World Forums

i Front National, Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Freiheitspartei Österreichs, Lega Nord, Hvit Valgallianse, Sverigedemokraterna, or Dansk Folkeparti.

Venstre, Socialdemokraterna...

Boye wrote:I can only speak for myself: the Euro-scepticism which has grown ever more fervent since the days of John Major.

Fair enough, though not sure why it matters to you whether our country is pro-European or otherwise.

Boye wrote:their hard anti-immigration stand

Hard? At least it's better than not knowing who is in the country! Most conservative people actually welcome immigrants btw. We need immigrants and I'd never say otherwise. We have an ageing population and a skills shortage which can only be solved by migration, in the short-term at the very least.

But with the terrorist threat, it must ALWAYS be controlled. And if Labour and Lib Dems are too dense to recognise this, God help us all.

Boye wrote: their call to withdraw Britain from the Geneva convention on refugees

Well, we should only EVER follow English law. Not that I think the convention is a bad one, but nobody else should ever tell us what to do. We're British, not French.

We have given too much to this world, for Europeans to start telling us how to behave. Human rights will be respected. Perhaps people should look more closely at instances where human rights are REALLY being abused? That would take too much courage, but still.. worth a thought.

Boye wrote: their opposition against devolution. To name but a few examples.

Well, each to their own. Devolution has cost a lot of money here in Wales. We have this white elephant of an assembly building (not a bad building, but apparently the Assembly Ministers need a new one!) that is little more than a talking shop.

I must ask (politely) what business it may be of a Norwegian whether we have devolution or not? How does it affect Norway? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Leave us to our own devices, we'll be fine :P

Glenn:

A quick glance at their website will show that the Conservatives will

- Put an annual limit on immigration

- Create a new British border control police

- Commence 24-hour surveillance at ports

- Process asylum claims abroad

- Repeal the Geneva Convention on refugees

- Introduce new restrictions on work permits

As an example on this policy put in practice, the website cites the following example:
"For example, student visas holders would be unable to switch to a work-permit, and would have to make a fresh application from outside the UK."

In other words, people who already live in the UK would have to travel home, reapply, and then travel back to the UK. Brilliant!

Isn't it Norway that had a total stop on immigration since the 70's?

Well, yes and no. Let me start with saying I totally disagree with this policy, but unfortunately the Liberal Party and the Socialist Left Party are the only ones that fight for looser restrictions on immigration.

But it's not really a total stop on immigration. Rather it is a general stop on the issuance of work permits to non-Westerners. EEA citizens don't need to apply for a work permit, and for Northern Americans it is a mere formality. In addition, Norwegian employers can apply for work permits for foreigners that they want to bring in to their company. In addition, refugees are let in on an ad-hoc basis and are often granted permanent resident permits and, eventually, citizenship.

Front National, Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Freiheitspartei Österreichs, Lega Nord, Hvit Valgallianse, Sverigedemokraterna, or Dansk Folkeparti.

Venstre, Socialdemokraterna...

Well, their immigration policies are appalling, but unlike the parties I listed, they're not fascists. I wouldn't compare (Danish) Venstre and Socialdemokraterna with the British National Party.

Marko:

Fair enough, though not sure why it matters to you whether our country is pro-European or otherwise.

First, I believe in the benefits of a unified Europe, because I believe common challenges need common solutions, and because I believe that cooperation such as the single market and the single currency create more value and more opportunities for people.

But from a more Euro-centric screw-Britiain perspective, the best thing that could happen would probably be if Britain went for the Norwegian solution, which many British Euro-sceptics cite as an example for Britain to follow: that way, Britain would still follow 83% of all EU directives, but European legislators wouldn't have to deal with British red lines and general discontent when creating new legislation and reforms could go ahead without caring what Britain wants.

I don't want that, however, because I want a united Europe from the mid-Atlantic to the Caspian Sea, and that includes the NILS club (aka EFTA) and, of course, Britain.

But with the terrorist threat, it must ALWAYS be controlled.

