Yes Prime Minsiter

Friday, May 08, 2009

Yes Prime Minsiter

"The Prime Minsiter is revealed …" writes Robert Winnett in The Daily Telegraph.

No wonder the country is going to the dogs.

COMMENT THREAD

A little more on the Czech situation

My first reaction to the suggestion that I should blog again about the Czech Republic and theConstitutional Lisbon Treaty was "yeah, whatever", which is the way I react to people's suggestions that I should do something I don’t want to do. But, well, whatever, I'd better bring people up to date.

First of all, here is the full text of President Klaus's statement made in the wake of that vote in the Senate:

I must express my disappointment that following unprecedented political and media pressure from both foreign and domestic sources, some Czech Senators retreated from the publicly expressed views they held until recently, undermining thereby their own political and civic integrity, and have agreed with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

They thus turned their backs on the long-term interest of the Czech Republic, putting before that the short-term interests of current governmental office-holders as well as their own personal interests.

It is a sad evidence of another failure on the part of a significant element of our political elite, which parallels other bad moments in Czech history. Our politicians
have always found some cowardly reasons for actions of this sort: We are too small, too weak; we do not mean anything in the European context; we must conform even if we do not agree with what we are conforming to.

This is something I reject. We either regained our sovereignty after November 1989, and together with it the responsibility for the fate of our country, or it was all a tragic mistake. This is a very topical point to make in the year of the twentieth anniversary of November 1989.

Now I will wait to see if a group of Czech senators, as some of them previously announced, request our Constitutional Court for another scrutiny of the Lisbon Treaty in relation to our Constitution. If this takes place, I will not be considering my decision to ratify the Lisbon Treaty or not before the Constitutional Court issues its decision.

My views on this matter are known and clear. I cannot afford to be resolutely against something at one moment, and then, because it fits in with my personal political career objectives, to pretend to change my opinion.

Let me emphasize that for this moment, the Lisbon Treaty is dead, because it was rejected in a referendum in one of the Member States. That is why my deciding on the ratification of this Treaty is not the issue of the day.

It is good to see that he is placing blame where it belongs – on the shoulders of Czech politicians because history tells one that the latter are apt to blame other people for their own shortcomings.

The outgoing Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, for instance, has been trying to convey the impression that he does not really like the treaty but that he is being forced into supporting it because otherwise the Czechs will be sidelined within the EU. Presumably, if things go wrong and questions are asked why nothing was gained and much was lost by the ConstitutionalLisbon Treaty, he can wring his hands just as President Beneš did in the run-up to the Second World War and afterwards.

It is, as ever, a pleasure to hear unelected Commission President Barroso talk absolute rubbish, solemnly and uncritically reported by the Financial Times:

"This is very good news," said José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president. "The vote reflects the Czech Republic's commitment to a more democratic, accountable, effective and coherent European Union."

Fascinating. I wonder if the Commission President has actually read the treaty; or maybe he just does not know what the words democratic and accountable mean. Given his political career the latter is entirely possible. He is, after all, a man who has gone from being a Maoist to being President of the European Commission with a few stages in between but no real changes in his views, one suspects.

Meanwhile, Die Welt, of all newspapers is suggesting that the EU could work very well with the treaties as they are now and there is no real need for theConstitutional Lisbon Treaty, should it fail at the second Irish referendum. That may have more reference to the situation in Germany than in the Czech Republic.

COMMENT THREAD

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Different realities - 3

The official reports do not always give the locations of the strikes but, for the date, Monday 4 May, the closest match tells of Navy F/A-18F Super Hornets and an Air Force B-1B Lancer being called to carry out air strikes during an engagement between anti-Afghan gunmen and Afghan national police. The jets hit several enemy fighting positions and a compound in which enemy personnel had gathered after the fight.

This is the attack which, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) "killed dozens of people, including women and children" in an area near the village of Granai in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, Afghanistan. The same source claims that the deaths arose during fighting between the Afghan National Army, backed up by international military forces, and "armed opposition" which had taken place in the area on 4 May.

