Reasons to visit Australia 2: the Bunyip

I first read about the Bunyip in Barry Humphries' first autobiography, "More, Please." Humphries costumed himself as one in an early Australian children's TV programme, in which he would recount Aboriginal legends. Part of the get-up was a large proboscis (some say the Bunyip resembles an elephant) and partway through live transmission the nose fell off. Characteristically, the future global entertainer compounded the misfortune by explaining to the watching youngsters, as he re-fixed the appendage, that he had leprosy; transmission was abruptly terminated.

Attempts have been made to explain away the Bunyip's existence, as with other marvellous and miraculous things; even, to date its first mythical appearance (1932).

On the other hand, it may be quite real and have made its way into Aboriginal folk-memory from 50,000 years ago, when the continent was first colonised by humans. When they arrived, the giant wombat or diprotodon roamed the land, a massive creature weighing nearly 8 times as much as the modern American grizzly bear:

(Pik: Wik)
Together with other giant meaty animals, it seems to have disappeared within a few thousand years of the immigrants' arrival. But like the coelocanth, believed 65 million years extinct prior to its rediscovery alive in 1938, there could be some left.

There are two reasons why we have no complete physical evidence of this creature:

1. It is rare, choosing as its habitat remote swamps and waterholes.

2. If you meet one, you will suddenly become rarer than it.

It also helped revive the Australian film industry, thanks to the 1970 movie "The Naked Bunyip" in which a naïf sex researcher conducts appropriate investigations; the maker bypassed censorship by covering the most objectionable images with Bunyip caricatures. Coincidentally, modern legend says the Bunyip (like Barry Humphries) prefers women victims, but "any port in a storm".

Totnes beats off Costa

News just in: Costa has withdrawn its attempt to barge into Totnes against the will of thousands of residents (though not their local councillors). They'd thought they could use legal threats and cosy cooperation with the planners to override objections. Not that they've always taken the trouble to get planning permission before opening another branch. It's been a hard fight by clever, articulate people; most other communities have had to cave in.

Some may take the view of the spectacularly misguided (but he's still young, bless him) Tom Doran in The Independent (such a hackneyed use of the word "embrace", too) that opposing large-scale capitalism is a Leftist thing. If so, please define politically the 41 independent traders who offer coffee there. Liberty for the individual is not at all the same as liberty for large corporations to engulf and devour in their quest for infinite growth.

You'd think the MSM pseudosophisticates who chorus their support for Big MD dream of retiring to Birmingham city centre. Unlike about a million Brummies.

Let's hear it for Poujadism and "the defense of the common man against the elites" - surely a theme close to the hearts of libertarians.

Reasons to visit Australia 1: The Cigarette Snail

(Pic: Wik)

This little beauty is found in coral reefs and shallow waters in the Indian Ocean, but the beer isn't so good there. So come to Australia, where the last recorded fatal attack on a local was in 1935. Worldwide, only 30 deaths in 300 years, so the odds are in your favour.

The "cigarette" monicker is because it's said to poison you so fast you only have time for a smoke. That's a wild exaggeration: actually you have a few hours. And the creeping paralysis doesn't hurt too much - the stinger injects an analgesic together with the venom.

How language changes: "Savile row suit"

From the Duden Anglais Encylopedia of Contemporary Language (2020 Edition):

(In this example, the pronunciation has altered because of the substitution of one homonym by another.)

Savile Row Suit [sævɨl roʊ suːt] (archaic): expensive, handmade gentleman's apparel. Savile Row was one of the famous centres of the London garment trade. The work has since been outsourced to China, India and latterly Vietnam, and the street is now best known for its branches of Costa Coffee, TKMaxx and other consumer chain outlets, plus the largest unemployment benefit office in Manche Nord (formerly SEEDA/EMDI, previously "South-East England" (q.v.)).

Savile Row Suit [sævɨl raʊ suːt] (modern): expensive legal action taken to deny contemporary knowledge of, or indirect involvement in, an entertainer's sexual misdeeds. This phrase gained currency in the aftermath of the October 2012 Newsnight/Panorama controversy (current affairs programmes on the now-defunct British Broadcasting Corporation (see "Sky BEEB")) over the late Sir Jimmy Savile.

Its usage then extended to cover the sexual exploitation of "underage" girls by many popular musicians and film- and TV-programme-makers in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The usage is expected to decline in the near future, as the age of consent has since been lowered to 14 and is scheduled (pending Presidential Assent) to be abolished entirely as per old NCCL recommendations. (The NCCL, now known as Liberty, had sometime included among its officers future Labour Government ministers Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman, whose position on these matters may have changed.)