The 9-11 attacks has blown the security focus completely out of proportions. The fact of that matter is that terrorism in Britain is now at its lowest in decades.

Well, we should only EVER follow English law. Not that I think the convention is a bad one, but nobody else should ever tell us what to do. We're British, not French.

The Conservatives do not propose withdrawal for purely semantic reasons. It has not proposed to withdraw Britain from a number of other treaties and conventions that put restrictions on British lawmakers. The reason the Conservatives want to repeal the Geneva Convention on refugees is that they are opposed to the contents of that convention. It's naive to think otherwise.

Having said that, I've never understood this romanticisation of national laws over international laws. I think international cooperation is a good, and I think formalised international cooperation is even better. And finally, I think formalised international cooperation that aims to strengthen fundamental rights and create an international framework for dealing with crimes, is fantastic. Conventions regulating everything from the rules of warfare to the rights of children, have made a real difference in the world, helping millions. I find opposition against such cooperation difficult to understand. But opposition against such cooperation on the basis of a romanticisation of the principle of national law and national sovereignty, is - excuse me for being blunt - just silly.

Well, each to their own. Devolution has cost a lot of money here in Wales. We have this white elephant of an assembly building (not a bad building, but apparently the Assembly Ministers need a new one!) that is little more than a talking shop.

Well, if it's a talking shop, then give it real power! That's what devolution should be about, moving power from the centre to the people who are affected by the decisions. Britain is a very centralised state; the Brussels buzzword subsidiarity might not be a bad idea in Britain either.

I must ask (politely) what business it may be of a Norwegian whether we have devolution or not? How does it affect Norway?

Just general interest. It means zip to Norway.

Boye, give the devolved governments more power? Would mean more Welsh Nationalists (Plaid Cymru) in a position of power. Great stuff! You know those nationalists (and socialists hmm) are the main opposition in the Welsh Assembly, but nothing (thank god) in Westminster?

Why is nationalism "OK" when it's propagated by a smaller nation and not OK when a bigger country are being "nationalistic" btw? I can see right through the likes of Plaid and the SNP. Racism is racism, in whatever form it takes place.

As for being silly, we really are quite capable of governing ourselves. There is nothing silly about that, just plain common sense which some people fail to grasp. British lawmakers should never ever be restricted by those from outside.

I'm quite sure the Conservatives aren't thinking of bringing back the birch and other forms of torture ;) There really is nothing to worry about. International law has always been irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with the reasons for going to war in Iraq, but I'll never ascribe to international law taking precedent over our own - it doesn't and never will.

As for security being blown out of proportion, well perhaps you have a point. However, several months after Michael Moore wrote in one of his books that "THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT!, Madrid bore the full brunt of that non-existent threat. It always pays to be vigilant, regardless of whether Britain is suffering from fewer terrorist attacks than ever before (thanks to IRA ceasefire, but IRA aren't really the problem nowadays).

Single currency creates more opportunities? LOL. I think we'll leave it here, Boye. You're a nice guy and I wish you well in your political career and in your wish for Norway to become a fully fledged member of the EU. Just let each of us make our own decisions, eh?

Boye, give the devolved governments more power? Would mean more Welsh Nationalists (Plaid Cymru) in a position of power. Great stuff! You know those nationalists (and socialists hmm) are the main opposition in the Welsh Assembly, but nothing (thank god) in Westminster?

Whether I like them or not is irrelevant. The test of a principled opinion is whether you would want the same even if the outcome turned against you. And yes, I support local government because I support the idea of making decisions at the lowest possible level. In the same vein, I support the EU because I believe in the idea of common solutions to common challenges. This is about division of power on the basis of subsidiarity. On the top, global warming needs to be met by common solutions. At the bottom, local councils can decide where to put up park benches.

The Welsh assembley would, of course, not have any power on immigration, nor be able to disregard laws on discrimination, because that would be beyond its competence.

As for being silly, we really are quite capable of governing ourselves. There is nothing silly about that, just plain common sense which some people fail to grasp. British lawmakers should never ever be restricted by those from outside.

