You are in:
- Archives » 2004
Beeb Hack Weeps For Arafat
We've heard it all now. BBC correspondent Barbara Plett writes of how she broke down in tears when she saw the "frail old man" Yasser Arafat carried out of his compound in Ramallah.
Yup, journalists are a tough, cynical breed given to sharp black humour at times of calamity... except when ailing terrorists are concerned. Perhaps the Beeb can dispatch Plett to Havana next: Her waterworks will be much in demand when Castro finally croaks.
England Expects
Just how would Admiral Nelson fare in Blair's Royal Navy? In a week when it was revealed that one of Her Majesty's Ships has had to set aside a prayer room for use by a Satanist, Fainting in Coyles has an hilarious reenactment of life on an ocean wave with HMS Appeasement.
Just don't forget to make room for the diversity co-ordinators, the legal aid lawyers and the race relations advisors.
My Enemy's Enemies
Gerard Baker presents a long list of George Bush's wrongdoings in today's Times. It's a pretty persuasive case against the president's record and home and in Iraq - and it doesn't even touch on his misjudgements on scientific research and gay marriage.
And yet.
Baker also argues convincingly that another Bush term would be preferable to a Kerry presidency, mainly on grounds of moral clarity and leadership, particularly in the immediate period post 9/11.
But according to Baker, what makes four more years of Bush a necessity is the quality of the people who would celebrate a Kerry win:
"The hordes of the bien-pensant Left in the universities and the media, the sort of liberals who tolerate everything except those who disagree with them. Secularist elites who disdain religiosity except when it comes from Muslim fanatics. Europhile Brits who drip contempt for everything their country has ever done and long for its disappearance into a Greater Europe.Absurd, isolationist conservatives in America and Britain who think the struggles for freedom are always someone else’s fight. Hollywood sybarites and narcissists, self-appointed arbiters of a nation’s morals.
"Soft-headed Europeans who think engagement and dialogue with mass murderers is the way to achieve lasting peace. French intellectuals for whom nothing has gone right in the world since 1789.
"The United Nations, which, if it had its multilateral way, would still be faithfully minding a world in which half the population lived under or in fear of Soviet aggression. Most of Belgium.
"Above all, of course, Middle Eastern militants. If your bitterest enemies are the sort of people who hack the heads off unarmed, innocent civilians, then I would say you are probably doing something right.
"This may sound petty. It is not. This constellation of individuals, parties and institutions has very little in common other than the fact that it has contrived to be wrong on just about every important issue of my adult lifetime."
Convinced? Tell us about it. Use the usual address on the contacts page, top of the screen.
Barroso Backs Down
Depending on which side you're coming from, you can describe it as "averting a crisis" or a "humiliating climbdown" but most will agree that Jose Manuel Barroso's decision to put the vote on his commission on hold for a month is an unprecedented event in recent EU history.
Barroso's decision came as it became clear that a majority vote to approve his commission was by no means certain, with British Labour MEPs even defying their leadership in London by threatening to overturn the Blair-approved commission line up.
As EURSOC has reported in the past fortnight, Italian Europe Affairs minister Rocco Buttiglione has been at the centre of a political and media storm over his provisional appointment as European commissioner for justice.
Buttiglione might have a name like a porn star but on every issue from homosexuality to single parents he has aired views which put him far to the right of most of the EU's journalists and policymakers. Although his supporters pointed out that Buttiglione's strict Catholic beliefs would not affect his handling of the justice portfolio - and he himself claimed he saw homosexuality as a sin rather than a crime, his detractors in the EU parliament, led by Socialist bloc leader Martin "Capo" Schultz, were determined to prevent him from taking the job.
More moderate MEPs, including the leadership of the Liberal group, pleaded with Mr Barroso to reshuffle Buttiglione or strip him of those parts of the portfolio which most concerned his opponents. For a while it appeared Barroso would consider this course of action, but earlier this week he defended his entire commission lineup, claiming he would not "surrender to the forces of intolerance" by sacking Buttiglione.
The row has split the usually chummy EU parliament as well as causing a crisis in relations between the parliament and the commission. Libertarians have been in the uncomfortable position of opposing Mr Buttiglione's beliefs while feeling equally repelled by the cynical and sanctimonious manoeuvres of his enemies.
Moreover, it has demonstrated the vast differences in European opinions at a time which much of the continent has been gloating at the "Two Americas" defined by President Bush and Senator Kerry.
Many northern Europeans, most metropolitans and nearly all journalists see Mr Buttiglione's views as archaic and intolerant. Some even worry that his appointment would allow the Vatican to exercise influence on European civil rights - the minister is close to the current Pope and shares many of his conservative beliefs.
However, as Stephen Pollard pointed out in an excellent editorial, Buttiglione's opinions may not be particularly palatable, but they are in line with what much of southern and central Europe believes - not to mention what aspirant members like Turkey might think on the subject. Some Italian newspapers have even claimed that opposition to Buttiglione is evidence of "anti-Catholic" prejudice in Brussels.
Pollard notes with concern that the drive to exclude Mr Buttiglione's views from public discourse is anti-democratic. Furthermore, the demand that EU commissioners should hold only a narrow range of approved beliefs is worrisome.
Nevertheless, as we pointed out last week, there may be less to this row than meets the eye. The Times tends to agree, noting that Martin Schultz's annoyance at being called a "Capo'" by Silvio Berlusconi has led him to organise opposition to Buttiglione, who was appointed by the Italian PM. Many left-wing MEPs have been seeking an opportunity to knacker the new commission - Jose Barroso's selection as president was viewed as a free-market coup by some French commentators, while sharks circled Britain's nominated commissioner Peter Mandelson as he gave an account of himself before a committee of hostile MEPs. Mandelson, expert operator that he is, managed to avoid outing himself as an Iraq-bashing free-marketeer as his enemies hoped: Buttiglione wasn't so lucky.
Reports that MEPs clapped and cheered as Barroso announced the postponment of the vote will confirm what the Times' leader writer suspected all along about the motivations of the anti-Buttiglione movement.
Describing the row as a "bizarre overreaction" the newspaper lays into the pretentions of the "mediocre MEPs" in the parliament, and Martin Schultz in particular:
"(For Barroso to back down) would be a capitulation to the prejudice and ambition of MEPs riding a crest of political correctness to raise their own deservedly low profile, bolster their weak claims to be taken seriously and score points in a grudge match against certain EU member states and their leaders, in particular Silvio Berlusconi...
"...For Herr Schulz to use “tolerance” as a cover for intolerance is intolerable. Such a course is not only crass and vindictive; it would also set a precedent that could be used against any national leader who fell foul of political correctness in Strasbourg...
"MEPs, some of whom are notable only for their irrelevance to most voters, cannot raise their low standing by pique, power games and hypocrisy. Only an adult attitude to their role and to the generally impressive incoming commission will regain the respect they have squandered across the Union they claim to represent."
So what next? Unfortunately for Europe, Barroso's commission is on hold for a month until a compromise can be found. Until then, we are treated to another month of Romano Prodi's commission, which includes such luminaries as Chris Patten and Neil Kinnock.
It seems likely that Rocco Buttiglione will not appear in the revised commission list, and it is up to Silvio Berlusconi to find a replacement which will allow him to regain some pride. Right-wing MEPs will demand the removal of a couple of ex-communist nominees from former Soviet bloc states on the commission list. Indeed, few have remarked how a man of strong religious conviction but with an impeccable public record can be booted from the commission while those who oversaw the oppression of their countrymen are welcomed.
And while all this goes on, Europe's leaders meet on Friday to sign the final draft of the European constitution. Those southern and central European leaders who have promised voters a referendum on the treaty may be wondering how to persuade their people to support an organisation which appears to actively discriminate against their beliefs.
UK Referendum: March 2006
British voters will have to wait until March 2006 to reject the EU constitution.
