EU Referendum

Showing posts with label anglosphere. Show all posts

Anglosphere[i-Anglosphere]My intention was to start this week by putting up my last post on EUReferendum but, for the time being, I have been dissuaded, there being better things to do with one's time or so I am told. There are various reasons why I have been having problems with the blog and the forum. No need to rehearse them here.

However, recently I felt that there was a particular direction in which the blog and, much more so, the forum were moving – towards ideas of a closed in society with the state controlling (as who else would have the power) who should be employed or allowed to live in this country, the basis of it being those old friends of ours, blood and soil.

It's not I don't like that trend or that I think it is a remarkably stupid one or, even that it is contrary to British tradition; it's more that I thought that the blog and, of course, the forum should lead on this one. If we want a country where we say "keep out" to all who are not "indigenous" (it's in quotation marks because, given England's history, it is a term that is very hard to define) then the blog should be in the vanguard.

Clear it of rootless cosmopolitanism, said I. We cannot have a co-editor who is not part of the "indigenous" population but would prefer to see those Anglospheric ideas triumphing over the blood and soil ones; we cannot have a co-editor whose family sought and gratefully received asylum in this country. Lead from the front, said I.

The boss told me (more or less) not to be stupid and stop reading the forum if it upsets me. Well, that's easily achieved. I have not been reading most of it for some time and have now deleted it from my list of must check blogs. That's a bit like not listening to Radio 4. Amazing how well one can survive without it.

What next? Well, I turned to our manifesto and found to my surprise that it was posted almost exactly four years ago. Have we really wasted this much time? Not completely. The boss's writings on defence have been superb and, with some luck, even had some influence where it matters.

Between us we have managed to get some of the truth about the EU and the tranzis out into the big bad world but not nearly enough of it and not nearly wide enough. When it comes to the positive ideas, yes, we have failed, perhaps because we have not worked them out well enough ourselves or because we have not been able to reach the right audience (it's a poor writer who blames the audience so the fault is in us) or perhaps we have not concentrated enough.

The way forward is to build on the manifesto. We have no intention of creating a new party or a mass movement or any of those silly things that tend to be complete losers, particularly on our side of the fence.

But we do intend to work harder and develop ideas – a research programme and a sequence of policy ideas that will give some politicians and opinion makers notions on how to rebuild a liberal nation state that would take its proud place in the only group that matters in the world – the Anglosphere. Blood and soil will not come into it. We have been there in the twentieth century and have no desire to go again in the twenty-first.

Watch this space. This is not the Last Post (not yet) but Reveille.

bundesbank01[i-bundesbank01]Any which way you cut it, the management of the euro has been largely dictated by Bundesbank monetary policy, predicated on keeping inflation within acceptable bounds. Other euro members' needs have always played second fiddle to this core priority.

To that extent, the euro experiment has always been driven by German self-interest and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is telling us today that that self-interest continues unabated.

In a piece headed, "Bullying Germany gets a free ride with its beggar-thy-neighbour policy," Ambrose confesses that, for the first time in his life, he is starting to feel twinges of anti-German sentiment, sharing what he describes as a loss of patience "with the antics of the finance ministry and Bundesbank, and with the dictatorial turn in Berlin's EU strategy."

His thesis is that Germany "is pursuing a beggar-thy-neighbour policy." It is not fulfilling its responsibilities as the world's top exporter and pivotal power of Europe's monetary union. It is leaching off global demand, even as it patronizes Anglo-Saxons, Latins, and Slavs.

For sure, Ambrose nods in the direction of "binge debtors in the Anglosphere" who he acknowledges "are much to blame for this crisis". But, he reminds is, "Germany rode the boom too." It made those Porsches and BMWs driven by the new rich. Its banks are among the most leveraged in the world.

His thesis is, as one might expect, highly contentious, with well over 100 comments on the online edition of his piece – and some unfavourable comment flying round the internet. But Ambrose has a point. The whole idea if the EU experiment is that national interest should be suppressed. We are all "partners" is this brave new enterprise, and being communautaire is the new black.

With Germany and France long considered the "motor" of European integration – and Germany the dominant economic power – this sets up Germany as the key player, imposing on it a strong responsibility to approach economic issues from a "European" perspective rather than putting national interest first.

What, therefore, Ambrose is pointing out is the difference between "European" rhetoric that has been spewing out from Germany in the last 50 years and more, and the harsh reality. When the chips are down, Germany has reverted to type and is looking after its own national interests and putting “European” needs very much in second place.

That Germany should do so is hardly surprising, but its own actions should be measured against its euro-rhetoric. Either Germany is a core member of the EU or it is an independent nation state, entitled to promote its own interests irrespective of the effects on its "partners".

In theory, it can't be both but, in practice, it is turning out to be a "fair weather" member, fully communautaire when it suits it – and when it benefits from other members so being – but just as nationalistic as it ever was when there is any conflict. But, while Germany is by many judged right to pursue its own interests, measured by its own rhetoric, it is wrong to pursue the line it is taking.

What Ambrose does not point out (in this particular piece), however, is that behind the scenes this nationalistic action is placing enormous strains on the EU construct. We know that the economies of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy – to say nothing of France and Ireland – are groaning under the additional burden of euro membership. But for the common currency, we would be seeing a number of European currencies going into a nosedive alongside the pound.

What the euro is doing though, is hiding the cracks – but that does not mean they are not there. They are indeed there and serious stresses are building up in the system which are bound to give vent in the not too distant future. When that happens, the national interest that Germany is so obviously following, will become evident amongst all the players, with the EU left on the margins, a fractured and impotent entity.

By comparison, Brown's mismanagement of the British economy will seem of minor importance, as the fracture lines grow to earthquake proportions. What is happening in Germany is only the start.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]On the whole I disagree with the boss, when he says that there is little to choose between the two presidential candidates. (He is not going to shoot me because he is in Bradford and I am in London and that's the way it's going to stay.) There are, in my opinion, bigger issues at stake than temporary climate policies or, even, pace such commentators as Dan Hannan, attitudes to the European Union.

On the second, it is clear, that Obama knows nothing about the subject and will say and do whatever the State Department tells him. As we all know, the State Department is historically pro-integration. McCain may have some track record of supporting European integration but it is not uppermost in his mind. Whoever wins, Europe is becoming less important in American foreign policy thinking. How that will impact on Anglo-American relations remains to be seen but much will depend on us as well as on the Americans.