In any case, details of any such alleged past offences are now unpublishable in the EU following the European Privacy Directive of 2019, which incorporates many of the features demanded by the European Privacy Association and chose to go further in the light of scandals involving certain French, Belgian and Italian politicians in the late 2010s.

Among the consequences of that Directive are the "weeding" of newspapers, magazines and other ephemera from libraries (such as the Bodleian) and national collections, to expunge allegations such as the ones that appeared in the scurrilous Spiked magazine in the 1990s concerning a British (see glossary) government minister and a certain North African hotel.

UK more vulnerable to systemic banking tremors than Ireland

That's gross debt, not net debt; but it's the equivalent of balancing two squirming elephants instead of two oranges. Thank you, banks.

Data from: Graham Summers, Phoenix Capital Research.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

UK more vulnerable to systemic banking tremors than Ireland

That's gross debt, not net debt; but it's the equivalent of balancing two squirming elephants instead of two oranges. Thank you, banks.

Data from: Graham Summers, Phoenix Capital Research.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Mr Cameron has another vicarious emotion

Hot on the heels of Mr Cameron's vague fantasy of doing something about Europe comes this:

"Tells friends... wants... could... has discussed his views..."

Meaning Cameron has told him to tell him, just like he gave Useless Eustace Grayling's opinion to him (a feeble fire that Ken Clarke has immediately pissed on).

To be vulgar, Cameron and Gove (and Grayling, as discussed yesterday) are cock-teasers. They lift their skirts and what you see is just what you won't get, no matter how many drinks you buy them. The Daily Mail plays along because it knows which side its bread is buttered; it would turn Cameron's fart into a Hallelujah Chorus. Until it switches to sinister clown Boris Johnson.

We now have a political elite composed of overprivileged, useless chinless wonders, fainéants occupying the place of people who might achieve something for somebody apart from themselves.

They are the choking bozone layer above us and it's time we got some fresh air.

The privatisation of crime by Failing Grayling

Householders are now encouraged to enter a fantasyland where they confront and subdue intruders and are authorised to use "disproportionate" force.

1. Force that is "disproportionate" is unjust in common law. You are already entitled to use force according to what seems reasonable in the circumstances, which can mean killing someone else. Should you succeed, some might advise (unofficially) that you should then go totally over the top and make a bloody mess of the perpetrator, as evidence that you were panicking and so didn't kill him in cold blood. One shot, jail; the whole magazine plus pistol-butt-smashing the face to a pulp while screaming like a banshee for ten minutes, walk free - maybe. A knife fight - far messier: they often don't die straight away, which is why deceased knife victims often have many, many wounds. You think you're going to win this?

2. You are likely to be asleep when a burglar comes in. What are the chances that you will wake in time to recognise the threat, and that you will be stronger, fitter and quicker than the intruder who is already fully pumped-up to the extent that (typically) after the break-in he raids your fridge and biscuit tin to replenish his adrenalin-haywired blood-sugar level? And what about his Number Two, who unknown to you is behind you as you are dealing with Number One? Possibly also Three and Four, and a lookout? How about when you're ill, or old, or crippled?

3. If self-defence becomes the norm, don't expect the criminal to come in unarmed.

What this is really about, is the failure of the police and the courts. If police patrolled regularly, checking gates and shop doors, you'd be protected. If first-offence burglary was punished by a stiff prison sentence - as it used to be - your property would be protected. If hanging were still a legal punishment, your life (and the lives of your loved ones) would be protected.

As it is, you're on your own, son.

That EU Nobel Peace Prize

 

Mel Brooks - I Want Peace (from "The Producers", Embassy Pictures, 1968)

I don't want war. All I want is peace. Peace.             

Peace!

A little piece of Poland
A little piece of France             
A little piece of Portugal
And Austria perchance

A little slice of Turkey
And all that that entails                 
Und then a piece of England Scotland
Ireland and Wales

A little nip of Norway
A little spot of Greece
A little hunk of Hungary
Oh what a lovely feast

A little bite of Belgium
And now for some dessert
Armenia Albania
And Russia wouldn't hurt

What exactly is liberty?

Dick Puddlecote has another go at Prohibition (the American experience of which is widely misunderstood), and (being naturally contrarian myself) I have a geat deal of sympathy for his opposition to officialdom.

But we can easily be misled into thinking there are only two positions to take: bans, or complete lack of restriction. I think lovers of freedom need to develop a more nuanced stance. As I comment there:

It's not the making available that harmful, it's the pushing. Look how licensing laws have been progressively relaxed since the 50s, mostly for the benefit of brewers and the supermarket lobby.

