Sorry for lack of posts- but this might continue over the weekend as I have a nephew's christening and family engagements, plus many practical things to do.

Anyway, I am minded to compare the relatively trivial (important more for what it says about US conservatism than for its potential to change history) and the historic. In the latter case we see how the 'decadent' liberal West (and its desperate eastern neighbours) could develop a suicidal fifth column dedicated to enriching themselves by collaborating with one of the last century's monsters. In the former case we have a less-than-exciting moderately conservative career woman.

Can you guess which one has the BBC salivating at the moment? Yup, they're missing history, folks- and so, vicariously, do the Brits (and others) who lend them their interest.

Hell hath no fury, or Why's it taken so long? or the last laugh

It would be too poetic, too delicious, to find that George Galloway had been betrayed by the deliberate carelessness of his own wife in failing to cover Georgeous' paper trail to her own bank account in Jordan. It is interesting however to find George bleating 'I am not responsible for my wife'. Good point George. A real crowd pleaser.

But anyway, I hope, it would seem, the game's up for Georgeous this time around, whether the result of his estranged wife's leaving present or not. And really, given the bluster and the repeated links between George and the oil, and the unanswered questions about his relationship with one of Saddam's oil traders, about time too.

Well done to the Beeb for reporting this promptly. However, the fact that they only concentrate on the claims of perjury made in the US, and not on the money trail linking Saddam with George, is disgraceful. As a last huzzah they mention the virtually meaningless libel victory George won against the Telegraph in December. All I can say is that I hope George hasn't spent the money, as he might need to give it back.

Congrats too though to Sen. Coleman, who was a little bit blown away by the Glaswegian's bombast at the Senate Hearing in May. However, I hope (though I'm never sure of anything with regards to Galloway) that we can laugh a little now at Galloway's expense. And he who laughs last tends to be able to decide the terms. Much like George's wife.

(cross-posted at B-BBC)

Was Granddad in Iraq on his own?

Well, the though crossed my mind when I read John Simpson's apologia for Saddam, in which he maintained that the British in Iraq during the 1920's and the reign of Saddam were comparable.

To quote Simpson:

'Saddam Hussein's notion of governing a restless, difficult country like Iraq was that it could only be done with ferocity.

In that he was no different from the presidents and kings before him; no different either from the British, who had the mandate from the League of Nations to run Iraq after 1920, and who used some ferocious tactics to try to protect their rule.'

There are a number of sleights of hand in this article, but I want to concentrate on a matter of fact. Simpson avers of the British that

'They took over, full of the conviction that as the most powerful military nation on earth, with the best political system in human history, the Iraqis would be delighted to be ruled by them.

Within six months the British were negotiating a way out, and after twelve years (imperial powers hate to seem to be cutting and running) they gave up the mandate and left.'

Of course there is the obvious attempt to humorously parallel the US notion of not cutting and running from Iraq, but notice that Simpson said 'they left' (in 1932).

Because I happened to know that the British did not in fact leave in 1932. They gave up the Mandate offered them by the League of Nations then. In fact throughout the 30's they maintained a military presence, and my Grandfather was part of it, being a navigator in the RAF. I have photos of 1930's Mosul that I'm longing to get online and will one day.

So Simpson is simply wrong to say the British left. In fact, as was their wont, they signed a treaty:

'It provided for the establishment of a "close alliance" between Britain and Iraq with "full and frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy which may affect their common interests." Iraq would maintain internal order and defend itself against foreign aggression, supported by Britain. Any dispute between Iraq and a third state involving the risk of war was to be discussed with Britain in the hope of a settlement in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations. In the event of an imminent threat of war, the two parties would take a common defense position. Iraq recognized that the maintenance and protection of essential British communications was in the interest of both parties. Air-base sites for British troops were therefore granted near Basra and west of the Euphrates (where my Grandfather was), but these forces "shall not constitute in any manner an occupation, and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of Iraq." This treaty, valid for 25 years, was to come into effect after Iraq joined the League of Nations. On Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations as an independent state.'

As for the British being as bad as Saddam, I don't see the Iraqi government offering Saddam's henchmen any airbases just now, do you?