On the first, I have to admit to being more concerned with such matters as a possible left-wing swerve in the United States that will reduce that country's economy to Jimmy Carter-type levels; or an attack on that greatest of all modern political documents, the American Constitution; or a possible destruction of the First Amendment. Obama, I am afraid, has displayed himself to be ignorant enough to do all these things. However, I do not think that even if The One is elected he and the somewhat corrupt political machine that he will take with him to the White House will destroy the United States. He may set it back quite a lot, though. And a set-back for America is a set-back for us all.

That is why, with all his faults, John McCain is the man I am rooting for.

The racism accusations worry me not at all. As has been said already the fact that a half-African politician could get to the top shows that racism is not as big an issue as some people on his side make out. The fact that his weaknesses have prevented him to do better in the election campaign despite the fantastic amount of money he has spent on it and despite the big media being almost entirely and very dishonestly on his side shows that people look at his qualities and not the colour of his skin, just as Martin Luther King dreamt it all those years ago.

Besides, anyone can play at isms. Given the treatment dealt out to Hillary Clinton, the dubious way in which her actual victory in the Primaries was discarded, and the vile accusations levelled at Sarah Palin, would it not be fair to say that all those who vote for Obama are guilty of sexism? About as fair as to say that all those who do not vote for him are guilty of racism. What's sauce for the goose ...

Having said all that, I need to add that whoever wins today and however long it will take to get the results, we can still salute the process. Let me remind all our readers: the people of the United States get to choose their government which, in all its various branches, at federal, state, country, city, district level, is responsible to those same people. When was the last time we could say that about this country?

Could this be the sort of envy for the reality of American democracy and American freedom as well as a sense of impotence as far as our own politics are concerned that fuels that insane anti-Americanism we have all witnessed in Britain?

Yesterday I went to the launch of the new web based campaign and political research group, America in the World. I was not all that impressed by David Cameron's speech but then you would expect that. In the circumstances, I don't think he should have made it quite so clear that he thought Obama would win and that he was basically on that side of the divide, not least because a good deal of European Obamamania is fuelled by the self-same anti-Americanism the new group is supposed to combat.

One of the other speeches, however, referred to a couple of recent polls. We know the one that gave the figure of 30 percent even in Britain of people who thought America was a greater danger to peace than Iran, China or North Korea. One would like to know where that 30 percent would prefer to work or spend holidays in? Still, attitudes like that are worrying, if not downright insane.

Apparently, America in the World conducted its own parallel polls, one about whom people would like to see as President of France and President of the United States. According to what was said, most people in various countries did not know or care who would be the first but almost everyone had an opinion on the second. This means nothing by itself - who becomes President of France is not really all that important even to the French, given the state of political affairs in Europe. America is, naturally, important to us all. And America must stay as a beacon of light for freedom and democracy. America will lead the Anglosphere, no matter what happens in the next 48 hours and even if there will be a temporary set-back.

UPDATE: I was going to put up pictures of the two presidential candidates but decided that the one above was more attractive. By the way, Governor Palin has been cleared of all ethics violation by independent counsel (and I stress the word independent). Amazing, isn't it?

COMMENT THREAD

Sarah+Palin+01[i-Sarah+Palin+01]A number of blogosphere commentators on the other side of the Pond have been warning the Republicans and their growing band of supporters not to repeat the Democrats' mistake and create a cult of personality around Governor Palin. I think they are right. Nobody deserves a cult of that kind and the lady is bound to make the odd mistake or two before November. Not the one about Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. As it happens, she was right as it was confirmed by the latest news. And no, I am not going down the route of trying to explain what either of the FMs is about but I did see that they are being, in effect, nationalized.

The Obama cult has backfired quite spectacularly, arguably, because of the many problems with his personality, connections and political background, which was not really investigated by the MSM that is now proudly throwing everything at Sarah Palin and her family. If the McCain/Palin ticket emerges victorious in November, it will be at least as much because of Senator Obama, his campaign and most of the MSM, which has appointed itself to be his promoters as Governor Palin and her personality.

Somewhere in this extraordinary presidential campaign lies the reputation of the MSM, becoming more and more tattered by the day. It took a bad knock in the last campaign, what with "Rathergate" and the growing strength of the blogs. This time round there has been no doubt - the media in its overwhelming majority is not even pretending to report matters fairly or accurately.

Several other problems have emerged: the sheer unadulterated viciousness of the left, which has transformed its Bush Derangement Syndrome into Palin Derangement Syndrome without blinking an eyelid; the mysogyny of a good section of the Democratic Party and of the self-appointed "feminist spokespersons"; and the astonishing (for America) display of class snobbery, again among a number of the left. This is something we are used to in Britain (remember the sneers about the "grocer's daughter?") but the United States is the place where anybody can make it to the top and, in fact, the support that is streaming towards Governor Palin proves that very many people do feel that way.

While we are on the subject, let me make a comment about those community organizers among whom the Obama supporters are now claiming Jesus Christ. The thing about Obama is that he was an outsider appointed by a politically minded organization to go in and organize the locals. Sarah Palin started her political career in the PTA. In other words, she was a real community organizer in the traditional bottom to top American mould.

At present the MSM's feeding frenzy is playing into the Republicans' hands and one wonders why journalists who must have a few connecting brain cells between them cannot see this. Even Oprah Winfrey is suffering.

The blogosphere being what it on the other side of the Pond, the fight is on. Glenn Reynolds, not a particular fan of Palin's I think, is updating the twisting saga; there is a Sarah Palin Sexism Watch blog, which carefully explain what is and what is not sexism; and best of all, Charlie Martin dealing with all the Palin smears and rumous, separating fact from fiction.

However, there is not much about her biggest achievement and that is the famous pipeline negotiation with Canada. Alaska, as it happens is unique among American states in that it borders with two other countries, one friendly (mostly), Canada and one distinctly unfriendly, Russia. If there is one American politician who knows about Russia it is the Governor of Alaska and that might come in very useful in the next few years. (Don't believe me? Have a look at the map.)