And the advertising - remember the 1989 Woodpecker cider ad showing a couple of woodpeckers seated on the ground, cans in hand, with the slogan"Get out of your tree with Woodpecker Cider"? There's a reference to it in this book (p 368 in Google Books - even there the text is unavailable online) but it seems impossible to retrieve the image - it's like getting hold of the Sun's "Gotcha!" Belgrano front page.

The liberty of the individual is distinct from the liberty of powerful commercial enterprises to exploit our weaknesses, and in this context I do not consider businesses to be persons with the right to liberty.

I think libertarians need to consider how they may inadvertently be acting as unpaid agents for the more questionable sectors of corporate capitalism; and to what extent liberty is better exercised in controlling an appetite rather than giving way to it.

Superficial consumer uptick, underlying concerns continue

Back in June, I noted that credit card lending had declined over the previous 12 months; now, according to the Bank of England, there has been a sharp recovery:

Similarly, the second-quarter report from ING Direct's Consumer Savings Monitor (PDF) shows a rise in consumer savings balances:

Yet the figures for UK M4 continue to decline:

So are these signs of recovering confidence? Perhaps the credit card figures reflect a temporary Jubilee Year / Olympics buildup feelgood splurge, and the plumping up of the savings cushion shows continuing underlying caution; otherwise, why not spend from savings rather than rack up plastic debt? And the M4 figures indicate a deflationary undertow beneath the surface.

But the aggregate statistics may be misleading. It could be that some who still have their heads above water, are saving hard while they can, and others are driven to buy on the card because they have no savings and cannot get more bank credit.

The next quarter may clarify the picture.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Superficial consumer uptick, underlying concerns continue

Back in June, I noted that credit card lending had declined over the previous 12 months; now, according to the Bank of England, there has been a sharp recovery:

Similarly, the second-quarter report from ING Direct's Consumer Savings Monitor (PDF) shows a rise in consumer savings balances:

Yet the figures for UK M4 continue to decline:

So are these signs of recovering confidence? Perhaps the credit card figures reflect a temporary Jubilee Year / Olympics buildup feelgood splurge, and the plumping up of the savings cushion shows continuing underlying caution; otherwise, why not spend from savings rather than rack up plastic debt? And the M4 figures indicate a deflationary undertow beneath the surface.

But the aggregate statistics may be misleading. It could be that some who still have their heads above water, are saving hard while they can, and others are driven to buy on the card because they have no savings and cannot get more bank credit.

The next quarter may clarify the picture.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Tyranny in the name of freedom: a case history

We're watching with interest BBC's "Wartime Farm" series, about efforts to increase food production in Britain in World War Two. Last week's episode (number 4) included a sadly instructive story about a farmer who ran foul of what seems to have been the stupidity and inflexibility of centralised bureaucracy. Resisting it, he paid with his life.

The incident is covered from 23:19 in the programme, and also described in the online Radio Times. A Hampshire tenant farmer called Ray Walden had been ordered to plough up "roughly half" of his farmland for extra corn production to meet "War Ag."targets, but according to a contemporary interviewed in the programme, some of that land was too wet and unsuitable for corn. Walden refused and when served with an eviction notice (as some 2,000 farmers were, during the War) barricaded himself in his house and in the ensuing 18-hour siege shot at those trying to remove him, wounding one or two in the process. Walden was shot in the head and fatally injured.

The contemporary report by the Hampshire Chronicle, covering the events and the inquest, is here. However, significant extra details are given in this account, which tells us that (a) under wartime regulations the proceedings of the inquest were held in secret, the public and Press being excluded, and (b) no evidence was offered on the late man's behalf to explain why he had acted as he did. In the latter account the Cultivation Order is also said to have been for only four acres to be ploughed, not half the (62 acre) farm as in the BBC's version, which raises the possibility that there may have been some falsification in the evidence given at the inquest in order to make the Min of Ag's demand seem more reasonable.

Only one man, only one death - but that's all any of us has, despite the BBC's attempt in the programme to sweeten the bitter pill by reference to "the greater good". In how many areas does government act like a kind of Juggernaut, rolling over anyone who gets in its single-minded, sometimes simple-minded way?

UPDATE

A comment on this post at Orphans of Liberty:

Well, what a surprising thing to stumble upon. George Walden is an ancestor of mine, on my mother’s side. Family legend has long held that “dark forces” were at work of a more local nature, namely anti-Papism in the form of the vicar and a long-held grudge over disputed debts with a local worthy. In light of these, favours were called in and a ridiculous land demand was drawn up. All rumour and hearsay, of course. The family were most offended by the suggestion that he committed suicide.