Interesting how you think British lawsmakers should not be restricted from the outside, while Welsh lawmakers should be restricted from the outside. Why is the nation state the only relevant level of lawmaking?

I don't doubt that the British are capable of governing themselves. But the nature of agreements is such that both parties are bound by it. When Britain entered into NATO, it entered into obligations that put restrictions on Parliament, or else face grave consequences from its allies. When Britain joined the then EEC, it gave up its ability to raise tariffs against other member countries, in return for tariff-free trade of British products in the same countries. When the single market came into effect in 1993, Britain accepted that the same rules would apply in the whole area of the single market, and as a consequence, that those rules would be above British rules in the event of conflicting laws.

Yes, the British are capable of governing themselves. But if they want cooperation, then they must accept that cooperation restricts the room of maneuver. The most basic concept of having common rules is that common rules don't work if they can be unilaterally overridden.

International law has always been irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

That's strange that you would find it irrelevant, considering that about half of all new British legislation originates from Brussels.

Single currency creates more opportunities?

Yes. In short, the single currency removes the obstacle of currency rate fluctuations and lowers transaction costs, thereby stimulating more cross-border competition which ultimately creates more choice and more opportunities for consumers.

Just let each of us make our own decisions, eh?

Well, again, you can't have common rules if everyone is always going to make their own decisions.

Welsh lawmakers don't yet exist (thank god), because the laws of England are relevant to both England and Wales.

EU law is incorporated into our own law and thus isn't "international law", and I don't have a particular problem with that as they don't interfere in anything I would consider sacrosanct. Not yet in any case

I wasn't really referring to that in particular, but UN nonsense. Perhaps it's time for the body to die a long overdue death? They aren't doing a great deal to the likes of Mugabe lol. And PLEASE don't try to spin that and make the UN look good, because in plenty of recent circumstances, they have NOT. That's a fact, not an opinion.

BTW: removing trade barriers is GOOD. I would never dispute the logic of such a movement. My main problem is that some people in the EU want to take us too far. As for sovereignty being silly, well people in my country actually fought for it in WW2. I know that's not quite true in many European countries, perhaps that's what explains the differing opinions? ;)

I would rather an alliance with the US than the EU if it came to such a choice.

I wasn't really referring to that in particular, but UN nonsense. Perhaps it's time for the body to die a long overdue death?

You prefer the way international conflict was sorted in the pre-1945 era?

As for sovereignty being silly, well people in my country actually fought for it in WW2. I know that's not quite true in many European countries, perhaps that's what explains the differing opinions?

Oh please...

I'll let that last remark pass. As for sovereignty being silly, yes, in a globalised economy, the idea of national sovereignty is becoming old fashioned. The fact is that what happens in one country affects the other, because goods, services, ideas, people, capital, pullution, crime, terrorism all move across borders. Now you can either go for complete isolation, erect non-penetrable barriers to the movement of goods, services, ideas, people, capital, crime and terrorism (but not, alas, pollution), or you can let government follow and allow for common solutions to common challenges. Going half-way leads to international anarchy, making everything from tax evasion to terrorism easier to plan and execute.

But its wrong to see international cooperation as an erosion of sovereignty. Rather, it is pooling of sovereignty, which actually enhances it because common solutions add more value than unilateral solution. E.g. cutting CO2 emissions in Britain won't do much help to the environment if no one else goes along as well.

LOL. Alright, Boye. We'd be here all century if we continued. I'll let it rest.

Oh man, how did England manage for so long, in their splendid isolation, without all those Eurocrats...

Not even that Corsican shorty was able to isolate it, as hard as he tried:)

Leo:

Oh man, how did England manage for so long, in their splendid isolation, without all those Eurocrats...

I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I claim that Britons are better off now than they were before Britain joined the EU.

Of course, those who see little value in free trade will disagree.

I see value in free trade, as I'm sure most people do. I have absolutely NO problem with that side of the EU - never have.

