I don't think they understand

On the whole I have great respect for UN Watch, an NGO that tries to show up the UN for the sort of pernicious organization it is, though, I suspect, that is not how they would put it themselves. Something about getting the UN to live up to its principles may be how UN Watch sees its role.

Having said that, I have to point out that they do not appear to understand anything about the European Union. Like many other people I received an e-mail from the organizaion, asking me to take action immediately to prevent a completely duplicitous UN resolution that calls for an immediate truce in Gaza and a withdrawal of Israeli troops, without once mentioning Hamas terrorism from being passed.

The idea is that we all send e-mails to Javier Solana and to Karel Scwarzeneger, the Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs, asking them to stop the EU from voting for the resolution.

Please help us ensure the EU will live up to its principles tomorrow by voting No to this one-sided resolution.

I am not sure what principles UN Watch have in mind but it is the EU that has consistently aided and protected Hamas just as in the days of long ago, it revived the career of that late unlamented mass-murderer, Chairman Yasser Arafat.

Furthermore, the EU does not vote in the UN. It is individual countries that do and they seem to have come to an agreement already, if this piece on YNet is anything to go by.

Western and Arab foreign ministers on Thursday agreed on a compromise draft resolution calling for an immediate Gaza ceasefire and decided to put it to a UN Security Council vote, a Palestinian diplomat said.

Of course, Palestinian diplomats (an oxymoron, surely) have been known to be economical with the truth before. In any case, the devil will be in the details of the resolution.

As it happens, EU or no EU, we cannot exactly be proud of our own infantile looking Foreign Secretary.

In a key concession to the Arabs, a text circulated by the British delegation earlier Thursday "calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire" in Gaza and "for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza."

An earlier version merely "stressed the need" for an immediate ceasefire.

The latest British draft available also "condemns all acts of hostilities and terror directed against civilians" and for "the lifting of the Israeli blockade" of Gaza.

Does Mr Miliband even know what he is talking about? (That is a purely rhetorical question.)

Incidentally, for those who happen to be in London this coming Sunday, there will be a pro-Israeli and pro-Gazan people, as opposed to Hamas, rally in Trafalgar Square at 11 o'clock. If you want to attend, the organizers, the various Jewish organizers, supported by, among others, Anglican Friends of Israel, are asking everyone to turn up by 10.40 (yes, I know, horribly early) and not to bring any flags or placards - these will be available there.

COMMENT THREAD`

And talking of democracy being undermined ...

... here is a story that appeared in the Telegraph a few days ago, that my colleague covered some time back (though to be fair The Times was writing about it then as well). This time it has been noted by Rick Moran on American Thinker as well.

As my colleague wrote in September:

If there was any more evidence needed that the climate change scam has become precisely that – a vast money-making scam – turn to: The Times today (business section) for an interview with Chris Osborne, "boss of the LECG consultancy".

The egregious Chris is touting the idea that there should be an International Court of the Environment in London, which should become "the supreme legal authority for settling issues regarding harm to the environment". Apart from another boost to tranzie ambitions, this would, of course, provide another generous income stream for high-priced city lawyers - as well as jobs for the LECG "experts".

In the Telegraph story, the idea has moved on a bit. We now have lawyers calling for that International Court for Environmental Crimes. Well, they would, wouldn't they. Lawyers, generally speaking, will always call for more power being given to them as well as greater funds that they can play around with and not be accountable for.

The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.

Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.

Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.

I am, as it happens, a great admirer of Dame Judi Dench's but whether she plays Chekhov or comedy in "A Fine Romance" she is not somebody whose views on matters legal and political can be of the slightest interest to the rest of us.

I would, however, like to know which MPs are backing this latest proposal for undermining national, constitutional, accountable democracy and whether they have been bloviating recently on the subject of Damien Green.

Drip, drip, drip

Yes it is boring and tiresome to keep repeating the same things over and over again, be they about the European Union, the UN, assorted tranzis and NGOs or the evil that aid does in developing countries. We are not alone in doing this and there are people whose dedication to this duty fills me with the most astonished admiration.

One such organization is the Palestinian Media Watch that keeps on dripping water on rock of political stupidity and self-righteous victimology (though I would like them to keep their website a little more up-to-date).

Their director, Itamar Marcus, visited Norway recently and managed to spark something of an important political debate there about the money that goes to the Palestinian Authority and what use it is put to.

It seems that the shocked Norwegian politicians and media pundits (a.k.a. news readers) had known nothing about the psychotic mouse, named Farfur, his cousin and successor as presenter of children's programmes, Nahul the Killer Bee or the homicidal rabbit named Assud who thinks he is a lion with a diet exclusively of Jews. Even if they had heard of all these horrors the Norwegians appear not to have worked out that possibly the money they so generously hand over to the Palestinian Authority pays for some of this.

At least now they are debating the subject and, at least, one political party is calling for the cessation of payments though, I have no doubt, that if ever that became serious government policy the weeping and wailing about humanitarian crises would go up.

Still, it is good to know that the media and politicians of at least one donor country are beginning to wake up. Of course, we wrote about this problem extensively in February when the Taxpayers' Alliance produced a report on the subject, and referred our readers back to previous postings. We wrote about NGO funding that goes on hate-filled books and children's programmes in May. I have no doubt we shall return to the subject again. Who knows: maybe Norway will, by then, have shown the way to do things and cut off aid to the pernicious Palestinian Authority.

Of course they have immunity

Some time ago I wrote on my alternative outlet, the BrugesGroupBlog, that, unusually, the UN was being sued because the negligence and, let’s face it, incompetence and lack of understanding of what was going on, had resulted in the deliberate murder of 8,000 men and boys. Given the UN’s track record in peacekeeping operations (DR Congo and the Balkans in general spring to mind but others are not far behind) this was going to be an important decision. And it is.

Yesterday the International Herald Tribune reported that

A Dutch court ruled Thursday that it has no jurisdiction in a civil suit against the United Nations by survivors of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, affirming U.N. immunity from prosecution, even when genocide is involved.

A group called the Mothers of Srebrenica was seeking compensation for the failure of Dutch United Nations troops to prevent the slaughter by Serb forces of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim males in the U.N.-declared safe zone.

The Hague District Court said the U.N.'s immunity — which is written into its founding charter — means it cannot be held liable in any country's national court.

As the Dutch government lawyer, Bert Jan Houtzagers, said

if a Dutch court decided it had jurisdiction in the case, "any court in any country could do so and that would thwart the viability of the United Nations."

Well, we wouldn’t want to thwart the UN’s viability, would we? And on that subject, we hear that the Security Council has rejected the idea of sanctions on Zimbabwe, a decision that, according to President Robert Mugabe, who has already been feted by the African Union, is a defeat for racism.

Two of the countries that blocked the American resolution were China and Russia, permanent members of the Security Council. Is anybody surprised by that? Well, David Miliband, our youthful looking Foreign Secretary seems to be. To him Russia’s veto is “incomprehensible”.

"I'm very disappointed that the U.N. Security Council should have failed to pass a strong and clear resolution on Zimbabwe," Miliband said in a statement.

"It'll appear incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe that Russia, which committed itself at the G8 to take further steps including introducing financial and other sanctions, should stand in the way of Security Council action."

