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.

Cameron apologises for (Iraq) Hillsborough disaster

Bearwatch apologises for errors in transcription in the following story, a shortened version of the original which ran on the BBC here. The faulty version below is left online so that readers may compare the two in detail.
______________________________________________________________

Iraq papers: Cameron apology over 'double injustice'

David Cameron has said he is profoundly sorry for the "double injustice" of the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Speaking after an independent report into previously unseen documents about the tragedy, the prime minister said civil servants, political and legal advisers, MPs and the Press had failed to do enough and had also tried to blame Saddam Hussein and the British intelligence services.

109,032 Iraqis died as a result of the Coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003. [...]

The prime minister's statement vindicates what protestors have always claimed: that there was a deliberate Cabinet conspiracy to hide their own culpability and a campaign to divert the blame onto others.

Amid gasps in the Commons, Mr Cameron revealed that intelligence reports were significantly altered and that personal information was leaked to the Press to "impugn the reputation of Dr David Kelly".

But the most significant development is whether the Chilcot Inquiry should be reopened. [...]

Mr Cameron said there were three main areas highlighted in the report - failures by the authorities to protect British interests and tell the truth to their voters, misleading revisions to intelligence service reports and doubt cast on information supplied to journalists by Dr David Kelly. [...]

Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail newspaper when it ran a story claiming that British bases were “just 45 minutes from attack” by Iraqi missiles, offered his "profuse apologies".

He published the story with that headline in the days leading up to the invasion, which alleged that the Iraqi government was close to acquiring nuclear weapons.

In a statement he said: "I published in good faith and I am sorry that it was so wrong." [...]

Cabinet papers are not usually published in the UK until 30 years after they have been written but MPs agreed to their full, uncensored disclosure last year.