Readers may know that anti-Catholic prejudice still ran pretty strongly in those days, as my late mother-in-law found when as a youngster she spent time in Scotland. And money is often a cause of trouble.

China expanding into Russia

From France 24 (hat-tip: farmlandgrab.org) (loosely translated by me with Google Translate's help):

Long closed to foreigners, Siberia is now opening up to China. More and more Chinese are crossing the Amur River to settle there. Their presence is beginning to worry the Russian authorities, who see them as new competition.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Chinese have been leaving the Middle Kingdom in growing numbers to settle on the other side of the border, in Russia, in the Far East region historically known as Eastern Siberia.

 FRANCE 24 reporters went to Blagoveshchensk, a Russian city located more than 8,000 kilometers from Moscow and merely 800 meters from China. The two countries are separated only by the Amur River. In winter, when the river freezes, one can cross on foot.In summer, it takes less than ten minutes to get from one bank to the other.

 It was once a front line where the armored divisions of the two feuding brother Communist states threatened each other. Now "Blago", formerly a closed city, has become the symbol of Far East "sinicization". Here, without the Chinese there is no future. The development of the economy depends entirely on relations with China. Derelict ex-collective farms have been taken over by Chinese. There are many mixed marriages and Chinese is the principal foreign language taught at school and university. Here, all Chinese speak Russian and the Russians know a few words of Chinese.

Generally this cohabitation is going well, although there are some who object to the "peaceful invasion". Many Russians are worried about their country becoming a "reservoir" of raw materials for their Chinese neighbour who buys their oil and exploits their forests and farmland. Others who are forced out of the labour market by the cheap and efficient Chinese workforce denounce them as a "yellow peril".

That xenophobic language is completely contradicted by the reality that the Russians need the Chinese here. In "Blago", they remember a time not so long ago when Chinese products helped the Russians to take the brunt of the post-Soviet transition. And today, it is thanks to Chinese entrepreneurs that the Russian economy is modernizing.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

China is why Burma released Aung San Suu Kyi

Why, after 20 years' intemittent house arrest and other restrictions, was democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi freed by the Burmese government?

Last night's BBC This World programme "Aung San Suu Kyi: The Choice" (viewable online until 29 September) sketched the postwar political history of Burma, viewed through the lens of the personal experience of Suu Kyi and her family and touching on the heavy emotional cost for them as well as her steely courage and wily pragmatism.

But neither pity nor admiration were the motive for the junta's rapprochement with her and her party, the National League for Democracy, according to a former figure in Burmese military intelligence who was deputy Ambassador to the USA. At 52:28 in the programme, Major Aung Linn Htut set the decision in its geopolitical context:

"Change is inevitable. The current military leadership knows that. Burma has fallen so far behind the rest of the world. China is swallowing us up economically. It's controlling us politically, too. Burma can only counter China's influence with the West's help. These changes are an attempt to redress the balance."

China and Burma are neighbours and have had periodic flareups since the thirteenth century. summarised by this article on BurmaNet. Post-World War Two, Burma defended itself against the Chinese Nationalist Kuomintang and then Chinese-sponsored domestic Communist subversives. When the latter failed, China switched to encouraging the growth of ethnic minority militias in Burma, which has bequeathed a poisonous legacy and unfinished business as far as the leadership is concerned. Aung Linn Htut's article continues:

Then in 1989, Kokang leader Peng Jiasheng followed Beijing’s advice and contacted Burmese Maj Than Aye, head of intelligence unit No. 9 based in Lashio, Kachin State, to discuss peace without disarmament. Lo Hsing Han, a former drug lord, served as a liaison between the two parties and a cease-fire deal was reached.

The Kokang offer was accepted by Burmese Gen Saw Maung and Brig-Gen Khin Nyunt, then the leaders of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), with the approval of Ne Win, who had resigned his official post in 1988 but retained a great deal of influence over state affairs. Later, many armed ethnic armed groups based along the Sino-Burmese border followed the Kokang example and entered into cease-fire agreements with the SLORC.

Snr-Gen Than Shwe and Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, both holding the rank of Maj-Gen at the time, were not happy with the cease-fire agreements, but they dared not protest against deals entered into by their superiors. After taking office, however, Than Shwe used to say he was dealing with the Chinese not out of desire but because it was unavoidable. He never shook hands with leaders of cease-fire groups from the northeastern part of the country, and frequently told divisional and regional commanders at quarterly meetings that those groups would be attacked one day.