(nb. The following post was originally destined for B-BBC. For some reason it failed to post. Then I thought it might have been too long anyway for the B-BBC blog, and it reiterated anyway feelings I had made clear there in posts like this one. Rather than waste the efforts I'd spent though, I thought I'd paste it here.)


The BBC's appalling anti-Americanism

No, I am not about to give some startling example of BBC ignorance or callous misrepresentation of the US- holding as I do no brief whatsoever for going into bat for the US of A- as though we need it spelled out in lurid language just how anti-American the BBC is.

But, I just can't get over the BBC's coverage of the Pakistan earthquake, and how they have neglected quite wilfully to report the US' response to it.

I noticed today the BBC reporting that one of three British chinook helicopters destined for Pakistan had left the UK, on board a transport plane. I'd have thought there might have been a case for saying this is a little bit late in the day and that the BBC might have been justified in saying it- but that, I think, would be to misconceive the BBC's political role. Its considerations include not offending one of its paymasters, the Foreign Office. They also include winning the favour of millions of totally biased muslims and others by acting as a sceptical (not to say completely jaundiced) eye on the US. In this case it was a blind eye.

Because just look at what the US has been doing. The US has devoted no fewer than 17 helicopters, with 20 more en route to the region. Furthermore,

'Television news broadcasts have been filled in recent days with images of U.S. Navy cargo ships offloading relief supplies in Karachi, olive-drab Chinook helicopters disgorging bundles of tents and blankets in isolated mountain villages, and American soldiers -- some diverted from military operations in Afghanistan -- working with their Pakistani counterparts to evacuate the injured.'

nb.- those would be domestic Pakistani news broadcasts. I'm not sure what other channels have reported, but I think the BBC (at least through its website) has been bending over backwards to avoid it (even in its overview of the disaster- where we hear from the oh-so-important Mr Egeland of the United Nations and of the role of Pakistani military helicopters. Please feel free to join me in an in depth search of the BBC site to see if the US efforts have warranted a serious mention; and of course report any good- which is to say, corrective- TV or radio broadcasting. I don't think we need to bother ourselves with the highminded idea that the BBC is concerned just to report the needs and the human stories out in the Kashmir instead of naming political names. After all not only did the egregious Egeland get a starring role- who is this unelected turnip anyway?- the UN got its own article, where we heard about the poor old thing's 'worst nightmare'.)

Why is this important?

Well, with the BBC regularly playing up the world's (and especially muslim) hostility to the global superpower, now comes a time when the US has a chance of refuting its unfairest critics and the BBC sits on its hands and bleats about the UN while other media can report testimonies like this:

'Obviously, this is the other side of the United States," said Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Shujabadi, a prominent religious scholar in the port city of Karachi. "For the first time in so many years I have seen the American planes dropping relief and not bombs on the Muslim population."

In fairness to Mr Shujabadi its possible he could have sought out the the BBC for his international news during the tsunami last year, which might help explain his ignorance of US aid efforts to muslims. Of course as the WaPo says 'It is too early to say whether the aid operation will have any lasting effect on public attitudes'(in Pakistan), but that doesn't mean we can ignore a global media empire which shows its ill-will by studiously ignoring concrete and positive images of the US when at their most newsworthy. The BBC, having been heavily criticised for allowing political considerations to dominate its handling of the Kelly affair in 2003 (and this was a unique application of the magnifying glass to BBC business as it usually unfolds), is still playing politics. It doesn't understand its responsibilities.

As Laban Tall's post at B-BBC indicates, muslim attitudes to us infidels can cost lives. Is it too much to ask the BBC to forget the political agendarising, to ignore their hatred of George Bush and to damn well do the job they're paid to do by reporting the major events and contributions, by telling us what is happening when it is happening rather than playing for their Islamic viewing figures and the approval of FO mandarins (or any other of their priority audiences)?

Just some great reading.

Mark Steyn has another insightful article in the Spectator, which rounds up my current interest in Russia and the Islamic threat there by addressing the timebomb that is Russian decline. Talking it over with someone, they argued that Russia was 'different', and one couldn't judge it the same way as other countries. Plus, he didn't trust demographic studies. 'Russian exceptionalism, eh?' I responded. 'I thought that wasn't allowed'. I also said that if there was an exceptional country in the region, it would be China, not Russia.