"Nor will they understand the Chinese vote," Miliband said. Veto-holding China was also among five countries that opposed the U.S.-drafted text in the 15-nation council on Friday.

Of the other members, South Africa, Libya and Vietnam also voted against and Indonesia abstained. Russia maintained that Zimbabwe posed no international threat and, therefore, the situation was not within the Security Council’s remit. This may well be true but it merely underlines the need to stop pretending that the UN is some kind of a moral force for good in the world. (Not that this blog has ever been known to say that.)

While we are on the subject of not pretending any longer, it might be a good idea not to pretend that Russia is in any way an ally of the West. Predictably, the Russian Foreign Ministry hit back at British and American criticisms of the country’s stand over Zimbabwe:

The Russian Foreign Ministry in a statement Saturday said the criticism "places a question mark over the worthiness of Russia as a G-8 partner," The Associated Press reported.

It added that the possibility of U.N. sanctions on Zimbabwe was excluded at a recent G-8 summit in Japan.

Russia said it believed the sanctions would set a precedent for U.N. meddling, AP reported.

Does this mean that Russia is about to leave the G8 in a huff? Let us hope so. After all, questions about the suitability of her membership – hardly one of the leading industrical economies or a democracy – have been asked ever since the anomalous situation had been created.

The last sentence, on the other hand, makes it clear what Russia is really saying, regardles of what it did or did not agree to at the G8 meeting. Ever since the idea of a United Nations was mooted, the Soviet Union showed itself to be determined to ensure that internal oppression and human rights crimes should not come under its aegis. This is probably quite a good idea as the UN can do absolutely nothing about any of these problems. On the other hand, it does rather obviate the necessity for the UN and that Russia would not like. The Security Council has always been a useful forum.

If the UN starts agreeing to sanctions on countries and politicians who are guilty of serious crimes against humanity and, indeed, human beings, then might it not one day start discussing the behaviour of certain politicians in Chechnya? Probably not, as it happens, but the Russian government believes in being safe. Of course, its recent intervention and creeping invasion of Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia may well be described as a threat to international security and may be the other reason why Russia is so very unanxious to see the UN straying into that territory.

The question is whether the UN refusing to agree on sanctions against Zimbabwe makes the government now legitimate enough for the EU to resume (if it ever stopped) giving aid to the country. As Reuters reports:

The European Commission is ready to provide up to 250 million euros in development aid for Zimbabwe's worst-hit sectors if the country gets a legitimate, credible government, the EU's aid chief said.

The European Union's executive arm would then also call for an international lifting of debt owed by the country, EU Aid Commissioner Louis Michel said.

"I would encourage the rest of the international donor community to make it clear today that it is ready to provide substantial and immediate assistance to Zimbabwe in the wake of a transition towards democracy," Michel said.

The Commission is not the EU’s executive arm but both legislative and executive (and completely illegitimate in itself, let it be said in passing, though not precisely in the Mugabe league of nastiness) and its readiness to plunge money into a country that is a complete mess without bothering to find out what is really needed and to what extent the people of that country should be allowed to take charge of it is really touching.

By the way, Mugabe’s government has been illegitimate and viciously oppressive for quite a long time, during which he, together with his friends and relations, has managed to wreck what was an extremely successful economy. Does that mean the EU stopped giving the country’s rulers our money to ensure that they stayed in power and continued to oppress the people of Zimbabwe? Not on your life and not on the Zimbabweans' life either.

The European Commission is the most important aid donor to Zimbabwe and last year provided 91 million euros in humanitarian aid and other assistance.

Anyone would think the European Commission was handing over the Commissioners’ own money to possibly the bloodiest tyranny in Africa at the moment. Mrs Mugabe, for one, must have been very grateful for the help she received in her shopping trips.

With friends like this

Actually, it is not always easy to tell whose friends the various NGOs and tranzis in general are. Sometimes, by an error of judgement they come out on our side. That is rare. On other occasions their behaviour is quite helpful to our side much as they dislike that.

My colleague has written an important study of the situation in Afghanistan and one of the conclusions we came to, as we discussed his findings in detail, was, unsurprisingly, that the role of the NGOs and tranzis in general was not only not helpful but actually harmful. Tentatively, I would go further than that. The fact that the situation in Iraq appears to be improving while in Afghanistan it is not, may well be credited partially to the fact that the tranzis and NGOs, in their hatred for President Bush and the American government, disliked the Iraqi war and wanted no part of it. Their refusal to dirty their hands with what they considered to be an unpleasant war may well now be helping the people of Iraq though that was not their original aim.

In a different way, they seem to have been inadvertently helpful to Colombian President, Álvaro Uribe, and the Colombian army, which is basking in well-deserved praise. We have already written about one rather peculiar aspect of the operation: it seems that the American government knew about it well ahead and gave its support; it seems, furthermore, that John McCain, who was visiting the country to reassure the people that he will, if elected, try to overcome Congress's ridiculous reluctance to continue with the free-trade agreement, was told (and kept quiet about the information); but President Nicolas Sarkozy knew nothing about it, despite the most important hostage being half-French and a cause célèbre in France.

One reason may have been that President Sarkozy (and the French government in general) was one of the people who had consistently tried to put pressure on President Uribe to make him negotiate with FARC and to give in, if necessary, to their demands.

In a thoughtful article in today's Wall Street Journal Mary Anastasia O'Grady looks at some other people and organizations who had tried to put similar pressure on President Uribe and who had done their very best to undermine his government in its fight against the terrorists.

She starts with a very interesting question: how is it that the army fooled the FARC brigade so easily when pretending to be from a "humanitarian NGO"?

It may have taken years for army intelligence to infiltrate the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and it may have been tough to convincingly impersonate rebels. But what seems to have been a walk in the park was getting the FARC to believe that an NGO was providing resources to help it in the dirty work of ferrying captives to a new location.

Well, yes, why was this seemingly improbable story believed? (Mind you, some of us recall the story of the Italian Red Cross using their ambulances to transport wanted terrorists in Iraq, which just proves that when NGOs do turn up in that country they cause appalling damage.)

Could it be, asks Ms O'Grady, because a number of NGOs have been collaborating with FARC openly and not so openly, and so the terrorist brigade had learnt to trust them? The article is well worth reading as she produces interesting information about several of the benighted organizations, some Democrat politicians and Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, the idol of the tranzis and "currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC".

Since the late 1990s, the NGO practice of dragging the military into court on allegations of human rights violations has destroyed the careers of some of the country's finest officers, even though most of these men were found innocent after years of proceedings. "Judicial warfare" turned out to be especially effective because under legislation pushed by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, "credible" charges against officers put at risk U.S. military aid unless the accused was removed. The NGOs knew that they only had to point fingers to get rid of an effective leader and demoralize the ranks. Given this history, it's not surprising that the FARC thought a helicopter from an NGO was perfectly natural.

Hmm, a familiar tactic. Incidentally, all those "credible" charges were dismissed eventually but not without causing a great deal of damage to individuals and the security organizations, all of whom are now feeling triumphant.

At the end of the article there is a reference to Sarko, which can be read in various ways. The information comes from important FARC documents captured by the Colombian army during a raid on a guerrilla camp in Ecuador.