Read in this context, Suu Kyi's movement presented another opportunity for Beijing to undermine Burma's government:

After the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, won a landslide victory in the 1990 election, China was the first country to recognize the party’s victory by sending its ambassador to Burma to the NLD.

Then, he continues, there are the economic issues. China sold arms to Burma, who then failed to pay; international isolation drove Burma to give control over energy, mining and irrigation to Chinese companies. When China "became concerned about the plight of ethnic armed groups" on their joint border, her foreign minister tried to instruct the Burmese leader Than Shwe to deal with it, and he angrily threatened to change the route of oil and gas pipelines between the two countries; China backed off.

Aung Linn Htut's view is that Burma has to seek dialogue with the West in order to avoid being absorbed by China:

Based on an analysis of the past and present relations between the two countries, one can predict that China will be particularly dangerous for Burma in the future and the situation will be very worrisome for the Burmese people. Burmese military leaders, who may have thought they are good at the political game, have played China against the US and India, but they are now in a position to only follow whatever Beijing asks them to do. China has not only acquired many parts of Burma’s economy, it has to a certain extent dominated ethnic relations and culture.

Burma’s current military leaders, including Gen Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, are reportedly not happy with the situation, but they do not know all the details of what their seniors previously did and agreed to do. As a result, they do not know what words and actions are right and wrong with respect to China, so they have to follow Than Shwe’s instructions. If they continue the way they are going, Burma will indeed become a part of China, or a Chinese colony, as many people say. Or the discontent of the Burmese people will grow and lead to anti-Chinese riots, which will end up in conflict between the two countries.

Potential conflicts over resources continue. For example, there is China's damming of the River Salween, which continues into Burma. Tibet is vital for China for a number of reasons but one of them is that whoever has Tibet controls several river systems running through East Asia. The 21st century could see an age of water wars.

The British also have major business interests in Burma; and her natural gas and oil are another bone for the world's dogs to fight over.

Suu Kyi has been a bargaining chip that neo-imperialist China, Burma's tiger-by-the-tail military rulers and Western plutocrats have all tried to use, but if she plays her negotiable value as skilfully as Malta's Dom Mintoff she may succeed in benefitting her country in a way that none of the others has a reason to do.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

China expanding into Russia

From France 24 (hat-tip: farmlandgrab.org) (loosely translated by me with Google Translate's help):

Long closed to foreigners, Siberia is now opening up to China. More and more Chinese are crossing the Amur River to settle there. Their presence is beginning to worry the Russian authorities, who see them as new competition.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Chinese have been leaving the Middle Kingdom in growing numbers to settle on the other side of the border, in Russia, in the Far East region historically known as Eastern Siberia.

 FRANCE 24 reporters went to Blagoveshchensk, a Russian city located more than 8,000 kilometers from Moscow and merely 800 meters from China. The two countries are separated only by the Amur River. In winter, when the river freezes, one can cross on foot. In summer, it takes less than ten minutes to get from one bank to the other.

It was once a front line where the armored divisions of the two feuding brother Communist states threatened each other. Now "Blago", formerly a closed city, has become the symbol of Far East "sinicization". Here, without the Chinese there is no future. The development of the economy depends entirely on relations with China. Derelict ex-collective farms have been taken over by Chinese. There are many mixed marriages and Chinese is the principal foreign language taught at school and university. Here, all Chinese speak Russian and the Russians know a few words of Chinese.

Generally this cohabitation is going well, although there are some who object to the "peaceful invasion". Many Russians are worried about their country becoming a "reservoir" of raw materials for their Chinese neighbour who buys their oil and exploits their forests and farmland. Others who are forced out of the labour market by the cheap and efficient Chinese workforce denounce them as a "yellow peril".

That xenophobic language is completely contradicted by the reality that the Russians need the Chinese here. In "Blago", they remember a time not so long ago when Chinese products helped the Russians to take the brunt of the post-Soviet transition. And today, it is thanks to Chinese entrepreneurs that the Russian economy is modernizing.

Married man runs off with 13-year-old

Jerry Lee Lewis' "third marriage, to Myra Gale Brown, lasted for 13 years, from December 1957 to December 1970 (although the couple went through a second marriage ceremony because his divorce from Jane Mitchum was not complete before the first ceremony took place). They had two children together."

"She was Lewis's first cousin once removed and was only 13 years old at the time. (Brown, Lewis, and his management all insisted that she was 15). Lewis was 22 years old."

