughts is reduced from, say ten to one. When will Zimbabwe have a government that will be able to carry out such a procedure and what can be done in the country without it?
Priority, Mr Ngwenya asserted, will have to be given to the restoration of productivity (and let us not forget that Zimbabwe used to have a successful economy), the reversal of the catastrophic brain-drain as well as the above-mentioned restoration of faith in the currency and in any political process.
As is clear from the title of his institute, Mr Ngwenya is a free-marketeer who sees the roots of many of his country's problems in President Mugabe's consistent socialist policies. The trouble is that the MDC under Morgan Tsvangirai (a brave man but not one who inspires one with great faith in his economic and political abilities) is also a socialist though of the social-democrat variety. Can one, therefore, expect anything useful from the party if it ever comes to power?
There were many other problems and issues raised both by the speaker and the audience. The role of Thabo Mbeki and South Africa, for instance; the need to take into account in the future the sizeable Mugabe constituency (I must admit that sounds like whistling in the dark – should the man ever die, there will be a great settling of scores and it will not be pretty); the fact that the education system has disintegrated. Schools cannot afford to function with the inflation and so there is no education.
This is extremely bad for the future of the country. While I share (up to a point) my colleague's obsession with roads (well, it's better than those shiny toys) I cannot dismiss schools as being of lesser importance. One of South Africa's problems at the moment is that boycott of schools that the ANC enjoined on the townships from the eighties onwards. A generation or two of uneducated, unemployable, highly volatile youngsters is a disaster for any country.
Let us not forget our own involvement in Zimbabwe's catastrophe. It was Lord Soames that presided over the Lancaster House Conference in 1979 that gave Robert Mugabe power, which he used to destroy all rivals, all opposition and to launch a war against the Ndebele in Matabeleland. While the killing went on, Robert Mugabe was feted in the West as one of the most progressive African leaders.
Nor was there a great deal of interest or cutting off completely unnecessary aid when President Mugabe involved his troops in wars and civil wars around him, invading DR Congo in the 1990s. Not much was said even in criticism when he passed anti-business legislation and it is only in 2000 when, in response to a re-forming opposition movement he gathered the so-called war veterans to spread terror and anarchy and to destroy white-owned farms (as well as black-owned ones and the black workers on them) that the first feeble protests were heard.
They were not up to much. One mention of the word colonialism sent all protesters scurrying into hiding. Even those famous bans on travel have come to nothing as we have pointed out before. Oddly enough, I think President Mugabe cares very much about being invited to various international shindigs, be they African Union meetings, UN gatherings of one kind or another or the EU-Africa Summit. Banning him from them may not sound particularly harsh but it would cause him a good deal of grief. Furthermore, other African dictators might rally round, refusing to attend all those extremely expensive and completely pointless meetings and that would be all to the good.
What Zimbabwe has now is state-sponsored anarchy with bouts of extreme violence. Mr Ngwenya showed some pictures of what happens to people who oppose or are thought to oppose ZANU-PF. You will be glad to know that I do not have any pictures like that. Nor do I propose to quote some of the descriptions I have read in the last few months of what Mugabe's thugs do to oppositionists and their families.
What of China some of us asked? My colleague has written highly illuminating posts on the subject of that country's involvement in Africa. Interestingly enough, Mr Ngwenya was less concerned about it than we had expected though that may be because even China is not risking too much in Zimbabwe. Her involvement in DR Congo, for instance, is far greater.
According to Mr Ngwenya, China is not likely to make any long-term investments in Zimbabwe. It is heavily involved in the retail and it sounds like the only things that can be bought in the country are those imported by China. At other times a complicated system of barter or personal importation with great difficulty from surrounding countries take place.
The exact details of Mugabe's agreements with China are still unknown but it is unlikely that they would in any way benefit the people of Zimbabwe. China is owed a great deal of money and this is being extracted via the platinum mining rights, as explained by my colleague. Mugabe receives a percentage and lives the high life off it while the rest of the country staggers on, occasionally helped out by bits of aid from us.