As of today even British readers will not be able to complain that they know nothing about Governor Palin except for her hair and her spectacles (subjects of vitriolic criticism by two left-wing feminists on last week's "Any Questions"). Today's Daily Telegraph carries an article by Jim Bennett, the premier Anglospherist and author of "The Anglosphere Challenge". In this he explains exactly what happened to Alaska's oil and how Sarah Palin in various political incarnations, challenged the existing and rather corrupt political establishment, negotiated the pipe deal and ensured that Alaskan oil benefited the whole country and, especially, the people of that state. [Warning: some of the comments on the article are staggeringly stupid and ignorant.]

The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.

In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great
odds.

Her sudden elevation to the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket shocked no one more than her enemies in Alaska, who have broken out into a cold sweat at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department's anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska's old-boy network.

Over on Chicagoboyz, there is a good discussion of the article, started by Lexington Green's posting.

Keystone_cops[i-Keystone_cops]Well, not from me, anyway. Dr North will, I am sure, check in as he seems to have managed as much blogging while in the land of the free and the brave as he does in his study in Yorkshire. As for me, I have not seen any news I wish to write about and I refuse to get excited about somebody in Gordon Brown's office writing an article about the Anglosphere to which the PM graciously put his name.

Normal service resumes tomorrow. Incidentally, the thread on anti-Americanism has been the best for a long time (apart from those on toys). Lots of interesting comments, some more knowledgeable than others, but that is to be expected. One person seems to have joined the forum for the specific reason of showing off his (I assume) ignorance and silliness. I shall pass over the name. Don't want to embarrass the poor dear.

Jungle_Book_Kaa+02[i-Jungle_Book_Kaa+02]Whenever I hear politicians talk about trust I think of that wonderful scene in the Disney "Jungle Book" where Kaa, the python, whom I found infinitely more frightening in both the book and the film than Shere Khan, sings to the monkeys:

Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around

I thought that during that pathetic episode of Tony Blair and Formula One, when the man actually said in an interview that people could trust him as he was a regular kinda guy. Anything more like a snake-oil salesman's talk I have yet to hear.

Then again, the Boy-King of the Conservative Party has come close. As the Toryboy blog tells us, Cameron has been speaking to Welsh Conservatives on St David’s Day about the need to restore trust in politics and politicians.

My colleague has already written about the subject of trust in connection with the well-meaning letter by a number of younger Conservative MPs. For all of that, the subject bears covering again, especially as there is now a speech by the leader himself.

One cannot help wondering about this sudden interest in the word "trust". This government has not been trusted for some time and neither have politicians or anyone else in the political establishment, which includes the political media. To be fair, very many people who say they don't trust the media do nothing but quote the BBC/Channel 4/selected newspapers without once bothering to scrutinize what they saw/read/heard.

Could it be that the Conservative Party is rather belatedly jumping on the bandwagon that was first rolled by Francis Fukuyama in 1995? If so, they are off base. I did not read the book because I was not completely impressed by his magnum opus "The End of History and the Last Man" but as I understand it from comments, Fukuyama's thesis is that in order to move forward societies must be based on the notion of trust whether this is true in every single case or not.

Without going into the details of the subject, it is clear that this is a large and fascinating topic, of particular interest to those of us who support the Anglosphere. (Perhaps I shall have to read it after all.)

The subject cropped up in the Reith Lectures of 2002, given by Professor Onora O’Neill, now Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve. These I did listen to and came away with a feeling of complete bemusement that a lady with such very impressive credentials in philosophy could talk such mush.

As I recall, the lectures (by this time reduced to 30 minutes or so and turned into a travelling circus) consisted mainly of a prolonged whinge about the lack of trust displayed by the public (that's us) towards the various institutions that had always been trusted in the past. Only someone with no knowledge of literature could believe that politicians, educators of various kind, the law or the police were always trusted in the past.

I have no memory of Professor O'Neill once discussing the need for reciprocity in trust and the importance of deserving it.

Cameron, one must admit, has advanced a little beyond that point of view. He seems to accept, though one hears the reluctance in the tone of the speech, that if politicians are to be trusted they must do something to deserve that.

Problem is, he does not seem to have understood why it is they are distrusted. To put it another way, why it is that the whole political process is distrusted to the point when ever more people opt out completely without even pretending that there might be some way of changing things. To be fair to the Boy again, none of the commenters, apart from my colleague, on the posting seem to have grasped the point either. Instead, there is a great deal of rejoicing in how well Cameron has spoken or some criticism on the edges.

One hears a great deal about the lack of trust in politicians because they do not tell the truth. Did they ever? No, as a matter of fact, they did not. Did politicians of the calibre of Gladstone, Salisbury or Churchill tell lies? You bet they did, not least because telling the truth at certain times demoralizes the country beyond recall.

Often politicians tell lies because politics consists of trying to reconcile irreconcilable interests, for instance those of the country as a whole and the constituency a politician represents. Often they tell lies for less respectable reasons, wanting to get re-elected or staying in power being the most obvious ones.

Are politicians venal? You bet. Nothing annoys the public more than watching those drongoes voting themselves ever higher salaries, expenses and other perks, including a very handsome pension, all of which the ever harder pressed taxpayer has to fund.

To those who say we must go on paying MPs ever more because if we pay peanuts we get monkeys, there are three responses. First of all, when you add up handsome salary, handsome expenses and no supervision we are not talking peanuts; secondly, the number of people who want to be MPs is absolutely enormous, so clearly the conditions are attractive; and thirdly, I’d rather have a bunch of monkeys there than the useless misfits we have now.

House_of_Commons01[i-House_of_Commons01]Which brings me to the main point not made either by the signatories of that letter or the commenters on the Toryboy blog or by David Cameron himself. You can mess around with salaries, expenses, telling the truth in Budget speeches (that’ll be the day) and getting rid of spin doctors (ditto).

The truth, the harsh, unvarnished truth is that there is no point to the House of Commons or to MPs.

Let us go through it systematically. The House of Commons is supposed to legislate and hold the Executive to account. It never does the latter. The only body within the British constitutional structure that still does it to an extent is the unpaid House of Lords and, with the help of the House of Commons, it has been emasculated and is to be destroyed completely.