Foreign secretary Jack Straw told a newspaper this weekend that the referendum would not take place while Britain held the six-month presidency of the EU (July-December 2005).
However, the government (presuming New Labour is still the government) will have to "strike while the iron is hot" and hold it shortly after the presidency.
Tony Blair is said to have agreed to the timetable.
Europe's leaders are due to sign the European Constitution on Friday. It will then be returned to national governments and in some cases plebiscites to be ratified.
Nice Work If You Can Get It
You'll need a subscription for this Economist story, but it's worth getting to reveal yet another little-known aspect of Brussels corruption.
The European Commission has decided that it should make itself more relevant to Europe's people. Should commissioners send drones all over the continent to ask the population what it should do to reflect the wishes of Europe's inhabitants? No. Should commission decisions be put to a popular vote? Perish the thought.
No, the European Commission decided to talk to the people by opening dialogues with some of Brussel's numerous "civil society" NGOs, including luminaries like the Young European Federalists, the Federalist Voice, the Active Citizenship Network, the European Network Against Racism and the Polish NGO Office. Yes, Europe's leaders are sure to hear exactly what the man in the street thinks by speaking to the Young European Federalists.
Their conclusion? That more power should be put in the hands of the European Commission.
But where do these groups come from? Where on earth does an organisation like the Eurofanatic Federalist Voice get its funding?
Er, from the European Commission, of course. According to the Economist, the five NGOs above are funded directly or indirectly by the Commission - and so have a vested interest in campaigning for their paymasters to have more power.
The European Young Federalists alone received 460,000 Euros in just five years, and that is only the tip of the iceberg: Outgoing European Commission President Romano Prodi reckons that under his watch the Commission has forked out a billion Euros to various NGOs!
Much of the cash goes to NGOs campaigning for social causes. If a commissioner is contemplating a tricksy piece of social legislation, he just has to stroll across Brussels to a commission-funded NGO office and ask what the inhabitants think of the draft. "Consultation" over the legislation can be pushed on its way.
But sometimes the NGOs don't always do what the commission wants. The first draft of the European Constitution did not oblige commissioners to consult with NGOs before passing legislation. So NGOs campaigned successfully to have a clause forcing commissioners to consult with "civil society" (ie NGOs) inserted, thus doing what NGOs do best - safeguarding their own survival.
Self interested? Well, NGOs seem to spend much of their time campaigning for more money. Here's the Economist's last word:
"But campaigning on their own behalf is a big occupation of these groups. Look at the websites of EU-funded NGOs and it becomes clear that one of their favoured activities is to lobby for even more EU money. Thus the European Network against Racism (80-90% commission-funded) complains truculently that 'the present budget line for anti-racist activities is...insufficient. The network...needs to put pressure on the European institutions with a view to increase this amount.'
"The spectacle of organisations that receive EU money using their money to campaign for more EU money is only one example of this looking-glass world. It is a world in which so-called NGOs are actually dependent on government for cash; and one in which the European Commission, itself directly financed by Europe's national governments, finances “autonomous” organisations that campaign for more power and money to be handed to the commission itself."
Speaking In Tongues
As president Jacques Chirac's popularity sinks to a new low, France is on the lookout for a big new morale-raising project.
Could it be promoting the language? We reported last week that most of France's interest groups reacted with horror to a proposal that English be made compulsory for all schoolchildren. Chirac himself had warned that it would be a disaster for the world if one language (guess which one?) came to dominate the globe.
And now comes a campaign to make French the official language of European law.
The campaign is led by academic and writer Maurice Druon, who says that the French version of any law passed by Brussels should be the definitive "legally binding" version.
Why? Druon claims that French "reduces the chance of different interpretations." He has gathered support for the petition from the Académie Française and even from France's foreign ministry, which hopes for a "spirited campaign" in Brussels. The drive even has some foreign supporters, among them a former Portugese president and former Polish foreign minister. An Albanian writer, Ismail Kadaré (who lives in Paris) has also signed up - though as Albania is quite some distance from EU membership, Kadaré's support is symbolic rather than political.
But again, why?
Practically any argument Druon and his supporters can wheel out to support French's claim can be used to propose English as the EU's definitive legal language. Furthermore, drawing attention to the need for a "fixed" single language for EU documents does French no favours, as nine of the ten new members and many of the original fifteen have chosen English as their preferred working language.
Many people in the EU are aware that the endless web of translations and cross-translations between 25 nations and numerous official languages should be reduced in favour of one commonly-used working language. The EU employs an ever-growing army of translators and while one of the few charming aspects of the union is that it provides employment for people who can translate Italian into Finnish, expansion has made money increasingly tight.
However, no-one has raised their head above the parapet and suggested openly that one language be favoured above all others - it is seen as bad form to upset people in second-class member countries even more by making their language second class too.
Now that France has decided to elevate its language above the others, its supporters might face a rude awakening from people who once again, will not "miss the opportunity to shut up" as M Chirac might say.
Furthermore, the tide is turning against Brussels. Like France's president, the EU's popularity is at an all-time low with voters. EU gurus demand that the union be brought closer to the people to prevent it crumbling due to voter indifference or opposition.
What better way to demonstrate the EU's distance from the common man by fixing its legal output in a language spoken only by a small and ever-diminishing group of people?
Talking 'Bout A Revolution
Recommendations that English language lessons should be compulsory for French schoolchildren have been met with an icy reception among France's elite.
An enquiry found that English should be taught alongside French and mathematics to allow children to leave school with the skills necessary for "international communication." French, which used to dominate the European Union, is now declining in influence, particularly as most of the new members of the EU have chosen English as their preferred working language. This - and with it, declining French prestige - has been hard to take for many in France's political and intellectual classes.
They are particularly touchy about the global rise of English. Last month, Jacques Chirac told Chinese officials that "nothing would be worse" for the world if it were taken over by a single language.
France's teaching unions have echoed Chirac's concerns, though if their past actions are anything to go by they may be protesting at the possibility of the changed working conditions another compulsory lesson would demand rather than the decline of French as a world language.
Despite the dearly held stereotypes of Brits and Americans, many French people enjoy speaking English. Of course some French people feel offended when visitors make no effort at all to learn even basic elements of their language - but this reaction is less despair at the decline of their beloved mother tongue and more a response to the bad manners of certain tourists.
However, the elite and elements of the media have conspired to manufacture a prejudice against English. English, they warn, is inextricably linked to the horrors of American imperialism, Anglo-Saxon working practices, foul hamburgers and Hollywood blockbusters.
But they could be fighting a losing battle. Many international French businesses now hold their meetings in English. Orders from Paris that all scientific papers should be first published in French were scrapped when scientists protested that no-one would read their work if this was the case.
Some French politicans see hope in the rise of other languages: Jacques Myard (of Chirac's UMP party) argued that English will soon be in decline, challenged by the rise of Mandarin Chinese and Spanish.
More telling his Myard's choice of another language of world domination which could be used to fight the spread of English: It suggests that some at least in France's political class have already decided who will rule the roost in the near future:
"If we must make a language compulsory," he said, "it should be Arabic."
The Special Relationship
The Guardian encouraged its readers to write sanctimonious letters to voters in Ohio in an attempt to get undecideds to vote for Kerry.
Like any other sensible people, Americans object to being lectured on how to vote by foreigners, most of all the po-faced wankers that make up the Guardian's readership.
If anything, the Guardian's campaign has done more to "energise Bush's base" than any number of Karl Rove's promises to Bible bashing non-voters. And it has inspired an illuminating exchange of views across the Atlantic.
The Guardian might have come to the surprising conclusion that the Gulf between gun-toting midwestern fundamentalists and terrorist-cuddling UK lefties is as wide as ever, which may have been its point.
But surely a newspaper which, like Michael Moore and French foreign policy, owes its unique selling point to swivel-eyed anti-Bushism, has a vested interest in keeping Bush in the White House?