Mr Cameron has another emotion

Whenever there's a problem that needs a policy decision, Mr Cameron (Eton and Brazenose) has an emotion at it. Today's Daily Mail bugled the headline "Cameron wants to claw back 100 powers from EU" on page 2 of the print edition.

He has learned well from his mentor, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (Fettes and St John's) who in his slithery way claimed to "regret with every fibre of my being the loss of those who died in Iraq." We can all regret the loss, but where exactly is there any admission of culpability?

Both are like the Japanese who have several levels of apology and have consistently avoided ever using the sincerest one about the treatment of Allied prisoners of war. They have only to wait a few more years and then there will be no-one to receive such an apology.

The online edition of the Mail substitutes the formula "prepares series of moves" for "wants": almost a muscular twitch, then. From a man who couldn't tell David Letterman what "Magna Carta" means.

The late James Clavell, himself a survivor of Changi, repeats an old Japanese proverb in one of his novels: "always give them fish soup, never the fish." And that is what we will get, until finally it is too late.

Anyone who listens to this vapid ignoramus needs his head read.

China is why Burma released Aung San Suu Kyi

Why, after 20 years' intemittent house arrest and other restrictions, was democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi freed by the Burmese government?

Last night's BBC This World programme "Aung San Suu Kyi: The Choice" (viewable online until 29 September) sketched the postwar political history of Burma, viewed through the lens of the personal experience of Suu Kyi and her family and touching on the heavy emotional cost for them as well as her steely courage and wily pragmatism.

But neither pity nor admiration were the motive for the junta's rapprochement with her and her party, the National League for Democracy, according to a former figure in Burmese military intelligence who was deputy Ambassador to the USA. At 52:28 in the programme, Major Aung Linn Htut set the decision in its geopolitical context:

"Change is inevitable. The current military leadership knows that. Burma has fallen so far behind the rest of the world. China is swallowing us up economically. It's controlling us politically, too. Burma can only counter China's influence with the West's help. These changes are an attempt to redress the balance."

China and Burma are neighbours and have had periodic flareups since the thirteenth century. summarised by this article on BurmaNet. Post-World War Two, Burma defended itself against the Chinese Nationalist Kuomintang and then Chinese-sponsored domestic Communist subversives. When the latter failed, China switched to encouraging the growth of ethnic minority militias in Burma, which has bequeathed a poisonous legacy and unfinished business as far as the leadership is concerned. Aung Linn Htut's article continues:

Then in 1989, Kokang leader Peng Jiasheng followed Beijing’s advice and contacted Burmese Maj Than Aye, head of intelligence unit No. 9 based in Lashio, Kachin State, to discuss peace without disarmament. Lo Hsing Han, a former drug lord, served as a liaison between the two parties and a cease-fire deal was reached.

The Kokang offer was accepted by Burmese Gen Saw Maung and Brig-Gen Khin Nyunt, then the leaders of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), with the approval of Ne Win, who had resigned his official post in 1988 but retained a great deal of influence over state affairs. Later, many armed ethnic armed groups based along the Sino-Burmese border followed the Kokang example and entered into cease-fire agreements with the SLORC.

Snr-Gen Than Shwe and Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, both holding the rank of Maj-Gen at the time, were not happy with the cease-fire agreements, but they dared not protest against deals entered into by their superiors. After taking office, however, Than Shwe used to say he was dealing with the Chinese not out of desire but because it was unavoidable. He never shook hands with leaders of cease-fire groups from the northeastern part of the country, and frequently told divisional and regional commanders at quarterly meetings that those groups would be attacked one day.

Read in this context, Suu Kyi's movement presented another opportunity for Beijing to undermine Burma's government:

After the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, won a landslide victory in the 1990 election, China was the first country to recognize the party’s victory by sending its ambassador to Burma to the NLD.

Then, he continues, there are the economic issues. China sold arms to Burma, who then failed to pay; international isolation drove Burma to give control over energy, mining and irrigation to Chinese companies. When China "became concerned about the plight of ethnic armed groups" on their joint border, her foreign minister tried to instruct the Burmese leader Than Shwe to deal with it, and he angrily threatened to change the route of oil and gas pipelines between the two countries; China backed off.

Aung Linn Htut's view is that Burma has to seek dialogue with the West in order to avoid being absorbed by China:

Based on an analysis of the past and present relations between the two countries, one can predict that China will be particularly dangerous for Burma in the future and the situation will be very worrisome for the Burmese people. Burmese military leaders, who may have thought they are good at the political game, have played China against the US and India, but they are now in a position to only follow whatever Beijing asks them to do. China has not only acquired many parts of Burma’s economy, it has to a certain extent dominated ethnic relations and culture.