She [Senator Cordoba] met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that "Piedad says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn't know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this."

If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, "It doesn't matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid." In short, why give up such a useful pawn?

I doubt that President Uribe is really going crazy, having outwitted all those massed supporters of terrorists. But one cannot help wondering who exactly is the pawn Ms O'Grady refers to.

What is happening in Burma?

Remember the horror stories? The shrieks of frustrated rage and hysteria when the NGOs and the tranzi aid organizations were not allowed into Burma by the nasty military regime who insisted on distributing aid themselves?

Just a few days ago the G8 leaders were once again pressurizing the Burmese government to let in aid workers to help with the devastation caused by the cyclone. Of course, they were mainly concerned with watching for signs to progression towards a civilian government and clearly thought that an influx of tranzis will strengthen that progression. Past experience of tranzi activity in some of the worst kleptocratic regimes in the developing world would undermine that hope but the G8 leaders are nothing if not optimistic.

Of course, it is not entirely true that the Burmese military junta – a fairly nasty bunch of rulers, though they pale into insignificance next to our old friend Robert Mugabe or his friend, President Omar Bongo of Gabon, Africa’s longest lasting leader – let in no aid at all.

As we wrote at the time here and here, the US Navy did go in and help though under supervision by the government. Unlike the UN, the American sailors did not consider this a reason for withholding much-needed aid, though early last month they, too, decided that enough was enough. There were too many difficulties in the way.

Meanwhile the "international community" continued to collect money from governments but also from foolish individuals and organizations, who clearly did not bother to ask what was happening to their donations, stockpile food and look for signs of hope that they might be allowed to go in.

So what has happened? Well, errm, it seems that the news is not that bad and, in fact, probably considerably better than the stories coming out of Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, where victims of the tsunami are still in need of aid.

Dire warnings that cyclone survivors in Myanmar might fall prey to disease and starvation failed to take into account the survival instincts of those affected, aid agencies and disaster experts say.

The resilience of the people — along with the skills of Myanmar citizens working for local and international humanitarian agencies — proved to be the most critical survival weapons and helped mitigate the limited access allowed to foreign disaster experts, they said.

U.N. agencies and private humanitarian groups agree a feared second wave of post-cyclone casualties did not take place. And barriers the junta put in the way of foreign aid appear not to have caused a measurable increase in deaths from illness and lack of food.

"These parts of Myanmar are visited by cyclones almost every year, although not of the same scale," said Ramesh Shrestha, the UNICEF representative in Myanmar. "Hence people were quite able to adapt to this sudden impact."

Myanmar's government said this week that a survey undertaken jointly with the U.N. and the regional Association of Southeast Asia Nations found no post-cyclone deaths related to lack of assistance, though the findings are preliminary.

Please don’t get us wrong, say the experts who went in:

No one is saying Cyclone Nargis was not a tragedy of epic proportions or that Myanmar's military government was justified in turning aside offers of outside aid.

We, on this blog, will certainly agree with the first part of that statement but not the second. The results show that the Myanamar (that’s Burma for the rest of us) government was fully justified in turning away those tranzis and, possibly, even in not accepting aid, certainly not aid with as many strings as the UN and the various agencies affix to it. Or, for that matter, aid that involves quite as much luxurious living and destruction of local economy as much of tranzi activity produces (see my colleague’s analysis of the situation in Afghanistan).

There is, however, a bigger issue here and one that surely people will face as the news from what is really happening in Burma filters through? After the initial help is aid-giving the best way forward? If you tell people they will have aid, they will sit and wait for it to arrive, complaining but not doing much. If there is no aid coming, could it be that people simply get on with reconstruction? Just asking.

While we are on the subject of asking, what is happening to all the money the various NGOs, aid organizations and tranzis in general collected for the special purpose of helping the people of Burma? Will it be used for other purposes, such as the welfare of the aid agencies?

What of the stockpiled food and equipment that did not go in? Will it be used somewhere else or allowed to rot? Just asking.

It's a hard life in the tranzi world

The bizarre world of the United Nations never fails to entertain.

About time, too

The United States has finally and very sensibly abandoned its observer status on the ludicrous and poisonous UN Human Rights Council. According to Reuters:

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the decision, taken recently by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reflected mistrust of the 47-member state forum, at which the United States currently has observer status.

"Our skepticism regarding the function of the U.N. Council on Human Rights in terms of fulfilling its mandate and its mission is well known. It has a rather pathetic record," McCormack told reporters.

"We will engage the Human Rights Council really only when we believe that there are matters of deep national interest before the council ... We are going to take a more reserved approach," he added.

There is, naturally enough, much wailing and gnashing of teeth in tranzi-land.

There was widespread consternation on Friday at the Palais des Nations in Geneva when the US mission gave up his observer status - a step backwards for human rights around the world, says Human Rights Watch.

It was all going so well, they sobbed. Belarus was was not re-elected to membership in 2007, nor was Sri Lanka this year. There were all sorts of "recommendations were made regarding Romania, Japan, Guatemala, Peru, Tunisia, Ukraine, Indonesia and others". And now there is this terrible set-back for human rights across the world.

Before we get too carried away with the horror of it all, perhaps we should look at who is who on the UN Human Rights Council. We have written about the organization before, some of its personnel and its attempts to stifle free speech, when it involves criticism of, for instance, Islamic countries.

We have written about the committee it has selected to organize the next anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Western hatefest in Durban in 2009.

We listed the odd problem or two with the organization, such as the bullying of UN Watch Director Hillel Neuer when he presents evidence of bias in the organization.

Above all, it is necessary to look at the membership of the Council and the countries that are in it. A few random examples: Nigeria, Zambia, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Bangladesh, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Romania. Well, naturally, it is the American virtual withdrawal from observer status after prolonged abuse from representatives of some of the worst regimes on earth that is going to set back human rights in the world.

Aren't we glad to be funding NGOs?

That is, needless to say, a rhetorical question. Apart from anything else, if we were glad to be funding them, we would do so and not have money compulsorily extracted from us for the purpose. NGOs are not charities that live on voluntary donations but are provided by taxpayers’ money.

This story comes via the Taxpayers’ Alliance blog, which quotes a recent report from NGO Monitor, to which they do not link. Tsk, tsk. But then, it is not always easy to do so, which makes me wonder how often NGO Monitor might suffer from hackers.

The Executive Summary, which is only one page, outlines the problem. The EU is, according to its own propaganda, committed to a peaceful solution that will not involve the destruction of Israel or the expulsion and worse of the Jewish population of that country. (Anyone who thinks that the destruction of Israel will bring peace to that part of the world has not been paying attention.)

A longish piece on NGOs, the EU and Amnesty International (couldn't resist having a go at them) on EUReferendum 2. Well, yes, another one, but who knows how many more.

What the future might hold

Last Monday I attended no less than two separate talks on, as it turned out, related topics. In the morning Michael Barone, one of the best known American political commentators, author of many, many articles and columns and of several books, most recently, of “Our First Revolution: the remarkable British uprising that inspired America's founding fathers”.