Surely the Guardian couldn't be provoking Ohio into voting Bush to guarantee it has something to moan about for another four years?
Quote Of The Day
Reason is running vox pops from prominent commentators on their voting intentions. Camille Paglia, Glenn Reynolds and PJ O'Rourke all make appearances but our favourite is Louis Rossetto, co-founder of Wired magazine:
"2004 vote: Bush may be wrong about everything else, but he is right about the issue that matters most for my children’s future: stopping Islamic fascism."
The Media War Continues
It isn't only the Arab world which delights in anti-Jewish propaganda - Armand Laferrère writes for EURSOC on a disturbing film broadcast in France and Germany:
Last Thursday and Friday - Oct. 7 and 8, 2004 - the Franco-German channel Arte, mostly paid for by the taxpayer, broadcast a very bad French-Egyptian movie by Yousri Nasrallah called "Les portes du soleil". The fact that it was very bad was actually a blessing, for the main purpose of the movie was to show the founders of the state of Israel as moral equivalent to the Nazis.
The movie begins with a scene in a Palestinian school in 1943 where a teacher tells children about "our country, Palestine" and the "Jewish colonisation" going on. 1-9-4-3. Was nothing else happening at that time in Jewish history ? Apparently not, according to Arte.
It goes on: the 1948 war, when Israel barely survived a coordinated attack on the day of her birth by Arab states openly calling for genocide, is described slightly differently. Jews in green-grey uniforms come with tanks and commit mass murders of innocent women and children, burn the villages, pile the clothes of the dead according to size in order to send them to Israel. The Palestinian hero tattoos the date of the slaughter on his own wrist.
This is nauseating. This is unbelievable. Of course the 1948 Jews had neither tanks nor real uniforms - they almost didn't have two rifles of the similar kind, for God's sake ! Arabs were brutalised, some were expelled in militarily important areas just as Jews were expelled from their homes in Arab countries - but indiscriminate slaughter by Tsahal? When, where? And what kind of person could dream up the Nazi analogies, apparent from the color of the uniform, the clothes piled on and the tattoo on the wrist? My God, which side actually had tattooed wrists in this war?
This is nauseating. This is unbelievable. But this is where we are.
And it goes on. In a kibbutz, a Palestinian woman is reduced to slavery and forced to work under the threat of a gun. A kibbutz - one of these idealistic socialist communities which wanted to change the world and bring eternal peace - is turned into a concentration camp by the sick mind of the director. This man has found actors to play this, two democratic governments to help finance it, and a television executive, Mr Jerome Clement - may his name live in infamy forever - to broadcast it in spite of many warnings that this movie would endanger the physical safety of French Jews.
This is where we are. And it goes on. Later in the movie, it is stated as fact that Jews took part in the intra-Arab killings of Sabra and Chatila. The Oslo agreements are called a "Jewish deceit". At no single moment is Arab terrorism mentioned. The Palestinian children are not seen listening to the brainwashers who, day in and day out, incite them to give themselves as human sacrifices in order to kill Jews.
After watching the whole abomination, I wrote to Mr Clement to tell him that, had Hitler won the war, we French would have enjoyed exactly the kind of television that he had provided us. He will not answer. The movie was generally celebrated by the left-wing press, and ignored by the right-wing press.
Since no one with authority will apparently do it, and because only a Frenchman can, I have this to add.
I apologise to the Jewish people. I feel hurt in my flesh by the despicable Jerome Clement, by the French ministries of Culture and of Foreign Affairs who made me pay for this cloaca of a movie, and for the general apathy that surrounded this scandal. I am deeply sorry about the behaviour of my country, France - my only country, which I have always loved dearly and cannot support today.
I believe that truth and justice will prevail. Their enemies are many, powerful, sophisticated. But the friends of truth and justice have found comfort and solace, for many centuries, in an old story of wretched slaves who managed to come out of Egypt against all odds - against many, powerful, sophisticated enemies. In today's troubled times, I recall this old story and I know who I'll support.
-Armand Laferrère
The Media War
Worried about terrorists detonating a dirty bomb in the centre of your city? Nervous about how dozens of suspected terrorists are arrested every month?
Feel your blood curdle at the prospect that Osama bin Laden and his deputies might actually mean the threats they broadcast against the west?
Don't panic. A dirty bomb won't hurt anyone. Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist. And the threat of global terrorism is an invention of American conservatives to keep us all in our place.
Before you write to accuse EURSOC of the biggest turnaround in media history since the Spectator went all soft and mushy, we're only quoting an article in (where else?) The Guardian.
The feature - "The Making of the Terror Myth" - is a report on a documentary series to be broadcast on the BBC this month. Among other things, the series will investigate how governments manipulate the threat of terror attacks "to maintain their power."
The hoary old "false consciousness" myth again? Maybe. The series' producer, Adam Curtis, claims he wants people to look at things in a new way.
Dirty bombs, for instance. The Guardian reports that the dose of radiation one of these bombs would cause would not be fatal - even if the inhabitants of ground zero remained there for a year. We wouldn't like to hang around to find out - but Curtis doesn't appear to be frightened by the prospect. Indeed, his major fear of a dirty bomb attack is that people might say his theory on terror is wrong.
And al-Qaeda? The documentary claims there are no sleeper cells, there is no organised network, no strategy: "In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence."
Even the name, the film claims, was stuck on the organisation by the Americans because US law needed an organisation to be named to charge its members under anti-mafia laws.
Ah - the Americans. What theory of worldwide evil and corruption would be complete without a starring role for Uncle Sam? By the sound of things, Curtis' documentary will not disappoint.
"Almost no one questions this myth about al-Qaida because so many people have got an interest in keeping it alive," says Curtis. He finds common goals between followers of the conservative philosopher Leo Strauss and Islamist fundamentalists - even, he claims, going so far as "Islamist-Straussist collaboration" during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
And the most famous Strauss-influenced politician in the US today? Step forward in a puff of sulphur, the left's favourite villain Paul Wolfowitz.
All the ingredients are in place: Wolfowitz, a prominent Neo-Con and a jew, who has supporters of Palestinian terror foaming with hatred (does Palestinian terror exist? Or is it still just "terror?" Wonder if the film touches on that).
An American conservative ideology which believes that the US needs to fight the good fight. Links between American conservatives and al-Qaeda (I suppose we must call it "al-Qaeda" now).
The old Marxist belief that we're constantly being lied to by people much wilier than us, manipulating our media to further some sinister agenda... and if only we could have the veils pulled from our eyes all would be well.
But what of reality? What of September 11, Bali, Madrid, Istanbul, the attacks on westerners in the Middle East, the numerous foiled terror attacks on transatlantic airlines, Strasbourg Christmas market, London, Paris, Rome? According to one observer, "All they need is a big bomb every 18 months to keep this going."
Who "They" are depends on your susceptibility to conspiracy: "They" as in Islamist terrorists - whatever name they are going under? Or "They" as in that amorphous, manipulative "They" who in extremist conspiracy theory control everything from the media to the armed forces to even - and this is an inescapable conclusion of the Guardian's article - even the terrorists themselves.
This one is going to give tinfoil hat wackos something to chew on for decades.
Fancy That!
The leader of the European Parliament's Socialist bloc says he is confident he can muster a majority to vote down the entire European Commission unless the new president reconsiders his position on controversial Italian Rocco Buttiglione.
Martin Schultz, who leads the parliament's 200 socialists, claims he can count on 88 liberals plus 150 greens, communists and Eurosceptics to overturn the appointment of the commission.
Such a rebellion by MEPs would doubtless provoke a constitutional crisis.
As we've been reporting this week, Rocco Buttiglione's appointment as justice commissioner has been narrowly rejected by a parliamentary civil rights committee. The committee also voted by a wider margin to bar Buttiglione from other posts in the commission.