Burma’s current military leaders, including Gen Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, are reportedly not happy with the situation, but they do not know all the details of what their seniors previously did and agreed to do. As a result, they do not know what words and actions are right and wrong with respect to China, so they have to follow Than Shwe’s instructions. If they continue the way they are going, Burma will indeed become a part of China, or a Chinese colony, as many people say. Or the discontent of the Burmese people will grow and lead to anti-Chinese riots, which will end up in conflict between the two countries.

Potential conflicts over resources continue. For example, there is China's damming of the River Salween, which continues into Burma. Tibet is vital for China for a number of reasons but one of them is that whoever has Tibet controls several river systems running through East Asia. The 21st century could see an age of water wars.

The British also have major business interests in Burma; and her natural gas and oil are another bone for the world's dogs to fight over.

Suu Kyi has been a bargaining chip that neo-imperialist China, Burma's tiger-by-the-tail military rulers and Western plutocrats have all tried to use, but if she plays her negotiable value as skilfully as Malta's Dom Mintoff she may succeed in benefitting her country in a way that none of the others has a reason to do.

America's political consensus is breaking down

It's very funny, and a brilliant flaying by Jon Stewart, but at the same time it's seriously disturbing, for several reasons:

1. The arrogance and callousness of some of these patricians.
2. The bias obvious in a major mass news broadcaster.
3. The unethical skill demonstrated in all those twists and turns that attempt to minimise, distort and then distract from the truth.
4. The naked breakdown in the American polity: what happened to "We, the people"?

Asserting the right to bear arms is usually seen as a right-wing political marker, but the system is so warped that perhaps the people should remember that arming the citizenry was a safeguard against a counter-coup by the supporters of what the Founding Fathers regarded as tyranny. One senses on both sides the Atlantic that large sections of the public are now regarded as inconvenient "useless mouths to feed"...

``At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'' ``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge. ``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. ``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?'' ``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.'' ``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge. ``Both very busy, sir.'' ``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.'' ``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'' ``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied. ``You wish to be anonymous?'' ``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.'' ``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'' ``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.'' ``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman. ``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!'' Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.

Bank boss jailed for "not stealing enough"

A former bankster has been jailed for not taking enough money from the public.

Pronouncing sentence, the judge commented, "The people have a right to expect that a senior professional such as yourself should have sufficient technical expertise to steal billions, or indeed to demand it with menaces from elected politicians, as we saw in America in 2008."

(Bag modelled by Jessica Harper)

The bag used to smuggle the cash (similar to the one pictured) is estimated by experts to be able to contain no more than £200,000 in £20 notes and probably far less, given the tapering and the drawstring at the top. One billion pounds would require a minimum of 5000 separate journeys.

"If all bankers were as unambitious as you," continued His Lordship, "the system would collapse."

What's all the fuss about the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

What is the TPP? Some see it as a creeping plan to"privatise government" and (among other things) stifle the free exchange of information on the internet. There are protests against the secrecy surrounding the talks, and suspicions regarding the effect on small farming and food safety.

The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) began with four small nations in 2005. It was a sort of mini-free trade agreement.

But in July 2008, the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation stalled after a few days' talks in Geneva. This round had been going for almost seven years, without agreement. The blocking issue was how smaller nations could protect their agricultural base against massive foreign imports and aggressive price-undercutting by competitors. They wanted a "Special Safeguard Mechanism" (SSM)that would allow them to impose import tariffs.

The United States had already started talking to the TPP back in February 2008, ostensibly on the issue of financial services; now (September 2008) she declared her intention to apply for TPP membership. This was like an elephant joining four kids in their inflatable backyard pool:

Perhaps the clue to the USA's interest is in her dominant position in agricultural exports (see Table 852 here):

And if all applicants are accepted, then together they will have almost sealed-off the Eastern Pacific to non-members:

As America turns her face towards the East in the 21st century, this may become significant. Brooking Institution fellow Joshua Meltzer told a Congressional Committee in May, "The TPP has the potential to be the building block for a wider Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific Region (FTAAP)".

There are powerful players at work, and much smoke being created. Worldwide, but particularly in Africa, there is a rush to grab agricultural land. Protestors are arguing against the dispossession of small farmers; the World Bank counters the interests of producers, expressing its concern instead for poor urban consumers in this 2010 report:

 

"... we note that many of the main arguments in favor of the SSM focus on the well-being of vulnerable agricultural producers. Yet many rural residents in poor countries are net purchasers of food, and in many countries, urban poverty is growing ever more significant. In this context, the potential for policies based on the SSM rules to lessen poverty vulnerability seems very questionable. Future work should take into account the poverty dimension of the Special Safeguard Mechanism."