The ICRC, however, "was not in a position to know whether armed opposition fighters had been in or near the houses when the air strikes took place, as it had not been on the spot at the time." Thus the spokesman for the organisation said: "We will now try to learn as much as we can about exactly what happened and then raise our concerns in bilateral dialogue with the parties to the conflict."

The New York Times adds detail to the account, telling us that villagers reached by telephone said many were killed by aerial bombing. Muhammad Jan, a farmer, said fighting had broken out in his village, Shiwan, and another, Granai, in the Bala Baluk district. An hour after it stopped, the planes came, he said. 

In Granai, he said, women and children had sought shelter in orchards and houses. "Six houses were bombed and destroyed completely, and people in the houses still remain under the rubble, " he said, "and now I am working with other villagers trying to excavate the dead bodies."

One reporter "on the spot" is Patrick Cockburn, writing for The Independent. Actually, though, his dateline is Kabul, more than 400 miles from the scene as the jet flies, or well over 500 miles in a tortuous drive by road. But, at least, he is "there".

Cockburn has his own brand of reality, which does not allow for doubt, thus permitting his newspaper to offer the headline, "'120 die' as US bombs village", with the strap: "Afghan outrage after strike targeting Taleban fighters hits women and children." 

"A misdirected US air strike," he writes, "has killed as many as 120 Afghans, including dozens of women and children." The attack, he adds, "is the deadliest such bombing involving civilian casualties so far in the eight years since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan." 

Cockburn, however, in contrast with the IRCC and the NYT, tells us that the air strike was on the Tuesday, called in by US Marine Special Forces supporting the Afghan army. He then relies on an account retailed by "local residents" via "Afghan officials". They put their children, women and elderly men in walled compounds in the village of Gerani, which is three miles from the scene of the fighting and where they thought they would be safe. It was these compounds which were then attacked from the air and most of the people sheltering inside were killed.

"Dozens of dead bodies were seen in the two locations we went to," says Rohul Amin, the provincial governor of Farah. He told The Independentthat "the dead numbered over 100". Villagers brought 30 bodies, including women and children, in a truck to Mr Amin in Farah City to prove it had happened.

As one might expect, The Guardianhas its own version of reality. Under a headline, "Afghanistan police operation leaves devastation behind", its man "on the spot", Jon Boone - also in Kabul – has the village named as "Geraani", without putting a date to the incident.

In his account, the villagers of "Geraani" and another in Gangabad had just finished their breakfast when the Taleban came to their town to collect a so-called tax on the area's poppy farmers.

Unfortunately for the people of the lush agricultural area in the western province of Farah, the cavalry arrived two hours later in the form of the Afghan police and army, backed up by US bombs. By seven in the evening, many houses had been turned into piles of rubble out of which the villagers pulled their dead.

Some locals estimate the death toll at up to 200. The Red Cross, the only international observers to have thus far visited the area and reported on what they saw, say "dozens" of people were killed, including many women and children.

Village elder Hajji Issa Khan from Gangabad may be more precise because throughout yesterday his tractor was used to carry the dead to a central area where the villagers could mourn their dead and bury them immediately, in accordance with Islamic custom. "In this operation there were 127 people killed. I can tell you exactly because my driver was carrying those … people to the centre of the town and he came and told me that he carried 127 people."

As to the background, Boone relies on district police chief Haji Khudadade. According to him, a huge number of militants – about 400 – put up a fight and had 130 Afghan forces surrounded. He said the Afghans had no choice but to call in air support, a call that the US military was quick to point out was an Afghan decision taken at the highest level of the military command. The provincial police chief, Ghafar Watandar, then says the Taleban deliberately used the villagers as human shields.

To ring the changes, Jeremy Scahill, writing for the Huffington Post has yet another version of reality. He writes of, "a US bombing massacre that may have killed as many as 130 Afghans, including 13 members of one family." At least six houses were bombed, we are told, and among the dead and wounded are women and children. And the US airstrikes happened on Monday and Tuesday.