Legislation no longer happens in the Commons. Between seventy and eighty per cent of it comes from Brussels, often bypassing Parliament completely. Even if it does hit Parliament, it cannot be rejected. Scrutiny, even if there were time to do it thoroughly, without the right of rejection or amendment is not legislation. It is akin to rearranging those famous deckchairs on the Titanic.

A good deal of the legislation both European and domestic, often intermingled, is produced by quangos, who are also responsible for implementing laws and rules. A good deal of the legislation that does go through Parliament is nothing more than the implementation of rules created by tranzis, starting with the UN and its many off-shoots.

In other words, MPs have abandoned all their duties and, while most people probably do not know the details of the EU or suchlike matters there is a widespread if unfocused understanding that there is no point in voting as that changes nothing. This is not because they are all the same, though that is true as well, but because they, the politicians, are not in a position to change anything and when they tell us otherwise, they are lying on a scale no politician has lied before.

This situation means that there is no trust in the political process either. What is the point of those constitutional structures, worked out over the centuries, if none of them function in any acceptable way?

The other side of the coin is that in the little that has been left to the politicians to deal with, they micromanage. No part of our lives is safe from their grubby little fingers: not education, not behaviour, not whether we need plastic carrier bags or not.

For a lot of people politics begins at home or as near to home as possible. I don’t mean local government, which is often more corrupt than the national one, but local institutions that people should run themselves – charities, organizations, schools, playgroups etc.

It has become impossible to keep politicians, pettifogging regulators and legislators to keep out of any of this. So, people who might contribute a great deal to society by involving themselves in those organizations, do not do so. They opt out and concentrate on their own and their families' lives, while the bureaucrats produce ever more forms and MPs, having voluntarily surrendered all their real powers, fill up their time by passing more and more fiddling legislation that takes up other people's time, money and energy.

No, we do not trust politics or politicians, Mr Cameron and ladies and gentlemen of the Conservative Party. Nor shall we until you at least show some understanding of where the problem lies. Oh and stop fiddling while Rome burns. It is not an edifying sight.

COMMENT THREAD

Anglosphere[i-Anglosphere]Asked for his views on an alternative to the EU, Alan Sked, the founder of UKIP, famously noted that the alternative to suicide was simply not to commit suicide.

The logic of this is absolute. Such are the dynamics of trans-national organisations that, even if the EU was replaced with a completely different structure, the new organisation would, in the fullness of time, end up with much the same world view and aspirations as the body it replaced – presenting just as much a threat to the survival of nation states.

Today, John O'Sullivan in the Telegraph op-ed gives sustenance to that view, advocating the concept close to the heart of this blog, namely the Anglosphere.

As a long-term supporter of the idea, he frames it to perfection, describing it as a "network civilisation" which has the capability to mature into a more formal arrangement creating what a "network commonwealth". These, says O'Sullivan, may end up being more integrated - psychologically and socially, as well as economically - than consciously designed entities such as the EU.

Strangely enough though, we get another of those dichotomy of views between the headline writers. The print edition sports the title, "The Anglosphere could be the making of Britain if we dare", while the online version heads up with the question, "A British-led Anglosphere in world politics?"

The latter title is highly misleading. A loose "network" that would encompass such nations as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India, would never accept British leadership. As to India, the growth in its economy and its emergence as a regional power are set to make it a greater economic and military force than the UK in the foreseeable future.

The question is, therefore, not whether Britain could or would lead the Anglosphere but whether indeed it could even participate in it, as we are drawn inexorably into the European sphere with the advent of the Lisbon treaty and treaties yet to come.

Already, as we have pointed out, there is a strong defence component in the Lisbon treaty, which brings us that much closer to creating a common defence structure, and pressures within the Union are building up to make this a reality.

Despite the advances triggered by the 1998 St Malo agreement between Chirac and Tony Blair, however, the process of European defence integration has largely stalled. We have noted an increasing lack of enthusiasm, amounting to direct obstruction of the European ambitions, to the extent that the UK can no longer be counted as an active partner in the process.

Interestingly, although the active promoter of the European defence identity in the days of Blair was France, Sarkozy does not seem to be demonstrating the same enthusiasm as his predecessor either. Possibly as a result, the guardianship of the flame seems to be passing to Germany, from which the most strident voices can be heard.

German enthusiasm for a European army, however, is not all it seems. Rather than being an expression of strength – and a desire to dominate Europe, as some fear – it is a sign of the country's continued weakness. Still haunted by its conduct during the Second World War, Germany's leaders wish to take a more active role in world affairs, but lack the self-confidence to do it alone – not least because of the reaction of its neighbours to a resurgent Germany.

Thus, German policy is the same now as it was in 1954 which saw the first attempt at forming a European army – to clothe its military and foreign policy ambitions in "Europe", vesting control in a supranational authority, to reassure it neighbours that it has no ill-intent towards them.

Some progress has been made over the last fifty years since 1954, but it has been glacial and, even today, the European army is regarded as a long-term project. Therein lies the bigger problem for the Europeans. Events await for no man, and certainly not for the Europeans to get their act together and field a credible force.

Furthermore, the nature of the threat is changing and, while the Europeans gaze studiously at their navels, those forces which are actually engaged in fighting the new threat – the war against terror – and evolving new equipment, tactics and doctrines, leaving the European further and further behind.

Added to that, there is an anti-militaristic ethos pervading Europe, with a widespread reluctance to spend the necessary sums on equipping and maintaining modern armies, further diminishing the capabilities of the European forces. And, some of the EU member states which do show enthusiasm for defence integration see in the project not an opportunity to exert greater power, but a means by which they can spend even less on defence than they do at present.

Thus, the reality behind the ambitions of European military might is that the member states cannot deliver, neither individually nor collectively, and there is no prospect of them doing so in the foreseeable future. And, so far are they slipping behind that, should they ever be able to develop the political and command structures that would allow them to operate on a European level, their capabilities will be substantially less than optimal.

That brings us back to the Anglosphere. The UK, having taken a more robust and proactive role in world affairs, cannot wait for the Europeans to get its act together. After a flurry of activity post-St Malo, European co-operation has weakened while the UK's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have strengthened co-operation with Anglospheric partners such as Australia and Canada, as well as the United States.