Certainly, we were in a mess in the early 70s before we joined. However, free trade is just one reason for our economic growth (Germany isn't growing much these days despite all of its free trade, for example). Thatcher's reforms and North Sea Oil were also key in our growth. Brown has done a good job with the economy too. Handing over responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England was a masterstroke, and long overdue (better that a qualified expert decides than a politican, where possible).

If the EU was about free-trade, and common solutions for combating international terrorism, drug supplying and immigrant labour gangs, then i'd be quite happy, Boye.

I must say the EU constitution (from what I've read so far) is very uninspiring. Synthese wasn't wrong lol. Much of what is in it, I thought was already in existence anyway! Why does it need to be repeated lol?

BTW Boye. Are you a supporter of this so-called "Fair Trade" movement for trading with the third world? How fair is this statement:

"Fair Trade coffee helps to provide living wages to the farmers, and up to <b>three times as much income as the average coffee producer</b>."

Fair to the "average" third world coffee producer? Yes? No?

Why should we pay coffee growers in Angola and Yemen our wages? Do they pay our mortgages and insurance premiums?

High-minded idiots of the world, stuff yourself:)

LOL. No, they don't pay $50 for a pizza either

I just find this "Fair Trade" thing rather sickening. I don't know why they're boasting about some third world producers only getting a third of what "Fair Trade" farmers are. It should just be left to the market in any case.

Was a good article about this a few weeks back but I've mislaid it. It compared the process to socialism on a global scale.

If the EU was about free-trade, and common solutions for combating international terrorism, drug supplying and immigrant labour gangs, then i'd be quite happy, Boye.

I'm not sure what you mean by combating immigrant labour gangs, but for the rest, that's pretty much what the EU is about. In addition, I would add common solutions for the environment and for promoting catching-up growth in the poorer regions of the EU, such as Ireland back in the day, and Lithuania and Slovakia now.

I must say the EU constitution (from what I've read so far) is very uninspiring. Synthese wasn't wrong lol. Much of what is in it, I thought was already in existence anyway! Why does it need to be repeated lol?

As your Prime Minister said repeatedly before he succumbed to pressure and allowed a referendum to go ahead anyway, the Constitution is mainly a clean-up job. The idea is to simplify the rules by merging Five treaties with amendments into One single document. The Conservatives are opposed to that idea.

In addition to being a clean-up job, the Constitution does bring some changes. Most significantly, the voting weights in the Council of Ministers are changed (partly rectifying the horrible compromise of the Nice treaty whereby a Spaniard or Pole weighs 1.5 times as much as a Briton and 2 times as much as a German), the role of the European Parliament is strengthened in some new areas and in electing the Commission, Council of Ministers meetings are made public and the procedures for a country to leave the Union are explicitly specified.

For some reason, the Conservatives don't like this.

Oh, well a lot of immigrants from eastern europe (before they joined the EU mainly, but it still happens) are working illegally under gangs from the same countries they came from. I don't see a great deal being done about it. I'm sure we could do more. It's a shame to see some Poles and Czechs still having to work illegally and their tax and NI contributions being pocketed by their "boss".

It would be nice to have more co-operation from our European counterparts on combating illegals. That's all, but no big deal. Perhaps it isn't really plausible.

Fair trade is free trade: the absence of government subsidies to business and the absence of tariffs.

In coffee, Western agro-protectionism is not the problem. However, product differentiation by CSR is no different than other types of branding. I see no problem in that.

But the real problem here is when American farmers are given government grants so that they can dump their cotton produce on the world market, or when European farmers are doing the same for their sugar produce. The problem is when American and European tariffs "protect" their consumers from buying superior foreign produce, so that poor Africans can remain poor for the sake of breathing artificial life into a Western farm industry that should be on the decline.

Western neomercantilism, whereby free trade is good when it leads to export and bad when it leads to import, is the single biggest obstacle to development in the Third World today. And the ones who bear the heaviest burden for keeping poor African farmers down and out, are the havenots of the West who pay excessive food prices as a result.