What is one to make of it all? Is there anything remotely not-too-dark for Zimbabwe in the short, medium or long term future? Can't see anything immediately though the presence of people like Mr Ngwenya does give one some grounds for hope. Can we do anything? Not immediately, except giving support to the people who can possibly make some change. But we can, at least, try to do no evil. How about not sending any more aid to Robert Mugabe or any other bloodthirsty kleptocrat? It would be a small step but one in the right direction.
Another beef and dairy ban?
Having completely failedto stem the slow-motion epidemic of Bovine TB in this country, this government – via DEFRA (Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Activities) – has thus allowed the export of the problem to mainland Europe, invoking an immediate and unwelcome response.
That, at least, is whatThe Times is reporting, with the headline, "TB panic leads to new ban on export of British cattle".
This situation came to light when 12 British-reared calves imported to Dutch veal production farms in March tested positive for the disease – in a country which has been free from the disease since 1999.
Dutch farmers are understandably furious and have imposed their own commercial ban on live cattle imports from the UK. Unofficially, Belgian farmers are also refusing to take British calves and adult cattle. The Dutch Agriculture Ministry is said to be appalled at the breach of biosecurity.
Under EU law, of course, farmers are not allowed to do this. It is a breach of one of the most fundamental tenets of Community law – trade discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Thus, to make the ban stick, the continentals are hot-footing it to Brussels to apply for an official ban. British exporters now fear that a complete ban on the trade of live cattle throughout the EU could be in force by next week, an action which could be highly damaging for the British cattle industry.
Kim Haywood, the director of the National Beef Association articulates the concerns, saying: "People are very worried about possible loss of exports because we are just approaching the main three-month season for export of calves for veal production. Following the BSE crisis, the market only started at the end of 2006 but since then we have slowly been recovering markets. It could be a catastrophe for the industry. If this issue builds momentum in Europe, the consequences could be dire. This is all down to the Government's inability to control bovine TB."
Haywood is certainly right about the "government", but the criticism should go further. Animal disease control is an exclusive competence of the EU and the eradication of bovine TB has been a part of Community law ever since 1977, with the promulgation of Council Directive 77/391/EEC – a law that has been updated and amended many times.
This requires those countries which have endemic Bovine TB to implement a Commission-approved eradication programme, the principles of which are set out most recently in a working document drafted in 2006.
This is explored in detail in our sister blog, Bovine TB, but the crucial element of that document is the explicit requirement that, "The reservoir of infection within wildlife populations should be effectively addressed."
This, the British government has manifestly failed to do, having only last week rejected any cull of badgers, despite these animals having been proved to be an important reservoir of the disease. Furthermore, the government has not even submitted a formal disease eradication plan to Brussels – and neither has the Commission followed up what appears to be a clear breach of the rules.
The suspicions are that, because Bovine TB seriously affects only the British and Irish cattle industries, the EU has been indifferent to the problem. But now, chickens – or perhaps cows – are coming home to roost. The commission will no longer be able to ignore what has been a running sore in British disease control strategies.
Not least, there is the brooding presence of the Russian Federation in the background. Two years ago, it was threatening an EU-wide ban on cattle products and, although this did not materialise, the threat remains. Confirmation of Bovine TB on the continent could give Russia just the excuse it needs to ban cross border trade with the EU.
We can therefore, expect a speedy and vigorous response from the EU commission, one result of which may be that it looks more closely at British control measures and starts imposing EU law. In the longer term, that could in fact be beneficial to the industry, if it over-rides the dilatory DEFRA and requires effective action to be taken against the wildlife reservoir.
This puts the UK in a very odd position. Having suffered neglect by both our local government in Whitehall and our supreme government in Brussels, recent events now look set to force the hand of our supreme government, whence it may well enforce action which our own domestic government should have taken years ago, but has not.