The degree of US co-operation has emerged from the accounts of the recent re-taking of Musa Qala where, not only were 600 troops from the US 82nd Airborne Division deployed – using more helicopters in that one operation than have been deployed by the British in the whole theatre – but the US command was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the operation.

It is perverse, therefore, that just at the time when the UK is working so closely with the Anglosphere, it should be signing up to a tranche of further European integration, in the Lisbon Treaty. In the final analysis, though, deeds may be worth more than words on a piece of paper. The threats we face are real, while the treaty remains a European fantasy which cannot deliver.

On that basis, the print edition heading of O'Sullivan's article may be close to the truth: "The Anglosphere could be the making of Britain if we dare". But there may be another truth. The Anglosphere could also be the undoing of attempts to draw the UK deeper into the maw of European integration. As an alternative to committing suicide, it has much to commend it.

COMMENT THREAD

JH[i-JH]First the bad news: John Howard has not only lost the election but his seat as well. The Liberal Party, which has not been trounced quite the way our own Conservatives were in 1997, nevertheless, will have to do a little soul-searching.

Tim Montgomerie on Conservative Home knows the scene and has followed the campaign. His analysis is not at all pessimistic. Quite possibly we shall see fewer changes than are being predicted in a rather vague sort of way.

One problem will be the unions. Though Howard is routinely compared to Thatcher, so far as I know, he has not tamed them and the problems will resurface.

The new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is a former diplomat and is, therefore, happy with tranzi-speak. Why else would he announce that climate change will be his top priority when everyone who followed the election campaign maintains that it was all about domestic issues? Having known a number of Aussies in my life, I would be quite interested in meeting the man who thinks he can stop them from driving or flying everywhere. Come to think of it, what does Mr Rudd do for transport and what did he do as a diplomat?

Still, not all is lost. The Australian Prime Minister may indicate that he is going to pay obeisance to the tranzis (and indication of intent is not the same as action); the Canadian Prime Minister remains robust.

Thanks to Don Surber's blog (another one I have not come across before - isn't life grand on the blogosphere?) we find out that Stephen Harper has managed to water down a Kyoto-backing resolution at the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Uganda.

The story comes from the National Post, which explains:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper successfully pressed for the deletion of key wording in a climate change communique that would have specified that all members support a "binding commitment" on developed countries to reduce emissions by specific targets.

"Canada's view is we need binding targets on all nations," said Mr. Harper, who dismissed reports that other countries opposed Canada.

"When we discussed this among leaders I thought we came to a consensus very quickly," he said Saturday. "We found pretty good support for our position."

Britain, sadly, tried to bully the Canadians, forgetting that ... ahem ... it is an independent country these days.

Canada's Commonwealth partners -- Britain in particular -- were not happy with the Harper government's hard line. But it appeared that even after a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown Saturday afternoon, Harper could not be persuaded to back down.

A Harper aide said Saturday that Mr. Harper pushed for a new paragraph of the Commonwealth's plan that specified that further negotiations on climate change should be done "individually and collectively" and "have respect for different national circumstances.

"Canada led the way," said spokesman Dimitri Soudas, who disputed the characterization that Canada's position left the country "isolated."

Since Canda won the day, isolated may not be the right word to use.

So, lose some (perhaps) and win some (definitely).

howard-s-fate[i-howard-s-fate]It seems that John Howard, the second longest serving Prime Minister of Australia has lost the election. Final results are not yet in but

Official figures from the Australian Electoral Commission showed Labor well ahead with more than 60 percent of the ballots counted. An Australian Broadcasting Corp. analysis showed that Labor would get at least 81 places in the 150-seat lower house of Parliament — a clear majority.

ABC radio reported that Howard aides said the prime minister had phoned Rudd to concede defeat. Rudd was expected to formally claim victory later Saturday.

There will be much discussion in the days to come but I suspect that as in Britain so in Australia - people get rather bored with long-serving governments.

If Kevin Rudd really does change the Howard policy on close alliance with the United States, particularly in Iraq and on man-made-climate-change (and just because he says so, it is not a given) then his victory might be bad news for the Anglosphere.

Then again, there has been little talk of changing Australian policy on the need for immigrants to accept national identity.

All of that is in the future. What I want to know is why should Howard's defeat be described as "humiliating" by journalists? He has carried off four victories and been the second longest serving Prime Minister of the country. He has undoubtedly left his mark on that country's politics and Kevin Rudd will find it difficult to erase that.

Now he has lost an election. It is still possible that he might lose his own seat as the postal votes are not in yet. That will be somewhat humiliating though, again, there must have been some changes in electoral boundaries. As for the rest, it is merely that the whirligig of time and democratic process has come round again.

I predict there will be enormous amounts of gloating in the media because a staunch Anglospherist and ally of the United States has lost, as predicted, his fifth election.

I have written about the Anglosphere, in my opinion the most exciting political idea of the present day, before, most recently here.

On a previous occasion I tried to sum up my discussions with Jim Bennett, author of The Anglosphere Challenge and the ideas he presented in the talk he gave to the Bruges Group on a particularly hot June evening (and just as I thought global warming was finally with us, along comes November, as wet and cold and windy as ever).

Bennett has now summed up his ideas in a shorter paper, published by the Heritage Foundation, which has taken its time in coming round to the idea. In fact, I am not sure it has come round.

On the eve of Thanksgiving Thursday, a festival that ought to be celebrated in England as well as America, as the Pilgrim Fathers were English and were demonstrating some forms of Anglospheric thinking, I can do no better than encourage everyone to read Jim’s paper, The Third Anglosphere Century – The English-Speaking World in Transition.

Civil+War[i-Civil+War]Ideas crop up in the oddest places. Take Anglospherism, the most interesting political idea of the last twenty years (thirty if you go back to Alan Macfarlane's "The Origins of English Individualism" first published in 1978), which has been getting around.

More recently these ideas were taken up and developed by Claudio Veliz in "The New World of the Gothic Fox", a comparison between British and Spanish imperialism and, above all, by James Bennett in "The Anglosphere Challenge".

One of the greatest tragedies of recent political development is how long it is taking for Britain, its people and its writers to take on the ideas of Anglospherism and to try to understand them. (Hint: it has little to do with race or ethnicity)

Wait long enough and it will crop up as it has just done in the Independent, in an article by the columnist Simon Carr who makes some interesting points about this country's history, not least its love of regulations that is as long as the acknowledgement of the importance of private property.