It is bad development policy, bad economic policy and bad social policy all at once.

Oh, well a lot of immigrants from eastern europe (before they joined the EU mainly, but it still happens) are working illegally under gangs from the same countries they came from. I don't see a great deal being done about it. I'm sure we could do more. It's a shame to see some Poles and Czechs still having to work illegally and their tax and NI contributions being pocketed by their "boss".

Ah, I see. Well, the solution is simple: get rid of the temporary restrictions on the movement of labour. The problem will go away anyway when the seven-year transition period is over, but the UK could unilaterally lift the restrictions today, like Ireland and Sweden have.

That's a good idea, Boye. It was really sad to see a Polish professor sleeping rough in our country. We have a skills shortage in disciplines like science, and he could definitely contribute to our society.

However, this is something I don't really blame the EU for, but Tony Blair, who has no idea, not even a rough estimate as to the number of illegal immigrants in our country.

BTW: Apologies for my short manner yesterday and calling you arrogant.

The Wall Street Journal

Boycotting the Jews

By GERALD M. STEINBERG
April 29, 2005

JERUSALEM -- The phones began ringing late last Friday afternoon. The BBC, AFP, co-authors, my mother: everyone wanted to know if I was worried about the vote by British academics to boycott my university. As a Jew and an Israeli, my automatic answer to any question that contains the word "worry" is yes. On the long list, the boycott comes close behind the dangers of Palestinian terror, the Iranian bomb, Hezbollah's missiles, Osama bin Laden, reality TV, Israeli taxi drivers, and the waves of locusts migrating from North Africa.

In truth, the direct impact of unspecified academic sanctions adopted by the Association of University Teachers (AUT), Britain's largest teachers' union, against the faculty at Bar Ilan and Haifa universities is likely to be minimal. The few viscerally anti-Israel academics are probably not participating in any joint research projects in any case, to their loss. Two years ago, my colleague Prof. Miriam Shlesinger, an internationally prominent linguist, was ousted from the board of a journal in translation studies by an Egyptian-born editor based at the University of Manchester. And the politically correct anti-Israel atmosphere has probably led a few anonymous reviewers to reject research reports submitted to other academic journals -- but this is hard to prove.

In any case, the quality of the Israeli academic research is generally very high, and good work still trumps bad politics, even in the nonsense of "post-colonial," post-modern and post-Chomsky/Said theory. In molecular biology, immunology, antiterror methodologies, strategic deterrence and other fields, a political ban on Israelis would be particularly costly for the banners -- not for the banned. Efforts to understand the factors that distinguish between failure and success in arms control and peace efforts (my research focus) will be stillborn without the active participation of serious Israeli researchers in this field.

At the same time, this effort to impose a political litmus test on academic research has created a serious backlash. Since the recent revival of the boycott campaign, we have been deluged by emails from colleagues pledging to defy the policy, and to increase their contact with Israelis. Many also reject the medieval nature of such censorship, which contradicts the core principle of the marketplace of ideas.

The real threat, as its authors realize, is not from the direct academic impact, but rather from its broader political objectives. Although the resolution refers to "occupation" and "settlements," and singles out two universities for their alleged complicity with that policy, the Israel-obsessed organizers of the AUT boycott -- Susan Blackwell and Steven Rose, like their counterparts elsewhere -- readily admit that this is simply a tactical decision. They have declared all Israelis who serve in the defense forces and support the government to be guilty. My university, Bar Ilan, was sanctioned for its alleged links to the College of Judea and Samaria, located in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

If examined closely, all the "charges" are inaccurate and transparently intended to serve a different goal -- in Mr. Blackwell's words, to condemn the "illegitimate state of Israel" and to send a "message of support" to Palestinians.

* * *
The boycott is only a small part of the broader political war against Israel's legitimacy as a sovereign Jewish state, and the effort to label Israel as the next "apartheid regime" is designed to put an end to Zionism. The use of the apartheid label does a gross injustice to those who suffered under the real thing, and is a form of modern anti-Semitism, this time turning the Jewish state into the devil.