This absurd situation is also explored further in the Bovine TB blog, but it comes to something that, if forced to choose between the two evils of DEFRA and the EU, the latter could come out better. Possibly to the delight of Europhiles, we would have to concede that there is only one thing worse than the EU. That one thing is DEFRA.
COMMENT THREAD
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Shouldn't Brown and Cameron do "foreign"?
Some of our readers would have realized that there is yet another new kid on the block of political magazines. Total Politics is a political magazines for politicians, wannabe politicians and all those who surround them. Very nicely produced it is, too.
Its one great fault is that it does not seem to want to publish an article I lovingly crafted for it on the subject we have raised once or twice on this blog: neither Prime Minister Brown nor Opposition Leader Cameron do "foreign". In other words, neither of the leading parties has any notion of a foreign policy. I think that is an important problem and I wrote about it. For one reason or another the piece will not be published though there might be a very different article by yours truly some time later in the year.
Meanwhile, waste not want not. Here is the article that did not get into Total Politics on EUReferendum2.
We cannot afford this
If the Army is winning the shooting war in Afghanistan – and it tells us it is – the same cannot be said of the battle to reconstruct this war-torn country. A report in The Times on Musa Qala give some uncomfortable details and makes an interesting contrast with an earlier report on the MoD website.
The MoD report, published three months after the successful military operation to re-take the town from the Taleban paints an unashamedly optimistic picture of the reconstruction process. It tells us that the process of returning the town to a bustling centre of commerce is well underway. The Times tells a rather different story.
Read more on Defence of the Realm
Good cop – bad cop
The news yesterday that President Lech Kaczynski of Poland had effectively folded on theconstitutional Lisbon treaty came as absolutely no surprise.
Apart from the general tendency of Polish politicians to make a great deal of noise and then give in at the first opportunity, this had been flagged up earlier this month when Angela Merkel had confidently predicted that ratification was just "a question of when".
Anyhow, Lech Kaczynski chose for his moment of surrender a visit to Paris where he met Sarkozy, leaving skid-marks on the Champs Elysée with the abruptness of his U-turn. Not weeks ago he was telling the world that it was "pointless" ratifying the treaty and now he is cosily reassuring the French president: "of course, Poland will not be an obstacle to the treaty's ratification".
Of course … we did not have to look very far for the reason. On the stocks was an EU commission decision, due today, on whether six years of "illegal" state aid paid to the historic shipyards of Gdansk, Gdynia and Szczecin will have to be repaid. Amounting to €2.1 billion, this could bankrupt the yards whose workers helped toppled the communist regime in 1989.
Sure enough, Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister completely deniedany connection, adding credence to the belief that nothing is true in politics until it has been denied by a minister.
Thus, completely coincidentally, the news later emerged that, while the commission is indeed going to make its ruling today, it has indicated that it will delay execution for three months. By then, a refinancing deal will doubtless have been stitched up, the details of which we will not be allowed to know until the treaty ratification is safely in the bag.
This rather cast Barroso in the role of the "good cop", having yesterday spent a good deal of time on the phone with prime minister Donald Tusk, stitching up agreeing the details. But there is no such velvet glove treatment for the Irish.
Coming storming out of his corner is that nice M. Sarkozy – nice, that is, to the compliant Poles – in an ugly mood, bluntly declaring that Ireland must hold a second referendum.
With absolutely no attempt at finesse or diplomacy, he told a meeting in his office: "The Irish will have to vote again." And, on Monday, he is due in Dublin personally to deliver his message to the Irish government.
Predictably, Sarkozy's demand was attacked by Declan Ganley, of the Libertas group: "This typifies the anti-democratic nature of what's going on in Brussels," he told RTE radio. Sinn Fein described it as "deeply insulting to the Irish people".
Hilariously, Sarkozy's trip is billed as a "listening exercise". But this is the EU version – "you listen and then do as you are told". The Irish had just better get used to it. "Bad cop" Sarkozy has spoken.
COMMENT THREAD
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
An ex-Belgium government
It has resigned. Now that it has ratified the constitutional Lisbon treaty, it is no longer needed.
Posts
