Afghanistan: speaking for India
Tuesday 2 April 2013
 Now we are on our way out, but that hasn't stopped Nick Carter, our General-on-the-spot, doing a bit of last-minute rent-seeking on behalf of the military. He argues that cutting troops in theatre could "endanger" progress, declaring that: "It would be unforgivable if we allowed the gains of the last three years to be lost because we were not able to provide the Afghans with the support to take this through into 2014". This delusional approach to Afghanistan is typical of the "top brass" who, better than most, are now realising that a nice, stable ongoing war is by far the best way of cut-proofing the Armed Forces. Despite, his strident pleas, however – which first emerged in the Independent - there were no takers. "Politics is fast taking over", says the Independent. There is no political will for continued presence and neither side is prepared to exploit the issue. As for the overview, it takes the regional German press, in the form of Süddeutsche Zeitung to go to top (for the moment) of the Afghan ladder, with an interview of soon to be ex-president Hamid Karzai. Next year sees the Afghan presidential election, and Karzi is constitutionally disbarred from standing, so Süddeutsche caught him in a frank, critical mood. With nothing to lose, he complains – not without justice - of a lack of a comprehensible strategy. The West, says Karzai, has not disrupted the safe havens for terrorists, nor their training camps, adding that the real problem lies in neighbouring Pakistan, which has not been addressed. Whatever else, he says, that is the key to Karzai's thinking. Indian educated and very much in thrall to the political aspirations of the Indians, he is defending their $11 billion investment in the country, far larger than even the next biggest investor, China, which has a relatively modest $4.5 billion stake. Those familiar with the Asian press, and particularly the Pakistani media, will be under no illusions that the conflict in Afghanistan has become a proxy war between Pakistan and India. And, with the US Geological Survey estimating that the mineral wealth in Afghanistan lies between €3-13 trillion – ranging from oil, gas, coal, copper, gold and precious stones, the stakes are huge. But, without Nato forces to keep the tribal conflicts suppressed, the opportunities to exploit the wealth remain limited. Even recently, we recorded new British aid to the Afghan mining industry, but without security, it is unlikely that it can be properly used. The trouble is that the political appreciation of the situation has always been alarmingly superficial. We thus have Brigadier Bob Bruce, the commander of Task Force Helmand, acknowledging that there is no way the military is going to win a counter-insurgency [war] because it is essentially a political issue. But he then tells us this is "a battle of offers: the offer the government makes to the people and the offer the insurgents make to the people". In fact, it is a proxy battle between two regional nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. And while Karzai, speaking for India, wants the coalition to "sort out" Pakistan, the other half of the equation is India. Until these two powers are forced to sit down at the same table, there will be no progress. For want of a settlement, therefore, the UK and the rest of the coalition forces are effectively cast in the role of protecting Indian economic and political interests in the region. And if that is a worthy cause, it is not the deal for which we committed our Armed Forces. Rather than complain about Nato, therefore, Karzai would be better off talking to his Indian sponsors, and demanding that they deal with the Pakistanis. With China, these are the regional powers, and only they can broker a lasting peace. It is about time they assumed their responsibilities, instead of expecting a solution on the back of our blood and wealth. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 02/04/2013 |
Eurocrash: God takes a hand
Tuesday 2 April 2013
 It is surprising, therefore, that more has not been made of the Financial Times report which claims that the Church has successfully petitioned for an interim injunction, blocking the expropriation of its funds. Echoing the Bank of Cyprus statement, a local lawyer is saying that, "The expropriation of property is contrary to the constitution of Cyprus and the European Declaration of Human Rights", on which grounds the injunction was sought. The case must now go for a full hearing, for the injunction to be confirmed, but it may be resolved by other means. However, the FT says that similar attempts at legal action are expected from companies around the world. Even if unsuccessful, they are set to further muddy the already complex legal situation. Win or lose, the damage done is considerable, but no more so than to the international reputation of the euro. As a result of the ongoing crisis, Spiegel informs us, countries in the developing world are drastically reducing their euro holdings. They are at their lowest level in a decade. When the euro was first launched on 1 January 1999, the "colleagues" had ambitions of it rivalling the US dollar as the world's premier reserve currency. And such hopes have now been dashed: developing economies shed some $45 billion worth of euros in 2012 and have sold close to $90 billion-worth since the second quarter of 2011. But just to remind us that there is nothing new under the sun, Die Zeit reminds us that this is not the first time that a government has made off with its citizens's hard-earned cash. In Italy, the government Amato raised in summer 1992, with retroactive effect, a tax on all bank deposits. In Britain, the government under Wilson said in 1968 the possession of more than four gold coins - the rest had to be surrendered to the Bank of England. Norway in 1936, the government raised without warning a special tax on all interest. In the U.S., the Roosevelt administration in 1933 forbade the possession of gold, the precious metal was confiscated and it only paid for about 40 percent of its value. Quite simply, theft is what governments do, although the devious nature of banking transactions in Cyprus makes it difficult to determine who has been thieving from whom. But, with the Church of Cyprus now in the fray, God may be taking a hand. Things may now get a little more difficult for the Cypriot government. COMMENT: CYPRUS COMBINED THREAD Richard North 02/04/2013 |
Energy: the carbon stealth tax?
Tuesday 2 April 2013
 Booker flagged up the implications two years ago almost to the day (2 April 2011, to be precise – extract above). He had another go on 29 September 2012, when he warned us that it was set to "double UK electricity bills". Again he raised the issue on 15 December 2012, and then on 23 February of this year and also 23 March. Those were but a few instances in The Sunday Telegraph, in addition to which Booker raised the issue in The Daily Mail on 27 March. To be fair, even Tim Yeo, the Conservative chairman of the Energy Select Committee, warned about the harmful effect of the tax, in March last year, and the BBC actually picked it up in October 2011, after industry complained of the costs. Reuters own market analyst, Gerard Wynn, did the story on 19 March, calling the tax "unfair and ineffective", with The Times reporting, "Anger at ' stealth raid' on utility bills" on 21 March. However, only now as the carbon tax actually comes into effect, and Tony Cocker, chief executive of E.ON UK attacks it, does the legacy media take notice and treat it as mainstream news. Thus we have the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail both telling the story today, calling it a "stealth" tax. But this is only a "stealth" tax insofar as the media has given it such scant attention that it has barely registered with the general public. We even got some newspapers, such as theExpress, publicising the Energy Bill Revolution - a campaign alliance of 120 companies, charities, consumer groups and unions – and its ideas for spending the tax. Stealth or not, though, this is a tax, and highly regressive: it is hitting those on low incomes proportionately much harder than those better off. Thus, it always was a bad idea, and one that should never have been allowed to come into force. A little more protest might have made the chancellor think about it, but since it has been given such little attention, he has got away with it for now. And calling it a "stealth" tax isn't going to make it any better, or easier to pay. A tax is a tax, whatever name it is given. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 02/04/2013 |
Climate change: global warming causes more ice
Monday 1 April 2013
 COMMENT THREAD Richard North 01/04/2013 |
Posts