 

The food prices about which the World Bank is so concerned might be considerably lower if we did not have the harebrained scheme to use corn as a fuel substitute, and if we could keep speculators out of this market - one that could kill millions if trading gets out of hand. Professor Yaneer Bar-Yam recently did a study in Mexico concluding that those two factors have tripled the price of corn.

 

It is possible to see the TPP as a backdoor way in for Big Farmer and Big Pharma. The potential profits - and the power implicit in gaining control over food supplies- are irresistible. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect that dirty deals are being done in the shadows.

 

A longer-term concern is what may ultimately happen when the world converts to mechanized and chemicalized methods of food production. There is a tradeoff between efficiency and sustainability. Initially, modern farming techniques (applied for example to the Guinea Savannah Belt that the UN's FAO is now eyeing) could create a period of abundance that may in turn encourage further population expansion. We shall then be dependent on this approach. What happens when this system is hit by fuel price hikes and supply hiccups, and soil quality deteriorates across the globe because of the vastly expanded (and profitable) use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides in conjunction with crops genetically engineered to tolerate them? Is humanity set for a great leap and then - after some decades, or a century or two - a monstrous crash?

 

What's all the fuss about the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

What is the TPP? Some see it as a creeping plan to"privatise government" and (among other things) stifle the free exchange of information on the internet. There are protests against the secrecy surrounding the talks, and suspicions regarding the effect on small farming and food safety.

The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) began with four small nations in 2005. It was a sort of mini-free trade agreement.

But in July 2008, the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation stalled after a few days' talks in Geneva. This round had been going for almost seven years, without agreement. The blocking issue was how smaller nations could protect their agricultural base against massive foreign imports and aggressive price-undercutting by competitors. They wanted a "Special Safeguard Mechanism" (SSM)that would allow them to impose import tariffs.

The United States had already started talking to the TPP back in February 2008, ostensibly on the issue of financial services; now (September 2008) she declared her intention to apply for TPP membership. This was like an elephant joining four kids in their inflatable backyard pool:

Perhaps the clue to the USA's interest is in her dominant position in agricultural exports (see Table 852 here):

And if all applicants are accepted, then together they will have almost sealed-off the Eastern Pacific to non-members:

As America turns her face towards the East in the 21st century, this may become significant. Brooking Institution fellow Joshua Meltzer told a Congressional Committee in May, "The TPP has the potential to be the building block for a wider Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific Region (FTAAP)".

There are powerful players at work, and much smoke being created. Worldwide, but particularly in Africa, there is a rush to grab agricultural land. Protestors are arguing against the dispossession of small farmers; the World Bank counters the interests of producers, expressing its concern instead for poor urban consumers in this 2010 report:

 

"... we note that many of the main arguments in favor of the SSM focus on the well-being of vulnerable agricultural producers. Yet many rural residents in poor countries are net purchasers of food, and in many countries, urban poverty is growing ever more significant. In this context, the potential for policies based on the SSM rules to lessen poverty vulnerability seems very questionable. Future work should take into account the poverty dimension of the Special Safeguard Mechanism."

 

The food prices about which the World Bank is so concerned might be considerably lower if we did not have the harebrained scheme to use corn as a fuel substitute, and if we could keep speculators out of this market - one that could kill millions if trading gets out of hand. Professor Yaneer Bar-Yam recently did a study in Mexico concluding that those two factors have tripled the price of corn.

 

It is possible to see the TPP as a backdoor way in for Big Farmer and Big Pharma. The potential profits - and the power implicit in gaining control over food supplies- are irresistible. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect that dirty deals are being done in the shadows.

 

A longer-term concern is what may ultimately happen when the world converts to mechanized and chemicalized methods of food production. There is a tradeoff between efficiency and sustainability. Initially, modern farming techniques (applied for example to the Guinea Savannah Belt that the UN's FAO is now eyeing) could create a period of abundance that may in turn encourage further population expansion. We shall then be dependent on this approach. What happens when this system is hit by fuel price hikes and supply hiccups, and soil quality deteriorates across the globe because of the vastly expanded (and profitable) use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides in conjunction with crops genetically engineered to tolerate them? Is humanity set for a great leap and then - after some decades, or a century or two - a monstrous crash?

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: Mostly in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), but now planning to build up some reserves of physical gold via regular saving.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.