Buttiglione is a conservative Catholic intellectual who is close to the Vatican and the current Pope in particular. His quaint views on homosexuality - he calls it a sin - seem remote from mainstream European thinking. He also holds strongly traditional views on marriage. However, Buttiglione is at pains to argue that while he believes homosexuality is a sin, he opposes any discrimination or denial of rights to homosexuals.
This has not been sufficient for his opponents, who believe that anyone who holds such beliefs cannot be a credible candidate for justice commissioner. Furthermore, they say that Buttiglione's appointment would extend the influence of the Vatican far beyond Italy - one critic said that the Buttiglione's rejection demonstrated that "the Vatican's backyard ends at the Alps." Catholics (and Ian Paisley) might be surprised to hear it.
This has led Buttiglione's defenders to complain that his rejection was motivated by anti-Catholic prejudice. It is true that one cannot imagine Europe's left becoming so upset were Buttiglione a Muslim - and if he were a Muslim who endorsed the killing of Americans and Israelis, some would greet him with open arms.
But it might be more helpful to look to the personalities behind the crisis. The civil rights committee rejected Buttiglione, though their recommendation would not normally lead to the toppling of the entire commission. Buttiglione was put forward for the job by Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's prime minister. Berlusconi and those newspapers he owns or influences have been the most vocal critics of the committee vote.
So let's go back to the Socialist leader who decided that this row could be used to overturn the entire commission. Why, Martin Schultz of course. Sounds familiar? Schultz was the heckling MEP who Berlusconi said would make a convincing concentration camp capo should anyone make a film about the war.
Schultz, who had been leading a rabble of Socialists disrupting the prime minister's speech to parliament, reacted as if Berlsconi had abused his mother live on stage. The German, whose gang had been bandying about Godfather and Mafioso slogans to attack Berlusconi, whinged like a wronged schoolboy when Berlusconi served up some of his own medicine.
So of course Schultz has a grudge - despite rising to the dizzy ranks of EU parliament socialist leader thanks to his little publicity stunt, he still hasn't forgiven Berlusconi for his jibe.
And what better way for a hysteric to get his own back than bring down the entire commission - and lump the blame on Italy.
My Idea Of Festive Fun
A traditional Christmas gripe in Britain is that broadcasters use the festive season for repeat showings of ancient movies like The Sound of Music and The Wizard of Oz. Viewers in the Arab world this Ramadan can have no such complaint, as each year their state broadcasters unveil lavish productions.
Last year the Arab world thrilled to a series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A propaganda tract which has been dismissed as anti-semitic fiction of the most hateful kind by all but the the most crazed conspiracy theorist. France even considered banning one Arab-language distributor of the film following claims it depicted the infamous 'blood libel.'
This year, there's an even bigger treat in store, as a Palestinian-Syrian broadcaster prepares to show a series based on the life of a Hamas bomb-maker.
Yehya Ayyash, known by his disciples as "The Engineer," was thought to be behind the suicide murder of 100 Israelis between 1994-1996. The Jerusalem Post reports that since his death (he was taken out by a booby-trapped mobile phone) Ayyash has become a legend to Palestinian terror groups and their supporters.
Ayyash's wife claims that she was not consulted about the film. However, her worries appear to be limited to a concern that the film-makers might depict her without a head covering hijab.
The producers reassure her that the bomber and his life will be handled "honourably." Writer Salah Al-Bardawil says that the theme of the drama will be "Rejection of the occupation and Zionist and American hegemony, the importance of resistance and the need to avenge the blood of the (Palestinian) victims."
He says that the film was important, "because it supports the forces fighting against Israeli and American oppression and aggression in Palestine, Iraq and the Arab and Muslim region."
Al-Bardawil adds that he hopes the film inspires other "young and ambitious" people in the Arab world.
How's that for a heartwarming festive message?
EU Whistleblower Sacked
The EU's most prominent whistleblower was sacked yesterday after a 28-month enquiry.
Marta Andreasen, who had drawn attention to "Enron-style" accounting procedures in the EU was given the heave-ho during a secret tribunal.
As the Telegraph reports, internal EU evidence has largely proved Ms Andreasen's claims. However, uncovering $130 million worth of fraud is nothing compared to what the European Commission describes as her real crimes: Breach of loyalty and lack of discretion.
Andreason was first suspended in May 2002 for refusing to sign off EU accounts. She went public with her reservations, claiming that the Union's accounting procedures were a fraudster's paradise.
Ironically, she had been hired by commissioner Neil Kinnock as part of a drive to clean up the EU's fraudulent accounts.
Despite Kinnock's efforts, fraud scandals have continued to dog Romano Prodi's commission - while anyone trying to uncover scams has been at best dismissed as a Eurosceptic and at worst bullied and harassed in their workplace.
Andreason says she will appeal the decision. Few people other than whistleblowers are ever sacked by Brussels - though as the Telegraph reports, those they accuse of fraudulent practices tend to stay on in their jobs.
"Sin" Commissioner May Step Aside
The Italian minister whose controversial views on homosexuality have caused a storm at the EU parliament has hinted he might step aside.
Rocco Buttiglione is Italy's nomination for European Commission justice minister. His traditional Catholic views on homosexuality and marriage have infuriated MEPs who are currently conducting interviews to confirm the Commission as a whole.
As EURSOC reported on Tuesday, MEPs cannot block the appointment of individual nominees. They can, however, block the appointment of the entire commission. We claimed that the European parliament's leftist bloc was seeking an excuse to overturn the new Barroso commission, which it sees as a right-wing coup. Buttiglione's uncompromising religious beliefs may have given them the opportunity they needed - a theory that seems to be confirmed by reports in the Guardian that the socialists and liberals are being "pushed" to reject the entire commission over the issue.
Buttiglione himself has the backing of the president of the European Commission, Jose Barroso. Italy's conservative newspapers have also backed his candidacy, with the European Parliament's committee decision described as "fundamentalist" by some writers.
However, the candidate, who is currently Italy's European Affairs Minister, told the BBC's Today programme that he might renounce the job, declaring that he "had enough faith" to do so.
The European Parliament votes on the commission 27 October.
Up In Arms
Collin May writes for Eursoc:
This has been a busy week for European diplomacy as French president Jacques Chirac was in China drumming up business while calling for an end to an EU arms embargo against the Asian giant, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi was doing the same to end sanctions against Libya and the EU foreign ministers were busy sorting it all out.
But let’s begin with Libya. Now that Libya’s come in from the cold, revealing its weapons programs and paying compensation to the victims of Libyan sponsored terrorist acts, Italy felt it was about time the EU dropped its sanctions against the country, something the US has already done. Part of the reason for Italy’s position may have been pressure from Berlusconi’s friend George W. Bush, but from Italy’s point of view the move has other practical significance. Italy is plagued with illegal North African immigrants showing up at its ports in boats full to overflowing. Berlusconi wants the ban lifted so Italy can work with Libya, providing it with technology needed but banned under the sanctions, in order to monitor the flow of illegal immigrants from North Africa. And to his credit, the European foreign ministers have agreed to drop the sanctions – a diplomatic victory for Berlusconi.
At the same time, France’s Jacques Chirac has been in China, his primary mission being to increase trade between the two countries. Right now, France lags behind both the United States and other European powers, such as Germany, in the amount of trade it does with the Chinese.
But this wasn’t all Chirac spoke about during his time in Asia. He also made two other points, points which are intimately related. On one occasion, Chirac remarked that the world is in danger of falling victim to the standardization of American values. Now, when we hear this sort of statement from the mouth of France’s esteemed leader, we can take this to mean two things. First, he regrets that the diversity of world cultures is under threat from the domination of one culture – which in itself isn’t necessarily a condemnation of that culture; rather it can be seen as regret about the loss of differentiating elements. But then comes the second meaning, which is precisely to say that American culture is not really worth emulating, that it is a vast, uncivilized monolith that degrades all it touches. This is always Jacques Chirac’s double entendre.