Anyhow, analysing another country which thinks itself different- France- David Pryce-Jones really caught my attention this time with his devastating history of Franco-Islamic closeness. I know he always does a great job, but this time I read a great chunk of it, and it was, well, great- so I'm sharing what was shared with me.

I'm a Foxie, probably always would have been had it not been for his percieved no-hoper status in the race to reach the position of top-Tory; but Melanie Phillips really made me smile. Said it all really:

'he has never quite shaken off the impression that he remains a junior doctor in rag week'

Update: (and this gives me an opportunity to say that blogger, according to its deep mysteries, is posting my posts quite some hours after they are written, making some of them out of date when they are posted. Aaagrh!)

Doctor Fox has sadly been hounded out of the race. This is a disappointment for me, but not really a surprise. Davis lost votes to Fox, clearly, and probably lost more (especially among the unalligned) to Cameron. Will all the Fox votes go to Davis, and will Davis maintain his current base? Difficult to say. I think it could be tight but from the fact that people have little tangible against Cameron I expect that it won't be and that Cameron will canter home. Fox vs Cameron, as Mel says, would have been a different matter and one which I was hoping to see.

Then again, I would say that Little Lord Fauntleroy won't be as liberal as some people think. He's a public schoolboy- a little reminiscent of my brother-in-law, actually- and they can be good at appearing all soft when thy actually have a good deal of toughness within.

I commented recently on the BBC's avoidance of calling an Islamist an Islamist in Chechnya.

The reason seems to be the oft-observed piety that Islam had nothing to do with the Chechen conflict until recent years, and that (natch) this outgrowth is the consequence of the hard line taken by the Kremlin.

Oh well, yes, (or maybe NO!) but... is it really necessary to go to this extent:

'In his statement on the Kavkaz Center website, which was couched in Islamic terms, Shamil Basayev said that 217 "mujahideen" had attacked Nalchik, targeting police stations and military installations as well as the airport.'

Er, duh! When is a mujahideen not a mujahideen?

No, it's not when he's a mujahasbeen! It's when he's a "mujahideen".

What? Is there some special Islamist NVQ (National Vocation Qualification, in UKtopian terms) they should have to have the scare-quotes withdrawn? Or would we need it from the horse's mouth rather than his commander's, that he was indeed a fully paid up and equivalent to our worst Power of Nightmares fantasy a MU-JA-HI-DEEN.

And do we assume that the term 'infidel' (see later in the article) was reserved only for the media statement rather than forming part of the movement's terminology?

But most silly of all is the 'couched in Islamic terms' thing. How couched, I wonder? Just seated primly or totally sunk in? The point is, since the man responsible for Beslan is back in the news with the Nalchik raid, who can have any compunction in using the term Islamist save the most reality-cringing and distorting kind of journalist- found, it would seem, in limitless, overwhelming supply at the BBC.

The Washington Times managed to be direct and accurate, and with the Beslan massacre behind us, and the Chechens' own websites proclaiming their Islamism, why can't/won't the Beeb now bow to reality? What holds them back? The only satisfactory response would be a detailed analysis showing how the Chechens' websites and contents were fakes, or unrepresentative of the rebel forces- in fact in all likelihood propaganda spread by Russia to get the West to help them out. I look forward to hearing that argument from someone.

ah, but did she have in mind me? Or you?

The quest for Karadzic: a true sense of comedy from the Beeb.

Naturally I'd like him caught- though not to spare the EU's blushes (if, that is, the EU ever blush about anything)- but the somehow pertinent observation of the BBC that the fugitive's poems 'describe mountains, thick green forests, rivers and wild animals.' , as though he were dropping some kind of locational clue here, is quite funny indeed.

Not exactly quiet on the Eastern Front

The War on Terror reminds me of the Cold War: the same sense of a hidden enemy, or at least an enemy whose schemes were difficult to fathom and geopolitically wideranging. Every time you heard about some conflict in a strange part of the world it gradually emerged that the commies had something to do with it. The tragedy for me is that the WoT is in some ways a continuation- different name (Islam), same relentless ideology pushing millions down hopeless paths of antagonism to countries that mean them no harm.

