Afghanistan: an admission of defeat
Thursday 11 April 2013
 How appropriate it also is, therefore, that yesterday saw the publication by the Defence Select Committee of a report which effectively admits defeat, the admission of which was drowned out by the media incontinence over the death of the "Iron Lady". Barely covered by the media then, we had the Committee declare that, "At the end of UK operations in Afghanistan in 2014, the best the UK will be able to do is to withdraw in good order and engage with external partners to improve Afghanistan's future prospects". And if that is the "best" that we can hope for, the worst does not even bear thinking about – chaotic retreats from Afghanistan tend to be expensive and deadly. Our loss of prestige and influence is bad enough without that to add to the loss. The worst of it though is that, as far as the Defence Committee goes, it has learned little from the experience of over six years of war. It is for the Afghan people themselves to determine their own future, says Committee Chairman, James Arbuthnot. According to the committee, securing the future of Afghanistan thus requires the concerted efforts of all the Afghan people, and only then to we see a role for the regional neighbours, with Pakistan singled. The USA; NATO and other coalition partners play a very much subsidiary role. But, in coming to this conclusion, the Committee ignores the counsel of its own star witness, Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former Ambassador to the Soviet Union. "The Pakistanis and the Indians are the key", he told members in his oral evidence, having already told them that, if the Indians and Pakistan behaved differently and were prepared to agree with one another on how they should treat Afghanistan, a lot would change. It says a great deal of the inadequacy of the Committee that it did not even take the time out to ask Sir Rodric why he thought the combination of India and Pakistan were so important, and nor did they inquire as to how the Indians and Pakistan should behave. These weighty matters were left unexplored. For all its 228 pages, therefore, the Committee report leaves an intellectual vacuum, offering nothing bankable and no political guidance to government which might serve to reduce the chances of civil war – the most expected outcome following departure of coalition forces. Into that vacuum, however are stepping two of the major regional player, China and India, which next week are meeting in Peking for talks on the security situation. Traditionally, we are told, these two nations they have been on opposing sides of Afghanistan's "Pakistan divide". China has preferred to outsource its Afghanistan policy to its close ally, Pakistan. But in recent years Pakistan's activities have led China to hedge its own strategy in that country. Pakistan's close ties with the Taliban, its insistence that the Taliban should be in power in Afghanistan and its almost overt support to terrorism has scared the Chinese, say Indian sources. This partisan analysis will do nothing to calm the paranoia of the Pakistani military, which is never very far from the surface at the best of times. Written evidence from professor Michael Clarke, Director, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) explains why this is not a happy move. For the worst to be avoided, he argues that Pakistan and India must recognise a common interest in the stability of Afghanistan and "refrain from antagonistic competition in the country". Yet, India cosying up to China will be seen by Pakistan exactly as an extension of Indian provocation which has done much to fuel the war. On the other hand, as long as India treats Afghanistan as a strategic back door, aimed at destabilising Pakistan and keeping it off balance, the Pakistanis will seek to control Afghanistan through their proxies, the Jihadist Taliban. Thus, we are back to the same, unresolved scenario, where no progress can be achieved until India and Pakistan can be brought to the negotiating table to discuss a settlement of their own enmities, the core of which is the fate of Kashmir. Any adequate political appreciation of the conflict in Afghanistan would recognise this need, but that is not something which has occurred to the Defence Committee. One always felt that MPs, if they did their jobs properly, were worth their salt, but here lies yet another example where they prove to be a waste of space. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 11/04/2013 |
Horsemeat fraud: a huge system failure
Wednesday 10 April 2013
 The suspect meat was supplied by Wiljo Import en Export BV and Vleesgroothandel Willy Selten and, in total, 132 companies in the Netherlands and some 370 more around Europe are affected by the discovery. The find was made as part of EU-wide tests to trace horse DNA in processed beef foods and to detect a veterinary drug used on horses. Inspectors examining the records of the Dutch trading companies found that the origin of the supplied meat was unclear. As a result it was not possible to confirm whether slaughterhouses had respected procedures. The recall covers meat dating back to 1 January 2011 up until 15 February this year, but what is not being said is that such a large quantity of meat placed, undetected, on the market, the provenance of which is unknown – and was only discovered as a result of special measures adopted after earlier discoveries - represents a massive failure of the EU mandated regulatory system. And as for the Netherlands, where the failure has been detected, the food control system has been inspected on many occasions by the EU's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), most recently inSeptember 2011, when such issues as "traceability" requirements were examined and passed muster. That the temporary "fix" is now picking up the system defects – at last – should not be allowed to obscure that fact that the system as devised, mandated and approved by the EU failed to do the job, and it has taken national agencies to pick up the pieces. Such points have been made before on this blog, but it remains the case that the EU is given a free ride by the legacy media, its failures unremarked and unrecorded. The omissions don't change the reality though. Whatever the EU turns its hand to is usually a disaster, sooner or later. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 10/04/2013 |
Climate change: and yet …
Wednesday 10 April 2013
 Conditions in North America have also been good, with several resorts in the USA and Canada extending their season until early summer. One resort reports that it has been a "stellar ski season" and is enjoying "practically perfect conditions for early April". And yet, the loss-making Guardian has 75 sports champions warning of warmer winters "in latest effort by environmental campaigners to urge president to act on climate". More and more, we see that the warmists are not of this world (as if they ever were), viz the latest effluvia from the Met Office. Why does anyone listen to these people … or the Guardian for that matter? COMMENT: SKI-TASTROPHE THREAD Richard North 10/04/2013 |
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Posts