And if this is hostile to current administrative thinking, the Prime Minister can take inspiration from our historic appetite for regulations. New laws were absolutely at the centre of this system of liberty. In fact, there were called "liberties" (cf "taking liberties"), and they all depended on grants of privileges by higher authorities. A "restless spirit of interference" actuated the lawmakers, as one scholar put it. So cities were granted or sold charters guaranteeing them rights. Same for classes of people, or trades.

Towards the end of the Middle Ages, wages were specified, trading partners were itemised in the book, lower-status dogs were kept off the streets during certain hours while "genteel dogs" could roam at large. But it didn't last, this entangling net of regulation.

A brilliant analysis comes out of this. Macfarlane suggests that British liberty was the result not of tolerance, inclusiveness and respect, but of the struggle for dominance between estates of the realm. The monarchy. The church. Parliament. The barons. The judiciary. The peasants, occasionally. They all secured victories, but none of them triumphed. Thus the state of British liberty existed in a state of dynamic tension between equally poised groups jealous of their rights, privileges and independence.

The equilibrium, Simon Carr thinks, is now being disturbed.

To be fair, it has been disturbed many times in the past and reasserted itself. Will it do so again, is the big question. Then again, one could just re-enact past battles and past glories as shown above.

Malloc_Brown_Soros[i-Malloc_Brown_Soros]The Spectator has an interesting piece on our favourite Minister of State, Lord Malloch-Brown, former interference runner for SecGen Kofi Annan and former member of the “Soros axis of evil”, as the Wall Street Journal described it. At least, we hope he is former.

As it happens we have mentioned before that the man was going to get a grace-and-favour apartment on becoming a member of Gordon Brown’s government as well as pointing out that all this happened because the new Prime Minister has absolutely no idea of foreign policy or, indeed, where foreign is.

Still, it is very nice to have his lordship’s past career, relationship with George Soros, chief funder of the European Council on Foreign Relations, curiously enough, not mentioned in the Speccy article, as well as the expenses of his new residence laid out in a clear and easy to follow fashion.

The CV of Brown’s most senior outside appointment reads like that of a hair-shirted technocrat: a vice-president of World Bank, head of UNDP, chief of staff and then deputy secretary-general of the United Nations and now Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN. His entry in the Lords register of interests is spartan; he declares only his government salary, which is £81,504.

But Malloch Brown’s living arrangements in this country are exceedingly grand, and provided by the taxpayer. Only three members of the government have grace-and-favour residences in London. Malloch Brown is one of them, the other two are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. David Miliband and his growing family have yet to use 1 Carlton Gardens, the Foreign Secretary’s London residence.

Yet Malloch Brown, astonishingly, has secured one of the three government flats in Admiralty House, where John Prescott used to live. In so doing, this newcomer has leapfrogged 20 full members of the Cabinet who notionally enjoy seniority over him. The oddness of the situation is compounded by the fact that the other two flats in the building are empty, and another government grace-and-favour residence in South Eaton Place, SW1, is being sold off. In response to The Spectator’s investigation Eric Pickles, a member of the shadow Cabinet, has laid down a series of parliamentary questions in an attempt to find out how much Malloch Brown’s living arrangements are costing the Foreign Office.

Malloch Brown’s return from abroad is given as the explanation for him receiving a grace-and-favour flat. Others hint that he secured it because he has four children under 16. If so, Ruth Kelly — with four pre-teen children — should surely have had first pick.

The Treasury’s National Assets Register values the Admiralty House accommodation at £7.76 million and as worth more than the flats above No. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It is, indeed, fit for a Lord, and one with tastes which are the opposite of frugal. A parliamentary answer earlier this autumn revealed that ‘the floor area of the ministerial residences in Admiralty House is 859 square metres.’ In 2006–07 the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office paid the Cabinet Office no less than £173,000 for John Prescott’s living in one of the flats there.

I guess housing in London is quite expensive but I do find it rather difficult to believe that the salary Lord Malloch-Brown is receiving together with expenses and very much together with the savings he must have made while inhabiting George Soros’s palatial residence for peppercorn rent cannot allow him to buy or rent a hovel somewhere in Westminster.

That brings us to the question as to why this man of dubious qualifications but impeccable tranzi background should have managed to negotiate quite such a good deal for himself.

There have been various theories advanced, not least the one about PM Gordon Brown wanting to ingratiate himself with the tranzi world and distance himself from the United States. That may be so (some evidence of the latter has been made clear recently as I shall explain) but we tend to agree with the authors of the Speccy article, one of whom is the estimable Claudia Rossett. Gordon Brown has no knowledge of or interest in foreign policy.

Meanwhile foreign affairs have been marching on. We discussed yesterday developments in Turkey and the fact that Prime Minister Erdogan has met President Bush to discuss various matters of importance to both sides.

The Los Angeles Times added to its report on the US-Turkish negotiations:

With his tete-a-tete with Erdogan, Bush began a week of diplomatic conferences focused on some of Washington's most important relationships. He will host French President Nicolas Sarkozy for dinner today and for official talks Wednesday. At the end of the week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her husband will stay with the president and Laura Bush at their home outside Crawford, Texas.

Very nice, too, but isn’t there a name missing? Turkey, France, Germany. Where is Britain? Is there a meeting planned with Gordon Brown at some later stage? Or have the Americans finally decided they had enough of the British politicians’ complacency and arrogance? Or does Gordon Brown not want to meet President Bush? To be absolutely accurate one would have to ask: does Gordon Brown not want to meet any of the leaders of other countries?

sarkozy-bush[i-sarkozy-bush]Where is David Miliband, come to think of it? We all sympathize with him adopting another child and wish the family well. But he does have an important job to do for which he gets paid rather handsomely by the taxpayer.

I must say I am rather disappointed by Miliband. The man seemed to start quite well but has fallen off recently. Must try harder.

So, what have we got out of the Sarkozy’s second visit to Washington DC (this time, one must assume without Mme S.)? Not a whole lot, according to the Daily Telegraph leader and one is inclined to agree with them.