In any case, Chirac then went further. He called for the EU to lift its ban on arms sales to China, just as Berlusconi had done in relation to Libya. The reason said ban was implemented in the first place was as a reaction to the massacres in Tiananmen Square in 1989. But to Chirac’s mind, this was something from “another time,” something to be forgotten. And after all, if Libya gets a second chance, why not China? Though one must wonder exactly what China has done to deserve this new consideration? Further, when asked about human rights in China, Chirac noted he’d discretely mentioned the issue to the Chinese, but that these matters require subtlety and finesse – the French specialty, though the East Europeans, lectured by Chirac about the virtues of silence during the build up to the Iraq war, may not quite agree.
Not surprisingly, France is at odds with the United States on the issue. The US has opposed lifting the ban because it feels China hasn’t done enough to demonstrate reform in the area of human rights, and that China would likely use improved weapons technology to threaten Taiwan along with other neighbors. The European foreign ministers, it seems, agreed as they decided that further study of the situation was needed, and until that time, the ban would remain.
In the end, Chirac’s support for lifting the ban is largely a diplomatic maneuver designed to endear him to the Chinese. And, given that the US already has a more extensive trade relationship with China than France, it’s clear that France has some work to do in the endearment department. Still, there are good arguments against lifting the ban, given the size, importance and potential military might of what is still a communist dictatorship employing rather brutal political repression. The same cannot be said of the much weaker Libya.
But to some extent, this is exactly the sort of rival to the US that France wants to see develop, and rather than regarding this as a cynical move on Chirac’s part, we should perhaps see it as the typical French diplomatic posture. Since the Suez Crisis in the 1950’s, France has sought, often not too successfully, to align itself with potential counters to American influence. This did not mean that France would simply take the side of, say, the Soviets – it rarely did. But France has always preferred a free hand for itself in international affairs coupled with the existence of a strong adversary for the US. With the end of the Soviet Union, France is both looking to act as a counter to the US and assist other powers that harbor similar goals. And incidentally, this arrangement would not be particularly multi-polar in its effects, but bipolar.
In short, France is both amplifying its Cold War role and resurrecting its centuries-old hostility to the Anglo-Saxon world. In many ways, the end of the Soviet Union has allowed France to return to a more self-indulgent and perhaps more naturally French foreign policy. And indeed, the same might be said of other European nations as well. Italy is again befriending Libya. Spain is making overtures to Morocco. France is cozying up to nations often hostile to the supposed values of the pays des droits de l’homme.
But the reaction of the Anglo-Saxons should not simply be one of dismissive scorn that places France in the category of irredeemable enemy. Certainly France is working to undermine American dominance in the world, but this is exactly the situation faced by the English since that country took on the mantle of steward of the European continental balance. The English knew, or should have known, that France was constantly seeking dominance on the continent, which necessarily went against the British policy of assuring such dominance was never achieved. France wasn’t unique in doing this since Spain and Germany did the same thing. France’s uniqueness lies rather in its willingness to ally itself with the least savory of nations and forces in order to achieve dominance. It was, after all, a huge scandal to Christian Europe when France befriended the Muslim Ottoman Turks in order to undermine the advance of the Catholic Hapsburgs. Similarly, during the Cold War and continuing today, we are often shocked by French affiliations with everyone from Saddam to Mugabe, from Arafat to Castro, all in the name of subtle diplomacy.
In reality, this is how France has always conducted its diplomacy, and it has had mixed results, especially as most other European nations cast a suspicious eye on French intentions, no matter the issue. As such, we should not be surprised that European foreign ministers agreed to acquiesce in Italy’s request to lift sanctions against Libya, but were less accommodating to the French desire to end the arms ban against China. The other Europeans know the desires for glory in the French heart all too well.
Still, I’m not suggesting that this means the Anglo-Saxons, and especially the Americans, should no longer deal with the French, or even work with them, at times. France perpetually seeks to undermine, to embarrass and to scuttle American dominance in the world. It does it through the EU, through alliances with like-minded European leftists and with foreign powers whenever possible. Naturally, China is a prime target. At the same time, France often finds itself running into a brick wall. West European governments, depending on whether the left or right is in power, will alternatively switch between a pro-American or pro-French policy (pro-French policy being equivalent to pro-European), allowing the French a degree of leverage when their allies are in ascendancy. Unfortunately for France, Britain and East Europe are rather more solidly pro-American regardless of who comes to power domestically. As such, France runs into something of a problem.
Moreover - and this is to the credit of the British and their mighty empire - the Americans do have the advantage of the Anglosphere, as it is sometimes called. Australia recently re-elected a staunchly pro-American government. Hong Kong, despite its incorporation into China, retains its democratic memory and preserves a link within China to the English tradition of parliamentary democracy. India, the jewel of the British crown, is increasingly becoming an American ally. And here we should note that all that outsourcing of American jobs to India is not without its political implications. In some regards, India combined with the US is seen as a possible force for containment against a growing China. (My homeland of Canada, however, is a slightly more complicated issue with various regions of the country holding their own specific views on relations with Britain and the US.)
So, France will continue its efforts, often vain, to counter the US. This should not be seen as a simply hostile act though. Rather, the US will have to consider it more in the manner of the British, who understood that France was a fellow democracy, but one that was constantly acting as if it wanted to be the only democracy – not a particularly democratic intention. Americans have a habit of obsessing over whether the world likes them or not. France has no such concern and even is willing to exploit this American sensitivity. The Anglo-Saxons need not take the bait. It is difficult to be the greatest power in the world, as the English can attest, but part of that greatness is to allow the smaller players to engage in their own games, but always aware that such games can be dangerous if not properly understood and dealt with.
Collin May also contributes to Innocents Abroad
This Land
Just in time for the US election, here's an amusing "tribute" to the contenders. Apologies, no doubt, to Woody Guthrie:
The French No
Forget the constitution: The most divisive issue facing the European Union today is Turkey's membership.
Last week, the European Commission recommended Turkey be given a date to begin negotiations to enter the EU. No one was surprised by the declaration, even though it came after a cat-and-mouse game between the EU and Turkey's "moderate" Islamist government over a repressive adultery law. Turkey won't join the EU for another ten years, at least.
That doesn't mean Europe will forget about Turkey until 2015, however. Rather, it has become a major issue, dividing elites from voters and threatening to split political parties.
France, so central to the European project, demonstrates the divisions Turkish membership will cause. As John Vinocur writes in today's International Herald Tribune, France has never been wholly happy about EU enlargement.
Influence, cash and jobs have seeped from Paris to the enlarged EU. Despite a few tantrums along the way (and a few since), Paris has rarely blocked EU enlargement. But for many French people and politicians, big, poor, Muslim Turkey could be a bridge too far.
President Chirac promised a referendum on Turkish membership - a move Ankara described as "very unjust." Chirac was merely acting in response to demands at home. Two potential presidential candidates, Nicolas Sarkozy and socialist Laurent Fabius, are opposed to Turkish entry. Their view is shared by former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who believes that Turkish membership would signal the end of Europe.
Between 55 and 60 per cent of French voters feel the same way.
Giscard d'Estaing's stance is crucial. He chaired the committee that drew up the European Constitution. While Chirac will throw his weight behind a yes vote in the referendum on the treaty (expected next year) many Frenchmen feel France lost ground in the constitutional negotiations. Some on the centre left (led by Fabius) and all the far-left (who Fabius is shamelessly playing to) oppose the treaty, claiming it will enshrine Anglo-Saxon capitalism in French law. Fabius has called for a new treaty based on France's social model - which is what many expected the constitution to supply in the first place.
Vinocur adds that nationalist French leaders and some on the centre-right, who share the left's interest in state control and protection of national "champions" also oppose the constitution.