There are other points of similarity too. Just as in times past the various Soviet- inspired rebellions and coups were always styled some kind of popular revolt, so today no-one wants to call a spade a spade. Mark Steyn has an article on this very 'unnaming' menace. I think he should have added the BBC to his list rather than going after the better-than-average Scotsman.

While the bombs and bullets were just about subsiding in Nalchik, the BBC were busy trying to show 'the other side' of Islam in Russia.

The problem is that it's not news- it's anti-news-, as if the story of a white man minding his own business in East Anglia were a necessary antidote to a racist attack.

By contrast with the BBC's upfront reporting of Islam's moderate (and distinctly quiet) Russian muslim mainstream (and note how the main dynamic, that of radical Islamic agitation from the geographical fringe against the centralised Russian system is sidestepped here), their coverage of the Nalchik violence is determined to place Islam somewhere down the line in the roll call of rootcauses:

'Citizens of the Russian region of Kabardino-Balkaria have held a day of mourning in memory of the 36 killed in an attack by Chechen-backed militants.
Flags on government buildings were flown at half-mast, as police checked vehicles and the area returned to calm.

Twelve civilians and 24 members of the security forces died in the violence in Nalchik, with 91 attackers reported to have been killed and some 36 captured.

The rebels are thought to be a mix of local Islamic militants and extremists.

Their aim was to demand independence for Chechnya.'

I like the way they are described as 'a mix of local Islamic militants and extremists' . That way, we know they are local, not international, Islamists, and that the extremists appear to be something different ie. not Islamists (it is clear in context we are being invited to see a strand of nationalist extremism at work here).

In the end the BBC do allow some notion of Islamic extremism to enter, but they tether the loathsome beast firmly to the solid trunk of 'rootcauses':

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says a combination of poverty and iron rule have created a fertile soil for Islamic extremism in the region, exacerbated by an unemployment rate of up to 90%.

Going back to my starting point, isn't that exactly the sort of thing we heard during Cold War coups: mustn't blame the people, they're poor and oppressed.

Newsweek is significantly more effective than the Beeb in pointing out the salient news trends.

The problem is that denial means that we are unprepared for the next big shock. Much as I am enthusiastic about progress in Iraq, and rejoice in the exercise of freedom, it seems that the media is failing to give us the global perspective we require. It's interesting, for instance, that the EU and Blair have been sucking up to Putin, and giving him what he wants, but one wonders if that's missing the point with Russia in the parlous state it's in now, or likely to be in soon.

The BBC has a future?

Here's the text of the BBC's chums' notion of market research. I think it's nonsense, since the question of what to pay for and how to value the BBC is being asked within a completely skewed context- where we have a monolithic organisation bound up with the history of Britain going right back, and a market that's been shaped by their existence from its beginning. However, I have several good acquaintances who know high level market research in theory and in practise- and I plan to glean some observations from them.

Stop the press: Mark Steyn likes a film. As an addicted reader of Steyn, and especially of his film reviews- where his aim is surefire and precise- I have to restrain myself from linking him; but now I feel it could be a public service announcement to say this: Serenity appears to be good.

I might be tempted to say we should all go Dutch- and ban the burqa, but then again what if going Dutch means talking to Al Qaeda? (hat tip ATW)

A Nobel Assault?

I doubt I am the only one unsurprised at Harold Pinter's success in winning the Nobel Prize for Literature- but it's strange.

Until a couple of years ago I'd all but forgotten Pinter- he was one of those irrelevant and inferior representatives of modern patriotic/socialist British literature (think Hughes, Bennett, Loach etc.) I'd had foisted on me at school and university and had just about managed to vomit out of my memory. Then came the Iraq war and suddenly Pinter was hip and relevant. He produced some 'ravishing' poetry which can be read here.

What I couldn't believe was how the BBC managed to mention the prize he's won without pointing out that Pinter and Al Baradei (the peace prize winner) shared the same anti-Iraq war viewpoint. They mention that Pinter is controversial and was a fierce critic of Reagan and Thatcher, but they don't mention his most obvious claim to recent fame- which, it appears, is generally the main consideration for the publicity conscious Nobellers. To me it's almost indisputable that Pinter would have failed to win the Nobel Prize were it not for his anti-Iraq war stance (not that I give a monkey's about the Nobel Prize, but people do).