Barone spoke about the presidential race in the United States, not a subject we cover too much on this blog for several reasons. In the first place, it is much written about in the main stream media, though I would not trust British journalists on the subject. They were, after all, convinced that Kerry would win in 2004, a position whose absurdity was clear to anyone who followed events in the American media and the blogosphere.

Secondly, it is a subject that is widely discussed in the American blogosphere. Nothing we say can rival the extensive knowledge and grasp of detail displayed by the likes of Barone himself, Michelle Malkin, Christopher Hitchens or Mark Steyn, to name just a few.

Thirdly, this is not really our subject, apart from the need to point out periodically, that there is this country in which the executive and legislative, properly separated, are both elected by the people of that country. Look upon it and despair about our own situation. No wonder people are gnashing their teeth in envy and calling for the rest of the world a.k.a. the great and the good as well as the tranzis and the NGOs to impose their decisions on the American people.

Still, the President of the United States is an important person for all of us and occasionally we need to look, at least in general terms, at the process that will decide who that person is going to be. A briefing by Michael Barone is a good opportunity for doing just that.

A long article on this and a talk about the idea of a League of Democracies to be found on EUReferendum 2. You might want to read it as who knows how many more there will be.

Where is that international community?

First there was the Burmese cyclone, now we have the Chinese earthquake. What do these events have in common? Yes, they are likely to result in many deaths and no, we are not going to know how many for a long time, if ever. But that is something they share with the far greater disaster of the tsunami two and a half years ago.

There is something else they have in common - the sight of the international community standing by helplessly, wringing its hands and being unable to help. We are witnessing hysterical outbursts from Oxfam and a certain amount of temporary smugness from the Red Cross.

We have seen the UN withdraw its aid because the Burmese government, otherwise known as the junta, has taken it all away and announced that it would do the distributing. We, on this blog, have no faith in the Burmese junta doing the right thing or behaving in an efficient fashion. But then, we have no faith in the UN or the many NGOs who are teeming around Burma and will, undoubtedly start teeming around China, doing the right thing or behaving in an efficient fashion. Remember the number of stories we have had since the tsunami of aid not arriving at the required destination, people still homeless, food and equipment going to waste.

At the time we covered the tsunami and the aid efforts extensively on the blog [scroll down for the stories]. One thing became clear: delivery and distribution of aid was rapid and efficient as long as it was done by the US navy, the Australian navy with support from the Indian navy and the Japanese air force.

As soon as they had finished their work and moved out, the NGOs, who had until then spent their time and money bickering and trying to ensure that their staff had "adequate" working and living conditions, moved in, the aid efforts largely disintegrated and the huge amounts of money given by generous people in Britain and even more generous governments who are always ready to use taxes for various purposes, were wasted.

This time the American navy, who is standing by, as, I have no doubt, are the Australian and Indian navies, is not allowed in. But that should not matter. We have the international community; we have the UN; we have the NGOs; we have advertisements in all the newspapers and all the Oxfam shops, pleading for money as there will be 1 million, 2 million, however many millions of deaths. People will undoubtedly give because people are generous and rarely bother to think when they read horror stories.

The truth is that Oxfam is collecting money, yet again, under false pretences. It has no idea how many people will die. It cannot get the aid in and the money, so generously given in response to its appeals, will either be spent on accommodation for its staff around Burma or wasted on aid that never gets to the necessary recipients.

Mrs Thatcher has been accused of saying that there is no such thing as society. What she actually said is that society is not an abstract entity but consists of people. Whenever society is expected to achieve something, the question of who in reality is going to do that achieving is forgotten. The most obviously tragic result of that attitude has been "care in the community" with thousands of people with various mental disorders and inability to deal with life, thrown out on the streets.

In the same way, it is time to understand that there is no such thing as the international community, no matter what we are told by the tranzis. It can do nothing. Neither the UN nor the NGOs can help people if the governments in question are not co-operating. As it happens, they cannot help people in other circumstances either or only very rarely.

Liberal interventionism in the name of humanitarian principles can be done by countries or by groups of countries, with the practical side of it carried out by men and women in the uniforms of those countries. All else is Scotch mist.

UPDATE: There is some good news. The Burmese government (or junta) has allowed a US military aircraft in with aid. Possibly, this will lead to some efficient transportation and distribution of badly needed aid, not to mention some assessment of what is really going on in the country.

Those wonderful tranzis

It is, perhaps, just as well for my peace of mind that the transnational organizations, its members and supporters, collectively known as tranzis are really quite as ghastly as they are. Otherwise, I may well find myself supporting one or more of them, particularly after reading yet another rant by a soi-disant eurosceptic in favour of such freedom loving states as Russia or China.

The problem, as I see it, is lack of real political principles. Just as the europhiliacs rant about the beauty of integration and transnational governance, for want of any ideas, so many eurosceptics (well, soi-disant ones, as I mentioned above) go on about the nation state as some sort of a holy entity, regardless of whether it is a nation, or how the state came about.

What that leads to is a support for any state that is in existence at the moment of discussion. Not a happy thought for those of us who envisage the European Union becoming a state to all intents and purposes very soon. After that Britain’s desire to free herself from the shackles will be internal EU matter, according to this argument, not to be interfered with or mentioned by outsiders.

Luckily, most Americans have a slightly different view of the world, as do committed Anglospherists in other lands.

Equally luckily, whenever thoughts of that kind enter my head I come across a few stories about those wonderful tranzis and recover my equanimity.

Let us start with an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, written by Roger Köppel, who is owner and chief editor of the Swiss weekly, Die Weltwoche, the only eurosceptic publication in the German language, as I was once told by one of its editors. It is an unusual publication in its political orientation and courage in breaking away from the herd.

It is, therefore, not surprising that Roger Köppel is less than impressed by the Social-Democratic Foreign Minister of Switzerland, Micheline Calmy-Rey. Mme Clamy-Rey has decided to break with the Swiss tradition of neutrality and try to turn the country into “a moral superpower”.

Like many politicians, when she discusses morality, she really means the trendy political and social views of the left-leaning, unaccountable and unbalanced tranzis. Mr Köppel puts it more politely:

It is a morality, however, that is firmly anchored in the left-liberal mainstream that seems to have lost its moral compass. She shares the aversion of Europe's general public toward the U.S. and Israel. There is an emotional resentment of globalization and a belief against all evidence that, in the end, only broad-based development aid can improve the lives of the poor.

Among her other achievements is the nomination of the old Marxist, friend of Fidel Castro and co-founder of the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize (I wonder why Peter Simple never thought of that one), Jean Ziegler to be an adviser on human rights to the UN.

Her other actions include marching across the North Korean border in red sneakers (I missed this one) “to make a statement that no one understood” and generally make a nuisance herself whenever an American politician was around.

Recently she managed to photograph herself with Iranian President Ahmadinejad as she visited the country, allegedly to discuss transparency in Iranian nuclear development. In fact, she undermined the West’s rather feeble attempts to have some kind of sanctions against that country and handed the Iranian leader a propaganda coup.

Although Ms. Calmy-Rey claims she harshly criticized the president for his policies, such as stoning adulterers, the prevailing impression was that she let herself be manipulated as a useful idiot by a brutal regime.

Mr Köppel is concerned, rightly, with the harm this slightly batty female does to Switzerland’s image and reality. One cannot help feeling, however, that another tranzi nutter is not quite what the world needs.