He addressed Congress and talked much of Lafayette and Washington (old general L. does get trotted out by the French periodically, though it was, actually, the French navy that helped the Americans most), 1917, 1944, Marshall Plan, Berlin airlift (hmm, minimal French involvement in that). All jolly nice and very different from l’escroc Chirac, who had selective deafness when it came to hearing historical facts.

But on top of these familiar historical references, the French president lauded the "can-do" spirit of America, whether expressed through stars such as Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe or through the moon landing of 1969. America's moral value consisted in its "extraordinary ability to grant people another chance"; it was a country where "failure is never the last word", where nothing is owed but everything has to be earned.

Such verbal flourishes were, inevitably, somewhat punctured by Mr Sarkozy's analysis of current problems. He spoke of standing shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan, without mentioning that French troops are not engaged in combat operations. He made no reference to Iraq. His determination to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons did not envisage military action. And his belief that the way towards French re-integration into Nato's military command is through strengthening the European Union's defence capability failed to convince.

All of which is true. But, as the article grudgingly acknowledges, rhetoric does matter, though practical involvement would matter more. For all of that, given Britain’s gradual withdrawal in Basra as chronicled by my colleague in too many postings to refer to, a little bit of rhetoric on our own Prime Minister’s part would not come amiss.

Perhaps, a reminder that Britain and America do have a great deal in common historically and politically speaking, as well as many differences or a casual reference to the Anglosphere, whose other members also have much in common with this country could give us some idea that Gordon Brown does, indeed, know something about the world.

SMerkel_Bush[i-Merkel_Bush]adly, it will be Chancellor Merkel who will be going to the US next, hoping, as the German journalists put it, to influence President Bush not to upset the Iranians or think about doing anything about their nuclear capability.

It seems unlikely that she will succeed. President Bush has a track record of seemingly agreeing with his European “instructors” and then doing exactly what he thinks is right. Remember the much-vaunted Merkel victory over climate change? When the dust settled (well, there is rather a lot of it what with global warming and all) it became obvious that the agreement was really along the lines the United States had advocated for some time.

We predict that Chancellor Merkel and her husband will come back, basking in the success of her mission, only to find that she had been once again diddled by the “Texas cowboy”.

All of which brings me back to my first question: where, in all this, is the British Prime Minister.

COMMENT THREAD

lambs[i-lambs]Considering how much we stuffed New Zealand farmers when we joined the Common Market way back in 1972, yesterday's gesture was pretty generous.

The news is that New Zealand lamb producers have taken the extraordinary step of suspending UK marketing activities out of sympathy for British farmers. The Kiwis – traditionally fierce rivals – will not undertake any promotional activity until next February to allow the UK lamb sector to recover from the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

One wonders whether, had the French been in a similar position, they would have been so generous to British farmers.

I'll return to the "friendly fire" incident later today, when I've seen all the newspaper reports.

COMMENT THREAD

statue-of-liberty-ny[i-statue-of-liberty-ny]This is the sort of posting I do not usually link to the forum. It is a shortie that links to another blog, in this case Thomas Lifson's piece on American Thinker. However, for once, I shall break that rule for two reasons.

One is that it is not easy to comment on American Thinker, which may be quite sensible as they can avoid all those inadequate trolls. The second is that this is a subject we might be able to have a reasonable discussion.

Lifson takes the word Islamophobia that is always being thrown around with gay abandon and means, as it happens, not hatred of Islam but irrational fear of it and points out that if anyone has irrational fears it is the Islamic community or, at least, those who speak for it in mosques, madrassas, colleges and, even children's TV.

He refers back to another blog, Dr Sanity, where there is a piece on "Westophobia" that discusses, firstly, the crimes that are committed by Islamists against their own people and others and, secondly, the completely irrational fear and hatred that is promulgated by many of the spokesmen.

This could be called Westophobia, which is a clums word, or, as someone suggests, Ameriphobia as it is really an irrational fear and hatred of the United States and everything it represents.

As I read the piece I realized that I was not actually thinking about Islamists but the many other people, not least in Britain, who suffer from what might be called Ameriphobia, which prevents them from seeing who our true allies are and from fully accepting the ideas of the Anglosphere. Anyone who doubts this should read the comments on the two Sunday Times pieces my colleague has linked to.

The trouble is, I don't like the word. Can anything better be created? So, I am putting this on the forum with strict caveats: this is not a thread about Islam or Muslims. It is to be a discussion of Ameriphobia and other possible names to it.

David+Miliband[i-David+Miliband]Whenever people are asked to produce an example of an oxymoron, that is a word or a phrase that has an inbuilt contradiction, the term “military intelligence” is trotted out. It seems to me that political intelligence is another such term.

Take the example of our new Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Undoubtedly, the man is highly intelligent, possibly more so than any of his colleagues. He is also very young with next to no experience even in politics, never mind the real world. On the other hand, he is one who imbibed politics with his mother’s milk. So, it should balance out. But does it?

His interview with the Financial Times indicates otherwise. After we get through the golly-gosh-isn’t-it-all-so-exciting we run into problems. To be fair to the man, he, unlike his present and past bosses, feels the historical significance of his job and his office. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? I expect he recited names of past political leaders as a wee child. (I know about families like that, believe me.)

So what is the future for Britain’s foreign policy? It will be a global hub, according to the Foreign Secretary. That means what, precisely?

I think we’ve got the opportunity to be a global hub, is the way I’d put it. We’ve got the opportunity to be a global hub economically, and you can see that demonstrated through the City of London, but you can also see it through even this week’s inward investment report.

We have the opportunity to be a global hub culturally. And of course the British Council is funded in part from here. And we can be a hub politically as well, and I think that’s important. But I think that it’s very, very important that we don’t…in the end, it’s about delivery, and so I think rather than putting grandiose titles on our impact on fate, it’s better to do big things rather than say you’re going to do big things, or be part of important things. So, that’s what I would say.

And, of course, we can be a global hub as far as motherhood and apple pie are concerned, particularly if we use organic milk for the custard.

Actually, to be fair to the man, he was waffling because the questions were not particularly searching, though the Financial Times in its article on the interview managed to ask the rather loaded question of how confident can Britain be after the Iraqi debacle. But who actually says it is a debacle apart from the various media outlets who have convinced themselves on not very good evidence and are trying to convince the rest of us?