An aside- I find it particularly obnoxious that the nobel panel chose to say (and were quoted by the Beeb saying) that Pinter '"uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms".'

This is absolutely what he has not done. He has been the metaphorical aider and abettor of the literal oppressor in the literal closed room, with a literal victim- in Iraq.

Update!!!- major stealth edit alert!!! Now they tell us 'The playwright is known for speaking out on issues like the war on Iraq'. And then they eulogise. (+ I edited my own post- I meant to say unsurprised earlier.)

Also noteworthy, also from an EU-watching blog- this post about the remarkable steps being taken, and contested by the French, to massively reduce agricultural subsidies.

Random piece of British poltics: here is an insight I really hope is correct (nice site, too).

I couldn't help being slightly amused at the thought of a Cameron / Clarke ticket (though definitely more a nightmare than a dream ticket for me), because I used to know someone whose surname was Cameron-Clarke. It must be one thing to share the name of a party leader, another to find oneself bearing the names of both of them.

Miers: the debate. I'm posting this before I've read it, but it should be more than interesting when I get the time.

I would just add that for those who wonder why Miers is important- if you've ever wondered if Bush has judgement or just gets lucky sometimes, you'll have an interest in this. In that sense it's a potentially defining dilemma, however trivial it may seem (it's not trivial, when you consider some of the society-forming decisions which the US Supreme Court is entrusted with).

Interesting Flap in the States

I continue to be fascinated by the Harriet Miers case. 'Harriet who?' I hear you say. Well, quite- that's what all the problems are about.

Although I talked about the Miers nomination previously, the scale of the controversy, at least as it appears in the US conservative part of the blogosphere, demands some kind of introduction. Maybe Richard North's analysis of another UK conservative's green eyed observations about the US' conservative 'establishment' (kind of an alternative and not yet reigning version of the deeply entrenched US Liberal establishment) will do.

And now, according to conservative luminaries like David Frum, all the conservative success is jeopardised by a President who, when he has a free hand, chooses his chum for a crucial life-long legal position. Thus Bush (it would seem) betrays those who have supported him through situations where they disagreed with him on the grounds that a) they hated his opponents on the left, and b) they were hoping that when the flak calmed down he'd reward their loyalty by offering plums like a place on the Supreme Court to someone who they could see as a representative of their own political idealism.

But, as a conservative, albeit of a British sort, I have a different point of view. I believe conservatism naturally rebels against any kind of social establishment of the kind that many conservatives in the US would like to construct. It despises the way that many would like to place themselves in some pantheon of 'greatest conservatives', thereby feeling snubbed when a significant position is filled in government by one from beyond the pantheon. My kind of conservatism believes that small is beautiful and that a closely argued thought process is better than a thousand endorsements from unconnected eminences. My kind of conservatism doesn't believe in massive tides of revolutionaries, but slow accretions of good judgement- which others value and imitate. My kind of conservatism believes in minimalism- that you can't know everything or hold a schema perfectly, but you can perfectly well know the little that is given to you and can extrapolate that knowledge to great affairs.

Thus I support the nomination of Harriet Miers and recommend you read what a crusty and longwinded lawyer has to say about the matter.

Don't know why the post I just posted hasn't been posted.

However, what is remarkable is that the BBC's Don't Have Your Say may be becoming Have Your Say (after all). More credit to the Biased BBC blog I'd say.

Coo, isn't he lovely?

That's right, transnationalism has once more given birth- and it's the delightful progeny of the 'international community' (maiden name, UN), and the guilt ridden corpse of masculinity entombed in the Nobel peace prize. They're calling the fresh arrival Mohammed, apparently.

I watched a little bit of Sky and a little bit of the Beeb, and while Aunty Beeb was wreathed in smiles at the way the little chap had emerged from his Iraqi weapons crisis, Uncle Sky was grimacing wryly and saying good humouredly, 'bit ugly, isn't he?' Got to say I absolutely preferred the company of Uncle Sky.

Paul Reynolds, the godfather, was all serious when it came to a formal address. He seemed to think that Mohammed's arrival was a sign that he was a mighty achiever, rather than simply reflecting the fact that Alfie had got cosy amidst the warm embrace of the UN and it's anti-US obstructionism.

This gives an idea what the Nobels think about Iraq.