However, it is disaffection with Turkish membership that could blow the whole deal. Chirac promised a referendum on Turkey partly to prevent opposition to Turkish membership damaging his yes campaign for the constitution. As the old saying goes, the trouble with referenda is that voters rarely answer the question they are asked. In this case, voters asked to decide whether or not to ratify the constitution might wish to voice their opposition to Turkey joining the EU.
One EURSOC correspondent wrote to suggest that Giscard d'Estaing himself might be next to pull his support from the treaty. This would be a huge surprise - after all, Giscard told fellow constitution delegates that he hoped grateful citizens would one day erect statues to the treaty's "framers." But his opposition to Turkey might be stronger than his affection for the treaty, which has been watered down from a US-style constitution he hoped for anyway.
Furthermore, our correspondent adds, the president's current weakness might prove irresistible to a man who has never forgiven Chirac for being re-elected when he wasn't.
In France, politics is not only local: It is personal.
Across the Channel, Britain is one of the few European countries enthusiastic about Turkish membership. Prime minister Tony Blair is one of Turkey's most vociferous supporters.
Why is this? The simple reason is that Turkish membership keeps most of Britain's interest groups happy, while further isolating opponents of enlargement.
* Eurosceptics are happy that the entry of this large nation will upset the EU's federalist drive, perhaps for good.
* Europhiles are happy because they think that EU values should be spread around the globe (but please don't describe their mission as a crusade).
* Nationalists are happy because pushing loudly for Turkish membership will irritate France and Germany (see above).
* Free marketeers and Economist leader writers are happy because spreading the joys of trade and free movement of peoples is a good thing in itself.
* The Foreign Office is happy because it is strongly pro-Muslim anyway.
* Blairites are happy because if France and Germany say Non/Nein in a referendum or elections then Blair avoids a damaging constitutional referendum.
* Guardian liberals are happy because it means doing something nice for poor brown people and undermines Europe's Christian identity, which they believe is to blame for everything that isn't the fault of the Americans.
* Atlanticists will be happy as the US has been pushing to bring Turkey in (perhaps the Americans should offer Turkey 51st state status if they want them so much).
So who is unhappy then? Anti-immigration groups will raise concerns about mass immigration, though most Turks who choose to emigrate will likely join larger Turkish communities in Germany and Austria (Austria, incidentally, is the only government to have come out strongly against Turkish membership).
There are certainly British Tories who oppose Turkish membership for religious or immigration reasons: Turkey could split the Conservatives again.
Because of Turkey's prominent and influential supporters, however, many opponents of membership will not speak out. In Britain the worst thing you can be accused of is Islamophobia. You can set off bombs in schools or roast babies for your supper and some clown will always find an excuse for you, but Allah help you if you say anything unpleasant about Muslims.
For this reason, Turkish membership is likely to be a less controversial issue in Britain than it is across the Channel in France, where - for once - it appears that a real debate is in the offing.
New Row Hits Commission Selection
Incoming European Commission president Jose Manuel Durao Barroso plans to defy a vote by a committee of MEPs rejecting one of his team.
The European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee voted by 26 to 27 to reject Rocco Buttiglione as Commissioner for Justice and Security.
Buttiglione, who is currently Italy's European Affairs minister, is a convervative Roman Catholic who claims that homosexuality is a sin.
During a hearing last week, Committee members pushed Buttiglione on his strong religious views. Buttiglione is known to be close to the Pope and his opinions on marriage ("marriage exists in order to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male who takes care of them and this is the traditional vision of marriage that I defend") and homosexuality were expected to enrage liberal northern Europeans.
In his defence, Buttiglione claims that while he believes homosexuality to be a sin, it is not a crime: "Nobody can be discriminated on the basis of sexual or gender orientation: this stands in the Charter of rights, this stands in the Costitution and I pledge to defend this."
Gay rights groups hailed the decision. One MEP on the committee said that "Most MEPs don't want this man to be put in charge of defending human rights, civil liberties and the EU's anti-discrimination laws." However, the MEPs also voted by a wider margin to block Buttiglione's appointment to substitute post on the commission.
Their claims were promptly rubbished by Buttiglione's ally, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi claimed that the vote was "crude propaganda" by Italy's leftists and warned that it amounted to an extremist attack on the minister's religious beliefs.
There may be something in what Berlusconi says. Many on Europe's left see the appointment of Barroso's commission - somewhat bizarrely - as a right wing coup.
The entire commission must be approved or rejected as a whole later this month: Individual appointments cannot be rejected. Because the left is in a minority in the European Parliament, rejecting the entire commission appeared to be a distant prospect - and so the left has spent the committee interrogations each appointee must undergo in an attempt to find weak spots in the commission.
Last week we reported that Britain's Peter Mandelson was to be grilled over his closeness to Tony Blair: Mandy fended off most of the criticism aimed at him. Designated competition commissioner Neelie Kroes has come under fire for her extensive business interests and lack of knowledge of the post.
However, it seems that Buttiglione will be the chink in Barroso's armour. His opinions obviously enrage much of the left, but his sponsor - Silvio Berlusconi - adds further controversy to his appointment. Berlusconi is a hate figure among socialist MEPs, not least for his outburst last year when he described a moaning German socialist as a concentration camp capo. Even some right-wingers are suspicious of Berlusconi's business interests and attempts to "reform" Italy's courts.
Many on the left are no doubt banking that the more libertarian of the European Parliament's right-wingers will also now vote against the commission. It is almost certain that France's conservative Gaullist UMP bloc has been looking for any opportunity to reject a commission that it sees as too Atlanticist, too British in flavour. Jacques Chirac's UMP is hardly gay-friendly, but perhaps Buttiglione will give them the excuse they need to vote against Barroso and his team. It would play well at home, too: France's socialist party and its many supporters in the media have been among Barroso's loudest critics. Ousting the commission would not only steal a march on Chirac's opponents on the left, it would reassert French power at the centre of Europe, even if it was only an opportunistic vote.
As for Barroso, he's sticking with his man. According to latest reports from the BBC, he has "full confidence" in his team.
Peking Duck
French President Jacques Chirac is in China this week, returning his Chinese counterpart's visit to France last year.
Chirac is in town to drum up Chinese investment in French business. This is fair enough: France, like everywhere else, can expect to lose thousands of manufacturing jobs to China in the next few years. Only idiots run their countries as charities, and it is right that Chirac should be in Beijing and Shanghai to try to win some investment in return.
France has quite a lot to offer China: China's nouveau riche entrepreneurs sip expensive French wines in riverside cafés, while fashion labels like Hermes and Louis Vuitton have become sought-after status symbols for wealthy Chinese.
France also makes excellent trains: A combination of endless government subsidy and an elite that was able to draw tracks across the fastest possible route, never mind the cost or objection from landowners and environmental groups, means that France has unrivalled expertise in building public transport networks. Sure enough, Chirac is hoping that China signs up for more French-built high-speed trains (several are already in operation).
All those subsidies could begin to pay off if France's trains became the transport of choice for China's industrial revolution.
France also offers expertise in aerospace, electronic engineering and computing.
Clearly, no-one would begrudge France's attempts to position itself as vendor of choice for this vast new market (with the possible exceptions of Germany and Japan, who are also trying to flog railway sets to the Chinese).
France's bid for Chinese business is being backed with spectacle and - less attractively - not a little political wheeling and dealing. This year has been declared "The Year of France in China" - last year, the "Year of China in France" saw the Eiffel Tower illuminated with red lights to celebrate China. This week, China returned the compliment, hosting a concert by French musician Jean Michel Jarre at Beijing's forbidden city. Balloons suspended above the city were lit in the French colours of blue, white and red, symbols of liberté, egalité and fraternité.