So it is once again time to have a look at that untalented circus, the tranzi to end all tranzis, the UN, the organization that some eurosceptics set up as the arbiter of international law. Thanks to a posting on Little Green Footballs, entitled “UN Human Rights Council: Officially a Self-Mocking Joke”, we find this:

Islamic countries have succeeded in hijacking the United Nations Human Rights Council and perverting its intent (even more than it was already perverted).

I am glad Charles Johnson added that last bit in brackets. Otherwise I might have had a serious fit from all the laughing the comment would have generated.

He links to an article in the International Herald Tribune, entitled “Arabs, Muslims battle US, Europeans over free speech at UN”.

Arab and Muslim countries defended Tuesday a resolution they pushed through at the United Nations to have the body's expert on free speech police individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.

In itself this is not much of a story. The UN can do no policing because, contrary to some opinions, it has no rights to do so. Of course, it can make grand pronouncements as Ban Ki-Moon did, when he denounced Geert Wilders’s film “Fitna” that remains widely available on Youtube.

Of course, as Claudia Rossett points out, the SecGen’s condemnation and efforts to censor internet films are selective. We have heard nothing from him on the subject of the psychotic mouse, Farfur, or his pathological cousin, the Nahoul, the killer bee, or any others of that delightful cohort that is Hamas’s answer to Blue Peter. (One of the most recent films shows a little darling boy killing President Bush and announcing that the White House has become a mosque.)

One cannot help being amused in a rather grim way by the genuinely Orwellian task given to the UN’s expert on free speech to police negative comments on anything at all. But that’s the UN for you. They probably use the word Orwellian without ever understanding what it means.

The expert in question is a Kenyan, Ambeyi Ligabo and his job is to report to the UN about suppression of free speech by dictatorships and repressive governments. One can’t help feeling that the man has his work cut out. It hardly seems fair that there should be this resolution that adds to his burdens.

Not only must he report on curtailment of free speech now but also on the exercise of free speech if it is done to criticize Islam.

The resolution was introduced by Egypt and Pakistan, two countries well known for the freedom of expression they allow, to that wondrous body about which we have written on numerous occasions, the UN Human Rights Council and was passed 32 - 0.

Ahem, one says to oneself. Whatever happened to the Western countries who maintain that freedom of speech is a value to be cherished? The United States has, quite rightly, refused to be a member of this farcical body. But what of the European countries?

Well, they seem to have abstained. One would not want to be seen to be too extreme in defending the idea of freedom, would one?

Slovenia's ambassador, Andrej Logar, speaking on behalf of the European Union, warned that Ligabo's role as an independent expert was shifting from protecting free speech toward limiting it.

Yes, well, that’s the way it crumbles, cookie-wise, as they kept saying in that wonderful film, “The Apartment”. After all, Slovenia, too, condemned Geert Wilders’s film.

Just for the record, these countries represent Europe and the West in general on the UNHRC: Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, as well as the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.

One can understand why Russia thought it was best not to interfere with other people’s censorship of expression. But what were the others thinking of? Wringing one’s hands after the resolution had gone through is hardly sensible.

Oh yes, and, naturally enough, we are paying large amounts of money for this bizarre show to go on.

The UN again

Oh no, not again, I hear our readers cry. Unfortunately yes, but I promise to leave the subject alone for a little while. It has always been our contention that the fight against the EU has to be part of a fight against all unaccountable and too often corrupt transnational organizations (tranzis) that are trying to take power from the few democratic countries that exist, prevent the others from becoming democratic and impose their own governance by transnational lawyers and officials who are always nice to tyrannical kleptocrats.

For once, the news is refreshingly good. Canada has announced that it will not attend the next anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic hate fest, otherwise known as the Durban Anti-Racism Conference in 2009.

We have written about this conference before, pointing out that the committee that is organizing it is chaired by Libya, a country that knows a thing or two about freedom and tolerance (lack of), and includes Iran, “whose President has repeatedly and forcefully called for the annihilation of Israel, proclaimed that the Holocaust was probably a joke invented by the international Zionist conspiracy and hosted an anti-holocaust cartoon festival”.

Gateway Pundit published a really interesting hand-out from the 2001 conference that sighs over the fact that Hitler did not win.

According to Reuters (we always acknowledge our sources on this blog)

A similar meeting at the same venue in 2001 was marred when Israel and the United States walked out in protest over draft conference texts branding Israel as a racist and apartheid state -- language that was later dropped.

"(We) had hoped that the preparatory process for the 2009 ... conference would remedy the mistakes of the past. Despite our efforts, we have concluded that it will not. Canada will therefore not participate," Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said in a statement.

Jason Kenney, the secretary of state for multiculturalism, said the Conservative government was sure the conference would "showcase the same regrettable anti-Semitism" as the 2001 meeting.

"Our government sees no value in allowing Canada's participation to continue to dignify or legitimate such hateful and un-Canadian propaganda," he told Reuters.

Now there’s a secretary of state for multiculturalism one can have some time for. He clearly believes that racism is racism, no matter who expresses it and anti-Semitism is wrong, no matter how it is phrased.

There is, at the moment a certain amount of ghashing of teeth and whining about those nasty Canadians misunderstanding and not wanting to get involved in true multilateral activity blah-blah-blah. As CTV.ca says with a collective straight face:

But African governments complained at the last conference that Western governments had chosen to highlight treatment of the Israeli issue as if it was the only one on the agenda.

South Africa, the host country, stopped short of calling U.S. President George Bush a racist, saying instead that he was not "anti-racist." Other African countries were upset that Britain and the West refused to overtly apologize for their support of centuries of slavery.

Well, I don’t know. I remember noting at the time that rich, spoilt, largely white middle class kids were screaming racist abuse at Colin Powell, then Secretary of State. Nor did that endless demand for an apology for slavery escape everybody’s attention.

Perhaps what the British should have apologized for is abolishing the slave trade in 1807, thus depriving the Arab slavers, whom the Royal Navy fought, and certain African chieftains of their income from selling slaves.

The real question is whether Canada will be supported by, at the very least, the other Anglospheric countries. The new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is a former diplomat, at ease with the tranzis, so one need not rely on him. The United States are going through an agonizing if entertaining election, so no decisions taken now would be binding. That may be a good reason for President Bush to make a significant gesture, especially after the ridiculous Annapolis Conference and equally ridiculous trip to the Middle East.

What of our own Prime Minister? He made a half-hearted gesture over President Mugabe and the EU-Africa Summit. Will he go that extra mile and pull Britain from the Durban Conference? Oh wait, I am not sure he can. This is probably part of the common foreign policy and, as such, EU competence.

How very appropriate

Somehow, I have never been able to take George Clooney seriously even as a cinema actor. Possibly, that is because the only one of his films I managed to watch right through (I was in an aeroplane above the Atlantic but even that is a poor excuse) was “Intolerable Cruelty”. It was bad.

Prettyboy Clooney was completely unbelievable as the ultra-smart divorce lawyer who could out-run and out-gun anyone until love found him in the shape of Catherine Zeta-Jones (OK, you guys, here are some pictures of her – this is an equal opportunities blog). Sadly, there was zilch chemistry between the two and I have never wanted to see another George Clooney film again.