The Washington Post, now reporting on an Obama government, has Greg Jaffe, its staff writer in Kabul, writing on yet another version of reality. Jaffe has the top US commander in Afghanistan sending a joint US-Afghan team to investigate the airstrikes "that killed more than two dozen people".

Jaffe also quotes a US defence official, speaking "on the condition of anonymity", saying that "the Taleban went to a concerted effort to make it look like the US airstrikes caused this." The official did not offer evidence to support the claim, and could not say what had caused the deaths. 

The BBC, on the other hand, reports protests in the streets in Farah "at the deaths of civilians in US air strikes earlier this week". But it also cites a "Pentagon official" saying it was not clear who was to blame for the death of the civilians. "Initial American investigation shows that some of the deaths do not seem to be in concert with how a civilian would die from an air strike," the official says. 

But it also has one protester, Haji Nangyalai, 42, declaring that he was demonstrating to "show our anger at the crimes committed by the American forces". "We ask the Afghan government to force the American forces to leave Afghanistan. They kill more civilians than Taleban," he says. 

Associated Press has its reporters, Jason Straziuso and Lara Jakes – datelined Kabul – citing a "former" Afghan government official saying that up to 120 people may have died. If so, the pair observe, it would be the deadliest case of civilian casualties since the 2001 US-led invasion. But it cites top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiern. He is allowed to say: "We have some other information that leads us to distinctly different conclusions about the cause of the civilian casualties." 

A senior US defence official then adds that Marine special operations forces believe the Afghan civilians were killed by grenades hurled by Taleban militants, who then loaded some of the bodies into a vehicle and drove them around the village, claiming the dead were victims of an American airstrike.

Afghan police add that 25 Taleban died in the fighting, which began Monday and lasted until early Tuesday. It was unclear whether they were among the dozens of bodies witnessed by the Red Cross.

Then again, we have a different brand of reality from the Wall Street Journal. It cites Col Greg Julian, the main US military spokesman in Kabul. He says that a US-Afghan investigative team was in Farah, with the results of its investigation expected today. "I'm pretty sure the high numbers of casualties are not going to prove true," he says.

Of course, the other reality is that Obama is in talks in Washington with presidents Karzai and Zardari. The Taleban is nothing if not media aware, and skilled at manipulating the Western press.

And, to contrast two of the different realities, while The Guardian tells us of the Taleban coming to their town to collect their so-called tax on the area's poppy farmers, with the "cavalry" arriving two hours later … backed up by US bombs, the WSJ has a completely different version.

According to this source, with writers Yochi J Dreazen and Peter Spiegel in Washington, the disputed airstrike incident began Sunday when Taleban militants publicly beheaded three villagers. When Afghan forces went to investigate, they came under attack and radioed for help to nearby US forces. A US quick-response force went to the area, but was also attacked. The American troops then called in air strikes on locations believed to house the fighters taking part in the hours-long gun battle.

From the look at it, according to this version, the whole affair is compatible with the Taleban having planned a deliberate set-up, to coincide with the Obama talks, deliberately to muddy the waters and create hostile publicity – a classic propaganda coup.

But then, what do we know? We weren't there. But neither were any of the reporters and, from those who were there, we get confusing, conflicting stories of uncertain accuracy (some, possibily deliberately so). In the battle for hearts and minds, though, the truth hardly matters. By the time the "real" reality emerges, no one will believe it anyway. In war, it is the perception that counts. That is the reality.

COMMENT THREAD

No, no, we must not press for reform

Yesterday afternoon there was an interesting exchange in the House of Lords about the EU budget. Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is a semi-sceptic asked

Her Majesty's Government what is the justification for the projected increase in the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community Budget to £6.5 billion in 2010-11.

Not an unreasonable question at a time of financial difficulties (not that the government has noticed that, spending money, as it does, in resemblance of the proverbial drunken sailor).