If Miliband is to be believed, there will be no hasty withdrawal from Iraq and the war in Afghanistan will be fought to victory. These are reassuring words for those of us who dread the effect of a “cut and run” policy in either country.

As far as Israel and the two Palestinian states are concerned (though the interviewer did not seem all that interested in Fatahland) Miliband reiterated previous policies: the need for Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist has not been altered in any way by the release of Alan Johnston as, of course, anyone but the media would recognize.

The release of one man does not show that things are going smoothly in Gaza or that Hamas has eschewed violent and tyrannical behaviour. Ah but this is a British journalist and they are central to our calculations.

Of course, the biggest question in foreign policy will be how exactly does Gordon Brown intend to deal with Blair’s impossible legacy of trying to straddle ever greater European integration and American alliance.

On the evidence of this interview, Miliband has not exactly worked matters out but one can see which way he is heading. There is, of course, no mention of the rest of the Anglosphere except for a rather spurious reference to alliance with India. There is only the United States and the European Union.

Here, sadly, Miliband shows himself to be too intelligent for political life. He actually lets the cat out of the bag:

All I wanted to say about Europe is that I’ve been convinced for years that the greatest challenge facing the European Union is about delivery rather than about internal democracy; that the root to respect in European hearts is through delivery, that it’s the delivery deficit rather than the democratic deficit that should be the focus of our attention.

And I think now, with the forthcoming IGC, with the mandate that was produced at the European council, we have a unique opportunity for the European Union to get beyond the institutional questions and the institutional debates that flummox and infuriate and bore ordinary members, you know, real people, and get on to the things that could excite them whether it be energy security or climate security or jobs. And I think we’ve got a real responsibility as well as an opportunity to seize that opportunity.

And that will be the focus and the drive of our engagement with European partners and I think a real opportunity. My sense around Europe is that that’s what foreign ministers and environment ministers and prime ministers want to get on with.

As far as foreign policy goes, though, where is Britain situated? Well, according to our Foreign Secretary, our alliance with the United States is enormously important but our link with Europe is even more so. And, as he clearly explains, our relationship with the European Union is not bilateral. We are part of it.

This is precisely what we have been saying on this blog for a very long time. The question is what are we going to do about it.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]It occurred to me that someone will get there ahead of me on the forum. Clearly, our American readers are busy celebrating, preparing for those fireworks and barbecues.

This is the Fourth of July, the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, one of the great dates of the Anglosphere. Let us not forget how many of those ideas were first formulated in Britain, some in England, some in Scotland. It is at times like this that one thinks about our own Union and its fate.

Here are some of those stirring words. Compare them to the grey, controlled vision of the European project:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

And for some amusement, Rick Moran on Right Wing Nuthouse is "liveblogging" the Continental Congress. Enjoy.

Arnold Kling, one of the best commentators on the political scene, has a piece on TechCentral Station about trust, possibly the most overused word in the English political language these days.

Apart from the fact that he quotes from The Anglosphere Challenge, a book whose importance cannot be overestimated, Kling also makes some very good points that need to be remembered whenever we discuss the supposed collapse of our society.

Should we trust the government?

In the case of government, there is good trust and there is bad trust. Good trust is trust in processes that promote public service. Bad trust is trust in the virtue of leaders or the wisdom of voters.

If you can trust the processes of government, then that is a good thing. Good trust in government is based on processes that provide for accountability, checks and balances, equal protection, and punishment of official corruption.

Trusting the virtues of government leaders is a bad thing. It leads one to cede rights and powers to government that are easily abused. The more that our ideology demands virtue from leaders, the more likely it is that our leaders will prove to be evil. Authoritarian Communism illustrates Lord Acton's maxim that "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Trusting the "will of the people" is also a bad thing. Democratic majorities can support inferior policies, infringement on people's rights, and even genocied. Popular voting is useful as a check on elites, but not as a tool for over-riding the principle of individual liberty.

I recall a series of highly inadequate Reith Lectures given by Onora O'Neill, Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (the last time I listened to those talks), whose subject was "A Question of Trust" and whose theme was a prolonged moan that people in authority were no longer trusted and were constantly checked and tested.

I prefer Arnold Kling's comment:

My idea of a high-trust society differs from that of many elites. Elitist journalists think that a high-trust society is one where we trust the mainstream media. Elitist politicians and activists think that a high-trust society is one where we trust legislators, regulators, and experts to exercise broad authority. In contrast, I believe that a high-trust society is one in which processes ensure that elites are subject to checks and accountability. It is particularly important for legislators, regulators, and experts to have their authority limited and their accountability assured.

Read the whole piece.

I was going to blog about this but Elaib on England Expects got there ahead of me. So, the best thing I can do is to link to his exhaustive post and encourage everyone to read it.

Troops2[i-Troops2]These very fine teddy bears, markedly superior to the diddly little objects my colleague has found on the various toys that gladden his days, are supporting the British, American and Australian troops in Iraq.

Mostly they support Scots fighting in Iraq. Does this mean the Scots want to be in the Anglosphere? Maybe their teddybears.

COMMENT THREAD

Australia+001[i-Australia+001]Putting European nations to shame which, with the exception of Poland have refused to provide any more troops for combat in Afghanistan, Australia has stepped up to the plate with an announcement from prime minister, John Howard, that Australian troop numbers are to be doubled, bringing the total to about 1,000.

The troops will be sent to the volatile Oruzgan province in the south of the country, their task to enhance the area's security and disrupt Taliban command and supply routes.

Interestingly, according to another report, the force includes 300 special forces troops, returning for a second tour, and Australia will also send air force radar crews to Kandahar, plus extra logistics and intelligence officers. It will also extend the deployment of a team providing protection and security.

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, the Australian Defence Force Commander, said the special forces would hunt Taliban commanders. "Essentially their operations will be targeted on the Taliban, disrupting Taliban operations and going after the Taliban leadership," he said.

In his press conference at which the announcement was made, Howard aimed a none too subtle dig at his European allies, "We're not losing the war, but we will not win it without renewed and increased effort," then expressing a wish that some European countries would place fewer caveats on their troops' deployment.

His pleas are likely to go unheeded.

COMMENT THREAD