In particular, I have always despised Clooney as the political activist. His idea of courage – I kid you not – is to make an anti-McCarthy film as if there had not been a few self-glorifying films of that kind in Hollywood before. In any case, “Good-night and good luck” is a pack of lies. All those “innocent victims” were Communist agents, some merely of influence, some actual providers of information, like Laurence Duggan, found conveniently dead under his office window when the investigation came too close, the supposed “innocent victim” of the film.

Now Georgy-Porgy has found another outlet for his ultra-fashionable left-wing views: SecGen Ban Ki-Moon has appointed him to be the UN Messenger of Peace. If one needed an example of the preposterousness, nastiness and complete idiocy of the UN, this could be it.

A Messenger of Peace, eh? Was there not one in the Bible already? As one of the commenters on Libertas asks, did Jesus Christ resign or retire? Did we all miss the news?

The best and angriest comment on the subject is, predictably, by the admirable Claudia Rossett, who still has not been given the Pulitzer Prize for uncovering all sorts of skulduggery in the UN.

This would all be great if UN peacekeeping actually produced peace. But the illusion that the UN is a grand force for good in this world deserves to be catalogued somewhere between World’s Most Amazing Scams and Believe It-Or-Not Best-in-Special-Effects. The reality of today’s UN is more like a cross between “Animal House” (the movie, with John Belushi) and “Animal Farm” (the book, by George Orwell). Libya and Vietnam have just joined the Security Council, where China and Russia hold permanent seats. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has turned the General Assembly into its Manhattan clubhouse — which Iran’s mushroom-cloud-in-chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now uses every September as a base to parade around New York and lecture his audiences that Iran is a country of peaceful intentions and no homosexuals.

Nor does she forget those wonderful peacekeeping UN troops that will be His Peacefulness Clooney’s “special focus”:

In UN peacekeeping, which will be Clooney’s special focus, peacekeeper sex scandals continue to bubble up, with their own special focus on under-age locals the peacekeepers are supposed to be protecting (almost three years after the UN declared a zero-tolerance policy for such outrages). Peacekeeping has been one of the major areas of UN corruption, with even the UN itself finally acknowledging hundreds of millions worth of tainted contracts.

We have said it before and we shall say it again: the only genuine peace-keeping force in the world are the US Marine Corps, closely followed by the US Army. All else is for the birds.

Just as I cannot take Georgy-Porgy Clooney seriously, so I cannot share Ms Rossett’s anger. I should, I know, and I often do when it comes to the UN or the World Bank. But the sight of G-P Clooney pratting round carefully controlled and secured so-called war zones in fetching uniforms and helmets, dispensing fatuous and predictable comments merely makes me laugh. The whole notion of idiot film stars as UN Messsengers of Whatever is completely ludicrous and entirely appropriate to that ghastly organization.

I was going to say it all adds to the gaiety of nations but the last time I did so I was ticked off severely by a reader who was completely unimpressed by my frivolity. Oh what the heck – it does add to the gaiety of nations. And it might just bring nearer the day when that prime piece of real estate in Manhattan is reclaimed from the crooks and tyrants whose representatives infest it.

Wham! Kerpow!

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s the UN trying to get some credibility. According to a report in the Financial Times

In a move reminiscent of storylines developed during the second world war, the UN is joining forces with Marvel Comics, creators of Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk, to create a comic book showing the international body working with superheroes to solve bloody conflicts and rid the world of disease.

The comic, initially to be distributed free to 1m US schoolchildren, will be set in a war-torn fictional country and feature superheroes such as Spider-Man working with UN agencies such as Unicef and the “blue hats”, the UN peacekeepers.

One wonders whether the Incredible Hulk or, for that matter, Spider-Man might not be better employed sorting out the real problems why the UN’s image is, ahem, a little tarnished.

It is not, pace Deborah Brewster of the FT, the United States government alone who find the UN a somewhat unpalatable organization. The reasons for that tarnished image might lie in stories like this. A week ago the Washington Post, among others, reported that

A U.N. task force has uncovered a pervasive pattern of corruption and mismanagement involving hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts for fuel, food, construction and other materials and services used by U.N. peacekeeping operations, which are in the midst of their largest expansion in 15 years.

In recent weeks, 10 procurement officials have been charged with misconduct for allegedly soliciting bribes and rigging bids in Congo and Haiti. It has been the largest single crackdown on U.N. staff malfeasance in the field in more than a decade.

The story is not precisely new and that may be why most of the media, old and new, leaves it wearily alone. But think what Spider-Man could achieve if he teamed up not with the “blue hats” who have been known to rape women and children or buy sexual favours for food in countries such as DR Congo but with Claudia Rossett, the woman who has doggedly pursued every scandal and every investigation that, somehow, never manages to lead to anything except for a few arrests and the odd conviction here and there.

Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk, not to mention Superman and Batman could all team up with Ms Rossett and divide between them the various scandals, such as the membership of the Human Rights Council or of the Committee for the 2009 UN World Conference against Racism, that is likely to become another America and Israel-bashing anti-Semitic, anti-Western performance.

While Spider-Man and Superman could help Claudia Rossett (after all, Superman’s alter ego, Clark Kent, is a journalist), the Incredible Hulk could rush into meetings of various UN organizations and ensure that there was freedom of speech. Otherwise, you never know, the organization’s image might be tarnished.

He might prevent this bit of censorship, for instance, when a well-researched, carefully argued speech by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch was deemed to be “inadmissible” by the President of the UN Human Rights Council. With or without the Incredible Hulk, we referred to the incident when it happened.

Sadly, the Financial Times does not refer to any of this or speculate as to how the Marvel Comic heroes might deal with a lost cause like the UN’s image. Instead, there is a sneering reference of American use of comics during World War II.

The latest UN initiative is not the first time US comics have been used for political purposes. During the second world war, superheroes were shown taking on Germany’s Nazi regime. Marvel’s Captain America, together with other characters such as Superman, were shown beating up Adolf Hitler.

The UN’s goals are somewhat different: according to its website, it hopes the comics will teach children the value of international co- operation and sensitise them to the problems faced in other parts of the world.

And that just goes to show how superior the UN’s goals are to that of the US government in that bit of unpleasantness in the early forties. Beating up Adolf Hitler? Oh my, my, my. How violent and insensitive. Pass me the smelling salts. Failing that, pass me the sick-bag.

Mention of Captain America (not one I know except by hearsay) reminds me of another attempt to harness the power of comic strips to tranzi political propaganda. I am sure our readers will reall Captain Euro, the intrepid and distinctly Aryan looking fighter for peace, harmony and European integration.

Captain Euro and his cohorts were part of an attempt at a concerted effort by the EU’s propaganda machine to use our money (no agreements with Marvel Comics for them) to produce propaganda for our children. As Daniel Hannan describes here, it failed miserably.

Captain Euro’s great enemy was Dr D. Vider (gettit?) a truly evil man. The Free Will blog had a good deal of fun at the expense of the whole concept [you’ll have to excuse the language].

Now let's meet Captain Euro's archenemy, "Dr. D. Vider". (Get it? "D. Vider"? He divides people! He's anti-unity! He's bad! The only thing missing is his girlfriend, "Uni L. Ateral".)