There may have been a certain about of equality and fraternity on display that night, but there was precious little liberty. Jarre himself admitted that his plans to perform with China's best known pop star Cui Jian had to be shelved under pressure from the Chinese government: Cui Jian's songs had been sung by the student protesters who were massacred in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
The shadow of the Tiananmen Square slaughter loomed large over the celebrations in other respects. It's fifteen years since hundreds - some would say thousands - of protesters were shot by Chinese security forces. Some statesmen might use the anniversary of the massacre to reflect on whether China's economic power will soon be matched with political and military expansion - and whether this is a good thing in a nation willing to suppress dissent so brutally.
Others, like Chirac, use the anniversary to call for an end to the European Union arms embargo on China. Chirac has approached the EU twice this year to demand an end to the arms ban - and both times has been knocked back - most recently in June. He used his meeting with China's boss Hu Jintao to call for an end to the ban yet again, arguing that it had "no foundation or justification."
Others might disagree: China's human rights groups, for a start, who argue that the Tiananmen massacre cannot be dismissed as belonging to "another age" just fifteen years on.
The people of Taiwan might argue the same line. China describes the killings as the "suppression of a counter-revolutionary riot." Taiwan's continued insistence that it is an independent state is viewed equally dimly in Beijing - to the extent that China has 600 ballistic missiles aimed at the island, and is adding more every year. Beijing this year staged a war games exercise simulating the invasion of Taiwan. In March this year France joined China in naval war games off China's eastern coast only three days before a controversial Taiwan election.
China has warned that any further declarations of independence from Taiwan may lead to an attack. Any such invasion would lead to repression which would make Tiananmen look like a walk in the park.
Perhaps Chirac wants a share in this build-up? Or perhaps his pleas to Europe to lift the embargo on arms sales is simply the price he must pay to win the contract for France's trains and engineers?
Of course, there is a wider geopolitical game at stake. Chirac makes no secret of the fact that he sees an alliance with China as an integral part of the "multipolar world" he hopes will limit US action in future. A build up of arms to China could limit US action in a very real way: China's imperialist ambitions for Taiwan have long been blocked by a US guarantee to protect the island democracy. However, with the US fighting the war on terror in the middle east, America is in no mood to fight China as well - and is said to have warned Taiwan that its guarantee is based on Taiwan not going out of its way to provoke Beijing.
America, perhaps aware that French weapons could one day be used against its troops, remains opposed to lifting the arms embargo on China. Demanding that it go, as Chirac has, puts another bee in Washington's bonnet.
In the end, Chirac might not need the ban lifted if he is determined to prop up China's regime.
The UN-Iraq oil for food scandal demonstrated that international bans are no obstacle for nations determined to help their favourite dictators. And France has already sold suspect technology to the Chinese. According to press freedom group Reporters sans frontières, the partly-state-owned French arms company Thales supplied China with ALLISS aerials scrambling equipment to prevent Chinese citizens from receiving broadcasts from Norway-based Voice of Tibet, BBC World Service, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
Europe This Week
Londonstan
David T, one of Eursoc's favourite contributors to the marvellous Harry's Place, picks up on a story in the Observer which should have received more attention.
Just after the Beslan massacre, Moscow's claims that "Arab fighters" had been among the killers were rubbished by many in Europe. The fact that the leader of the terror faction that carried out the attacks said himself that Arabs were among the mass murdering "militants" didn't make the front pages.
Now it turns out that not only were two of the terrorists Arabs, they suffered the jackboot of Vladimir Putin's oppression in, er, London.
The Arabs in question were regular attendees at London's infamous Finsbury Park Mosque, which attracts such rum characters as Sheikh Abu Hamza (currently being held in connection with terror charges - also under investigation for stirring up racial hatred and inciting violence). Last year, police arrested seven men during a raid on the mosque in connection with a ricin poison find.
The news that the terrorists behind the mass slaughter of hundreds of children in Beslan had been happily living in London might have given Britain's human rights industry pause for thought. But no: On Tuesday, lawyers for a number of foreign nationals held on suspicion of terrorist offences told a gathering of Britain's top judges that Britain should set the detainees free.
The nine men currently held at the high-security Belmarsh prison are being held under a new anti-terror act, which the UK had to opt out of the European human rights charter to implement. Under the new act, however, Britain is unable to deport the detainees to their own countries, where they may face execution.
So Long, Iman
One country with no qualms about booting troublesome foreigners off its territory is France, which yesterday deported another Muslim cleric.
The turbulent priest, Abdelkader Bouziane, was kicked out in February after calling for the beating of women and stoning of adulterers in a magazine article. A French court overturned the decision and Bouziane was allowed to return from his native Algeria.
However, France's president Chirac is made of sterner stuff than France's bleeding heart judges, and threatened to change the law if the court refused to grant the order.
Bouziane, who is said to have links to Afghan, Chechen and Yemeni terrorists, was frogmarched to a jet in Lyon and flown to Algeria yesterday.
In April France booted out another Algerian cleric who had praised the Madrid mass murders.
ETA's peace dividend
Ever wondered exactly how the IRA has been putting all those weapons "beyond use?"
Why, by selling them to Basque terrorists ETA, of course. Yesterday it was claimed that two surface-to-air missiles found in a "decapitation" raid on ETA's leadership were sold by Irish arms dealers four years ago.
According to the Guardian, Spain and France have known about the missiles for three years, thanks to the discovery of English instructions on how to fire the things at aircraft in an ETA safe house.
In all, 21 suspected ETA terrorists were rounded up in the weekend raids, including the terror group's leader, Mikel Albizu Iriarte.
60,000 projectiles, dozens of machine guns and heavy weapons were also found, though Spain's government has urged caution, warning that ETA has been able to regroup after "decapitation" strikes in the past.
The UN's Global Test
It's been a bad week for the United Nations. Yesterday, America and Iraq asserted that they were going to pursue UN officials accused of accepting bribes from Saddam's regime under the "oil-for-food" system.
Yesterday, a UN inspector became the first official to be called before an enquiry: He is said to have taken $60,000 from Saddam's government. Britain and the US claim that billions of dollars were diverted from the programme into Saddam's pockets - with the collusion of foreign governments, notably France's and Russia's.
France and Russia have obstructed efforts to unravel the web of kickbacks and bribes - and are resisting any enquiry into the oil-for-food scandal.
As if knowingly propping up a bloodthirsty dictator was not enough - and some might argue that that's business as usual for the UN - it has become clear that the UN in the Middle East has been employing Hamas terrorists.
Melanie Phillips has the story: The head of the UN's relief and works agency doesn't seem too worried about the fact that his organisation has Hamas "officials" on its payroll, arguing that "not every member is a militant and we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another."
They do not do political vetting? Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and has claimed numerous mass murders of Israeli civilians. Anyone who works for this organisation is tainted: Anyone who employs people from this organisation must share that blame.
Somehow, however, we don't think that the UN will be too worried about its association with Palestinian terrorists.
Spanish Snub For US
Spain's new government has cancelled the United States' invitation to its annual national day parade.
US soldiers have joined the October 12 parade every year since 2001, when they were invited by the previous government as a show of solidarity after the 9/11 terror attacks.
This year, however, the invitation has been dropped. Spain's new government, led by prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez "Zappo" Zapatero, has quickly asserted its credentials as one of Europe's most anti-American. It also irritated other European allies, including Britain, Poland and Italy, by pulling Spain's troops from Iraq with unseemly haste - just as it became clear that the UN-approved conditions Zappo had demanded to keep them in were about to be met.
Spain might have been struck off Washington's Christmas card list but its baiting of the Great Satan endeared it to France and Germany. France's president Jacques Chirac must have indulged in some Darth Vader "I am your master now" antics when he discovered just how craven Zappo's appeals to join the Franco-German axis as a junior partner had become.
Coincidentally, the US invitation to march in the Madrid parade has been handed to France. Madrid claims that France's invitation celebrates the sixtieth anniversary of France's liberation, which as everyone knows came about solely via the efforts of French troops.