The response by Lord Davies of Oldham was the usual one - we really do not like the system and we really would like to rectify matters but as we can't we shall just have to keep handing the money over. I wonder if all those people who promise such reforms ever bother to read these replies and ever ask themselves why the situation is as it is. (Yes, Open Europe, Libertas and Taxpayers' Alliance, I am referring to you.)

When he was pressed by Lord Campbell, Lord Davies became so snappy and rude that their lordships expressed their displeasure, as they do without needing a Speaker. He then proceeded to snarl:

My Lords, the House will appreciate that, if such a solution were available, all—or the majority of—European states would follow the strategy. However, the issues are more complex because the problems with accounting in the European budget are largely the fault of expenditure that is partly controlled by the member states; so it will not do to say that the issue relates directly to the European Commission or any other institution. Member states, too, must improve their standards of accountancy and effectiveness, which is exactly what the United Kingdom has been doing.

That last sentence is questionable in view of the fact that statistics have become meaningless under this government, what with all the shifting of goalposts and chaning of parameters.

The question of enlargement was ignored and the subject of the surrendered part of the rebate, raised by Lord Waddington, pooh-poohed. Then Lord Lea of Crondall got to what his side see as the crux of the matter:

My Lords, is it not the case that the thesis, "We want our money back", is demeaning for a country in our position in the world after the G20 and all the commitments that we have entered into? The Conservative Party policy, "We want our money back", would mean that there would be no EU, which is what the Conservatives are driving at.

Well, actually, there is nothing demeaning in a country's representatives taking good care of its money, however rich that country might be. Bribing your way to respect, as Lord Lea seems to think we should be doing. is far more demeaning as well as counterproductive. Which politician was respected more, Margaret Thatcher who got the rebate or Tony Blair who gave it away?

Please note, however, the bogeyman produced there. We must not push too hard for any kind of reform or proper accounting because the net result of that will be that there would be no EU. Oh the horror of it!

Hard copy

There is something a real live, hard-copy newspaper can tell you which a website or Google News cannot. That is the relative importance editors and designers (both are involved) attribute to different news items.

Thus, in The Daily Telegraph print edition today, there are three overtly EU-related stories. One, which we picked up overnight is the £60 million fraud story. The second is the EU ban on sealskin which is threatening the production of traditional sporrans. A third is a story on how "The European Union will provoke fury in Moscow when it begins an unprecedented drive to forge a new pact with former Soviet states." 

In our terms, there is no question as to which story is more important. But the newspaper's view is signalled by the positioning of each in the "book". Lead story, on page 17 is the EU/Moscow story. Down page, is the EU fraud. Most prominent visually on that page is a story about how "donkey basketball" in the United States has been banned. On the other hand, the sporran story is given front-page treatment, complete with stock photograph of a sporran.

In strictly editorial terms, the newspaper is not wrong. The fate of the sporran will interest far more people than esoteric stories about EU-Kremlin relations and EU fraud is so passé as to amount to little more than an idle curiosity.

And therein lies one of the bigger problems with the print media. The order and prominence given to stories (and the amount of repetition) sends a signal over and above that conveyed by the print and pictures. It is almost a subliminal message, whereby the media is telling you what it thinks you should consider important.

The problem is even greater with the broadcast media, and again there is a powerful subliminal message being sent every time you listen to or watch a news broadcast. Unconsciously, by receiving them, you are not only imbibing information but also a "world view" – and it is almost impossible not to be influenced by it. Add to that, the equally significant problem of what they leave out, on top of the inherent distortions, inaccuracies, and you have a recipe for misinformation and ignorance.

One of the most effective antidotes is to stop reading newspapers and, most emphatically, to stop watching TV news and listening to radio news, selecting instead one's own information from as wide a range of sources as is practical. Failing that, where one – for convenience's sake, or necessity – relies on the media, the crucial thing to recognise is that these are not sources of information but misinformation.

When picking one's own news, at least we can have the luxury of being misinformed in our own individual ways.

COMMENT THREAD