DAVID VIDERIUS is a former financier. He is a multi-millionaire, used to making money no matter if it might involve the suffering of others. Banned and ostracised from the financial world for unprofessional conduct he managed to escape arrest despite his involvement in financial scandal.

I shit you not, the villain who threatens Europe is a wealthy "corporate criminal".

Having disappeared for many years, he reappeared as DR D VIDER. He manages a holding company, DIVIDEX, controlling hundreds of different businesses across Europe and beyond. His son and only family, Junior, helps him in his quest for power. His ambition for his son sometimes clouds his judgment.

Junior?

THE GLOBAL TOURING CIRCUS, a huge travelling company that he secured when it was on the edge of bankruptcy, is now DIVIDEX'S base. Dr D Vider uses the circus as a cover for recruiting new members to his evil team from all over the world.

So, let me get this straight. He runs an evil Euro-circus? Couldn't possibly be... What about Junior? Why is he so evil?

The lack of attention he received as a child, has turned Junior into a sociopath.

These people are for real. Other villains in Dr. D. Vider's little circus include a midget with a yo-yo and an Amazonian parrot that likes caviar.

In other words, the evil enemy of the wondrous Captain Euro and his superlative team that consists of people who are Gaia enthusiasts, fabulous gymnasts and people who get their scientific ideas from science fiction is - ta-dah – a businessman, who is clearly crooked, as all businessmen are.

The man who creates employment, provides financial services and adds to the wealth of wherever he happens to be (incidentally, what is wrong with international business which breaks down national barriers?) is evil, evil, evil. The goodies are people who prat around as parasites on the body politic, financed by the taxpayer.

Despite a certain amount of excitement the idea did not take off. To be fair, even the Guardian thought it entertaining rather than a serious educational idea.

The good Captain is invested with the sort of history only a marketing company besieged by focus groups could devise. 'Born Adam Andros - the only child of a famous European ambassador and a professor of palaeontology,' reads his resume.

'Travelling the world with his parents, Adam learned to cope with the adult social world from an early age. As a child, participation in an experimental language programme enabled Adam to become a polyglot.' Ah - so that's how to become a good European.

But it's not all plain sailing for Captain Euro. Shunning the life of canapés and ambassadorial receptions that surely awaited him, he has taken a vow: 'to use, wherever possible, intellect, culture and logic - not violence - to take control of difficult criminal situations'. Oh, and in his spare time he paints European landscapes. 'The fingers that tap scientific data into Captain Euro's palmtop computer are often stained with paint.'

Yet despite the glossy packaging, it remains unclear just what Captain Euro is promoting. A single currency? Sure. But with his strong jaw and clean-cut morals, there is something more. Is Captain Euro a proponent of fortress Europe, an us-and-them world, secure for the haves and inaccessible to the have-nots? Asylum-seekers, take note.

This article points to the main problem with the comic – the looks of the characters. Captain Euro and his cohorts are superb specimens of physical attraction mostly on the Aryan side. Even the scientist is sexy and attractive.

Their main enemy Dr D. Vider has a distinctly semitic look and resembles the villains of cartoons in Der Stürmer of evil memory. He is assisted by “moustachioed, dusky-skinned cohorts”. Ooops!

Setting aside the political problem there, the creation shows a certain lack of knowledge. Comic heroes are not handsome. Superman may be clean-cut and strong-jawed but his alter ego is distinctly nerdy. Captain America is well-hidden behind his mask but his alter ego is weak and sickly.

Batman and Spider-Man are on the weird side and the others, such as the Incredible Hulk are complete fantasy. Nothing clean-cut or handsome about them.

As for the best-known European comics the idea of good-looking heroes does not arise. The only remotely handsome character in Asterix is Cacophonix, the poet, who usually ends the story gagged and trussed up as he is about to spoil the feast of roast boar by singing some new-fangled composition.

Tintin, whom I like a good deal more than Mr Hannan seems to, is a funny-looking boy reporter. His friends, Captain Haddock, Professor Calculus and the ineffable Thompson twins, are not handsome gymnasts though the good captain has plenty of muscle power. Some people might admire Bianca Castafiore but for my money the only good looking character is Snowy the dog (Milou in French).

One can’t help feeling that there might be a reason for this. Maybe the creators of Captain Euro should have spent less time in focus groups and more time reading successful comics.

That leaves us with the UN and Spider-Man who “is preparing to take on a group that might be his most formidable nemesis: the likes of former American Ambassador John Bolton and other major critics of the United Nations”.

Here is a much better idea, developed by this blog without any focus groups or taxpayers’ money. Instead of producing idiotic stories about Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk and whoever else being sensitive and Gaia-focused, why not have them fight the real baddies in the world, for example people who go around assassinating former prime ministers and present opposition leaders as they travel round some fictitious country on an election campaign?

Or here is another storyline that might work: how about Superman setting up a super-organization that whizzes round the world rescuing real journalists and bloggers who are trying to tell the truth about certain countries and political systems.

There would be plenty of righteous indignation and a great deal of pow! Wham! Kerpow! In fact, just like Captain America during World War II these comics could be so popular, they would not have to be sent out free to anybody using, one assumes, taxpayers’ money. Kids would queue up to buy them.

Four legs good, two legs better

There seems to be a competition going on as to which political leader would pledge to give away more of his (or her in the case of Chancellor Merkel) country’s economic development in the interests of that rather nebulous concept – reduction of carbon emissions.

As my colleague has pointed out here and here the whole idea of making plans that far ahead is completely insane, especially as we are dealing with unpredictable factors.

I particularly liked his comment (my colleague’s that is) about Gordon Brown’s alleged plans to set a 60 per cent emission target for 2050:

Yet, if it is indeed the case that Brown is to set a 60 percent target for 43 years hence – not far short of half a century – he has lost complete touch with reality. Not only is he making plans for a period, the conditions of which he can have no knowledge, he is making commitments for future governments which he has no constitutional right to make.

Putting it in historic perspective, however, this is equivalent to a prime minister in 1907 – then Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, seen here inspecting Crimean War veterans in Manchester – making plans for 1950. By then, of course, we had had two world wars and the political map had changed beyond recognition.

Almost as idiotic as people predicting what the weather will be like in fifty years’ time when it is not possible to predict for the next fifty hours.

Still, if it really does mean that the Prime Minister will endorse the next generation of nuclear power generators as The Guardian tells us, that’s all to the good. The trouble is that one cannot ever disentangle what Brown is promising, let alone believe it.

Apparently, he and his government are in favour of further expansion for Heathrow Airport. At the same time, the suggestion that there should be “personal carbon allowances” as well as more “green” taxes, presumably, aims at discouraging ordinary people from flying or travelling in general. (When there is a proposal to control private jets I shall start paying attention to all these arguments about flying being so bad for the planet.)

David Vance of Pajamas Media is worried about the control over people’s freedom that all these proposals are likely to create. Are the British being used as a bunch of guinea pigs for future plans of this kind in other countries? I can’t help feeling that Mr Vance overestimates Prime Minister Brown’s abilities.