Spain's defence minister José Bono was eager to dismiss claims that the snub was an "insult" or "act of contempt against the United States."
However, Bono, who is to sensitive diplomacy what his rock star namesake is to subtle melody, couldn't keep the mask in place for very long. He added that Spain was "no longer kneeling" at the United States' feet and that "With Bush, peace and liberty have not exactly triumphed."
Bono is best known outside his country for calling British prime minister Tony Blair a "dickhead."
Euro-reality Bites Mandy
Peter Mandelson - Britain's nominated European Commissioner for Trade - will have to put his centrist credentials to one side when he takes the job.
Today, Mandelson faces a three-hour grilling by MEPs. All prospective commissioners undergo the same trial, even though the European Parliament cannot block individual commissioners: It can only vote against the nominated commission as a whole.
Despite Mandelson's relative safety, he will be confronted with the sheer scale of EU corruption today as the assembled ranks of subsidy leeches demand that he defend the Common Agricultural Policy. The Guardian reports that he will be told that he cannot offer too much in the way of reform of the CAP - and can only make tiny concessions if he is able to wring great change from trading partners.
This is unlikely to faze Mandelson, though reform of the hated CAP is one of his former boss Tony Blair's central planks of EU policy. Furthermore, the fact that much of CAP's cash has been stitched up for the foreseeable future leaves him little negotiating room in any case.
More embarrassing could be Mandy's responses to left-wing MEPs questions on his economic views. Left wing MEPs, still upset that the new commission is headed by a pro-US liberal, have vowed to make the procedure of installing commissioners as difficult as possible.
Green NGO Friends of the Earth claim Mandelson is going to use his position to push through a fiercely free-trade agenda with little thought for the environment or the developing world.
A Green spokesperson wondered whether the British commissioner would support the Atlanticist model of free markets or the Franco-German system of regulation and social protection. Odd that it seems to have escaped the NGO's attention that Mandelson's "native" position - if he were allowed to pursue it - would do more for the developing world than the EU's subsidies and social protection.
French left-wingers moan that the EU and specifically the European Commission is in the grip of fanatic free marketeers bent on destroying the French social model - hence recent calls for a No vote in the forthcoming Constitution referendum by prominent leftists.
One French newspaper described the nomination of the new commission as a "capitalist putsch" which would introduce a market economy "against all our ideals."
Given the opportunity to quiz someone viewed by many as being at the heart of Britain's liberal economic policy, they're certain to give Mandelson a tough old time. Never mind that France's left has been whinging that the Commission is a free-market plot for aeons, even while it was run by socialists.
The fact that the former British cabinet minister is also one of Tony Blair's most trusted allies will raise the temperature further still: Western European leftists hate Blair as much, if not more than they hate George W Bush.
And that's before Britain's Conservative and UK Independence parties get involved - both of whom have their own reasons for attacking Mandy.
It's going to be a long day...
Germans Push For Pop Quota
German radio listeners could soon hear a lot less of their favourite David Hasselhof records if a group of musicians pushing for a law limiting English-language music have their way.
A group of 500 German rockers signed a petition demanding that the government introduce a quota forcing radio stations to play more Teutonic pop. At present, only around ten percent of records on German radio are by German artists.
The government has responded by creating a cultural committee to look into the issue. One member of the committee who supports the artists said that she hoped broadcasters would voluntarily increase the number of German songs aired. However, if broadcasters refuse to comply, she will push for a mandatory quota.
German artists look to France as an example of enforced quotas for home-grown pop. France introduced laws forcing broadcasters to dedicate forty percent of their output to French pop in response to elite fears that French music is so dreadful citizens must be forced to listen to it.
Some DJs fought the ban by playing home-grown tripe in the dead hours of the morning, but most chose to stay on the right side of the law. (We'll take a little intermission here to giggle at the idea of French civil servants scouring the playlists to ensure the cultural and linguistic purity of the nation's pop music).
A cursory glance at the French pop charts shows that French artists have indeed made a comeback, probably as a result of the law. However, it does not seem to have done much for the careers of the artsy crooners who work in the grand tradition of French chanson: Instead, France's pop charts are filled with home-grown manufactured boy and girl bands, often formed in TV "Fame Academy" shows. So much for protecting the nation's identity and culture.
Which Duck Is Lame?
Prime minister Tony Blair goes under the knife today to correct a minor heart flutter. Sensing sudden weakness in their most loathed adversary, Britain's Tories move in for the kill...
The reliable Daily Telegraph leads the charge. In an interview revealing his imminent operation given last night, Blair told reporters that he intended to run for PM in the next election (expected 2005) and would then serve a full term.
He added that he would not seek re-election after that.
According to the Telegraph's leader column, this makes Blair a "lame duck."
Eh?
Describing Blair's decision as an "earthquake that will alter the landscape of British politics" the Telegraph claims that the "countdown to the handover of power" has begun. The recipient of the handover presumably being Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, who covets Blair's job and is thought to be very impatient to take it.
There are only a few faults in the Telegraph's logic. First, a countdown has an end point: When Apollo 11 was perched on top of the mighty Saturn V rocket in 1969, the astronauts listened to a countdown. They were fairly sure that the countdown would end at zero: If Blair had given a fixed date for his retirement, we could maybe do that.
However, he hasn't even revealed the date of the next general election - and could hold it in 2006 if he wanted. Even if he does hold it as expected next spring, there is no indication when his third term will end.
Blair says he wants to serve a full third term. That means he could step down any time between 2009 and 2011.
Hardly the most urgent countdown. Furthermore, a lame duck refers specifically to that period - usually the last two years - of a two-term US presidency, where long-term plans become difficult because all eyes are on the next administration. Unlike British office, the US president is only allowed two terms in office.
George W Bush has not yet been re-elected. If he is, he will have to leave office in 2008.
If Blair wins next year, he could well stay in office longer than Bush. By the Telegraph's reckoning, President Bush is even more of a lame duck that Tony Blair.
If the Telegraph really wants to put a lame duck in its sights it could do worse than take aim at Tory leader Michael Howard. Howard's recent remarks on the Iraq war reveal an ever-more-disturbing opportunism. His party was beaten into fourth place by the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party in last night's by-election in Hartlepool.
New Labour surprised many by retaining the seat - an antiwar Lib Dem was hyped as a sure winner by many hopefuls in the press.
Despite the best efforts of the Tories and the media, Blair is still on course to win next year's general election. Michael Howard will be the fourth Tory leader to stand down in fewer than ten years after failing to land any blows on Blair.
Who is the lame duck here, exactly? We can only hear quacking from the Tories.
RSVP
This is a strange story.
Melanie Phillips picks up on an article by Amir Taheri. Taheri was reporting on French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin's meeting with the head of the Figaro press group. Le Figaro is one of France's leading daily newspapers, leans centre-right. One of its journalists is being held by terrorist kidnappers in Iraq and both the French government and media have been pulling in favours throughout the Arab world to secure the release of the reporter and his colleague.
Raffarin is said to have told his visitor, "the Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
Wonder what Raffarin means by this. The Iraqi insurgents, who yesterday added 36 children to the list of the thousands of Iraqis they have killed, are now allies of the French government? It is surprising to hear it put in such terms by such a prominent leader, but it is not new or unusual for anti-war groups to cheer on the "resistance:" John Pilger did it, various Stop the War activists have done it, it should come as no great surprise that a leader of the most anti-war nation of them all did so too.
Or perhaps Raffarin meant that the insurgents are helping France locate the kidnapped journalists? It's conceivable that many Iraqis who are fighting Allied troops are opposed to the jihadi tactic of kidnapping foreigners but some reports say that much of the "resistance" is led by foreign fighters.
Hard to say. Any readers out there with a better explanation? Please email us at the usual address.