Meanwhile the EU is demonstrating its own support for the reduction of carbon emissions. In fact, the entire climate change circus is on the move again, happily emitting carbon all over the place, particularly in Bali, supposedly one of the most beautiful places in the world. [I have not been there myself.]

The Sunday Times has done some interesting calculations:

IT HAS been billed as the summit that could help save the planet, but the latest United Nations climate change conference on the paradise island of Bali has itself become a major contributor to global warming.

Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia will generate the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

Admittedly Chad does not emit all that much a year but the point remains valid.

Of course, there are the usual hangers on, some, a very few, of whom are paying for their own trips. Others are being paid for by the taxpayer. One and all, they are carbon emitters:

Attendees are expected to include celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, the actor, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, and Al Gore, the former US vice-president.

Many are merely “observers” who have no formal role to play in the talks, which largely involve government ministers and officials. Among these observers are 20 MEPs and 18 assistants whose itinerary includes a daytrip to the idyllic fishing and surfing village of Serangan.

At least the hotels and resorts of Bali will make a good deal of money in what must be the off-season, so that’s to the good. There is some hope that this will revive Bali as a tourist destination after the two terrorist bombs in 2002 and 2005, though that is not a major aim of the conference.

Various attendees are going because they are materially concerned in the various negotiations, though nobody seems to represent the taxpayer or those of us who will suffer from the imposed taxes and regulations, should these ever materialize.

The UN has also recently received thousands of new registrations from groups campaigning for the environment or fighting against poverty. WWF, one of the largest, is sending more than 32 staff to the meeting.

Thousands more are coming from businesses, especially the burgeoning carbon trading sector, which already carries out global transactions worth £12 billion a year and has an acute interest in the outcome of Bali.

The EU is doing just fine:

One of the biggest delegations is being assembled by the European Union, which is expected to send Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, and 90 officials.

Well, that’s not so bad, I thought. Hizonner the Mayor of LondON took an entourage of 100 people to India and nothing much has been said about the carbon emissions that resulted from that little jaunt to and around India as well as back to LondON. Usually, the Mayor cannot stop talking about all that hot air.

But I forgot that the Member States were sending delegations as well as the EU one.

In addition, all 27 EU countries are expected to send separate national delegations. Germany has one of the biggest, with around 70, and France follows close behind with 50. Even Latvia will be represented by four delegates, while Malta, an island populated by 400,000, will have two.

Britain is trying to keep its delegation down.

Three ministers — Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, Phil Woolas, junior environment minister, and Gareth Thomas, junior minister for international development — will attend accompanied by about 40 civil servants.

That is still rather a lot of people, given that the ministers at least will be in extremely luxurious hotel apartments (paid for by whom one wonders), justified by the fact that they will need to hold private meetings. Have these people not heard of the internet?

It would appear that Achim Steiner, Director of the UN Environment Programme sees nothing wrong with this highly expensive, in economic and environmental terms, circus:

If you want to tackle an unprecedented global challenge like climate change then people have to meet and talk. Bali remains the world’s best hope to minimise the effect of global warming.

Then again, he would say that, wouldn't he.

The trouble is that one cannot quite accept that all this palaver can possibly be run by people who actually believe that global warming and carbon emissions are real problems. If they did, they would surely not behave like this. They certainly would not travel in such large numbers to Birmingham or Pittsburgh in the middle of November.

The final tally ought to be terrifying to anyone who thinks that carbon emissions will kill all life on the planet in the next year and a half:

Chris Goodall, a carbon emissions expert who did the calculations for The Sunday Times, estimated that each person flying to Bali would, on average, generate the equivalent of 6.48 tonnes of CO2. If 15,000 people attend, this adds up to over 97,000 tonnes of CO2. To this must be added about 13,000 tonnes of CO2 from the conference venue and hotels — a total of 110,000 tonnes.

Well, never mind. They’ll make up the difference by banning people from taking two holidays a year on those evil cheap airlines.

What is the point of Amnesty International?

I know what used to be the point of Amnesty International – it helped to free political prisoners around the world. It did so by drawing attention to their existence and their plight and by campaigning in various ways for their release. The people in question had to be prisoners for political reasons even if there were some trumped up criminal charges.

Amnesty International was unique in it concentration on this issue. It was also (and probably still is) unique in its dual structure of a central research and political structure and individual campaigning groups in various countries, whose task it was to campaign for prisoners in other countries.

I recall there being problems with some of the country groups even back in the Cold War days, in that a number of them refused to campaign for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union or other Communist states. Other campaigning organizations had to be formed in those countries.

Nevertheless, Amnesty International at the centre continued with the good work and many people around the world owed their life and liberty to it.

Things have changed somewhat. These days it is routinely described as being a political organization, which means it has lost its neutrality and is no longer seen as useful for one particular purpose. For myself, I have always thought that the change came when Amnesty International started to campaign against capital punishment anywhere and under any circumstance.

This has nothing to do with my own opinions on capital punishment, which I am not about to disclose as they are irrelevant to this blog. Nor will there be a discussion about it on the forum. This is a thread about a powerful NGO not about difficult moral issues.

The point is that capital punishment, if it is given out after a free and fair trial for a crime that is known to carry that sentence, is not a form of political oppression or injustice. By deciding to add that issue to their other ones Amnesty International proclaimed in effect that it was no longer campaigning for political prisoners but taking on political issues.

I am delighted to discover, somewhat belatedly, that O’Sullivan’s First Law, known to me for a long time, that any organization not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing, was formulated specifically with Amnesty International in mind and in response to the decision to start campaigning against all capital punishment.

Since then Amnesty International has gone from bad to worse, becoming an organization that is supposedly campaigning for human rights, whatever they may be and has lined up on the anti-American, anti-Western, pro-tranzi, pro-NGO side. We have documented their behaviour on various occasions and here is one example.

The organization has been expanding its remit again. For some time there has been talk of them becoming involved in “development issues”, which will mean, one presumes, demands for more aid from the poor of the Western countries to the rich of the developing ones. There has been talk about them campaigning against domestic violence though I do not know whether that has come to anything.

With domestic violence I can be quite open – I am against it, no matter who is inflicting it on whom. But there are many organizations dealing with it (though not all that many who talk of domestic violence in societies where it is more or less accepted and even praised by certain religious teachers and I do not mean Britain or the United States). It is not Amenesty’s job to get involved in it, unless they really do feel that in certain countries it is used for political purposes.

The latest announcement is that Amnesty International has decided to campaign for abortion rights for women who have been raped. It is not entirely clear to me even from the organization’s statement, made in response to the Vatican’s criticism how far they intend to go with this eventually.

There are, of course, many stories of women (and children) being raped in various wars, not least, as we have discussed before, by UN troops in Africa. Whether abortion is quite the right solution to those women’s problems and whether this is feasible in those circumstances are both moot points.

The Catholic Church, until now a strong supporter of Amnesty International, is speaking out against this particular policy and the organization is clearly scrambling to do some damage limitation.

As with capital punishment, so with abortion: my own views are irrelevant and will not be explained or discussed. In fact, neither will be discussed on the forum, which does not deal with those matters. (There are plenty out there that do.) The point I am making is about Amnesty International, an organization that uses its credibility to intervene in political processes and discussions. That credibility has long ago been squandered.

COMMENT THREAD