The absurdly exaggerated condemnation of Israel, and the systematic removal of the environment of terror in the rhetoric of "war crimes" and "ethnic cleansing," is the political counterpart of the ongoing terrorism and military assaults. Major battles of this political war have taken place in the U.N. -- the 1975 "Zionism is racism" resolution, for example, or the 2001 Durban conference on racism where that claim was repeated -- on campuses such as Columbia University in New York, in the newsrooms of the BBC and CNN, and via the nongovernmental superpowers such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. After the death of Yasser Arafat and the relative calm on the ground, reflecting the exhaustion of both Israelis and Palestinians, this political war has heated up, particularly in Britain.

Perhaps I'm being too nonchalant about AUT's effort to launch a boycott of my university. For decades, the propaganda war has always accompanied and served to justify the shooting war. If the anti-Israel forces on campuses and in NGOs are gaining strength in Britain, Europe and the U.S., this will undermine the current efforts to expand the cease-fire and conflict management activities in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ramallah and Gaza. And this is the real tragedy of the AUT boycott decision -- while talking about peace, its backers are actually contributing to war and hatred.

Mr. Steinberg directs the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar Ilan University and is the editor of http://www.ngo-monitor.org.

This boycott is ridiculous. I posted an article about this a few weeks back. I really fail to see the purpose or rationale behind it. Funny how only a few of us are pointing out the blatant racism here.

Actually, not that funny. Like you said a few weeks ago, we need to keep an eye on these people, as harmless and cretinous as they may well be. I do wish that they who always point out racism when it's against other groups would be fair enough to do the same when it's against Jewish people.

It's out of order and must be stopped, either through the courts or by other means. Wish my country would wake up. We're heading in the wrong direction and someone needs to use that reverse gear.

We're all aware who the real enemies are, but that wouldn't be PC to name names, would it?

The Scotsman

Trained by Saddam to test the Iron Lady

MICHAEL HOWIE


IT WAS her first major test, a defining moment that helped to establish her reputation as one of Britain’s most fearsome prime ministers.

When six Middle Eastern terrorists, armed to the hilt, stormed into the Iranian Embassy in Kensington, they plunged Britain into crisis. But when it was all over and only one of the Iranian hostage-takers had survived, one question was being asked - did the Iron Lady issue the order for the SAS to kill them all?

That she did is a belief that is still held by many today.

Although the country had been subjected to IRA atrocities for a decade, it was the first time that the dark shadow of international terrorism had been cast over mainland Britain, forcing the country’s police, military and political leaders to respond. That response was, ultimately, decisive and deadly.

Six Iranians - trained by Saddam Hussein in a foretaste of what was to come from the Iraqi tyrant - seized 26 hostages when they attacked the Princes Gate embassy on 30 April, 1980.

The world’s cameras were trained on the building as police anti-terrorist officers embarked on six painful days of negotiation with the hostage-takers in an effort to bring the siege to a peaceful conclusion.

But on Monday, 5 May, all hope of a successfully negotiated outcome died in a hail of bullets.

The SAS were sent in after one of the hostages was shot dead and his body dumped outside the embassy.

In a lightning assault, a dozen crack troops abseiled down the embassy walls and blasted their way into the building. Thirteen minutes later, they emerged with all but two of the hostages. Five of the six gunmen were shot dead.

Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, had answered the questions posed by the terrorists in deadly fashion.

Rumours subsequently spread that the Iron Lady had instructed the SAS to ensure none of the hostage-takers escaped alive.

But, 25 years on from those fateful events, Clive Fairweather, who was second-in-command of "The Regiment" and was closely involved in planning Operation Nimrod, is adamant that no such bloodthirsty order was ever issued.

According to one SAS assault soldier shortly afterwards, a highly sensitive message was passed on from Thatcher just before the attack began. It was relayed, verbally, to the assault team.

The soldier claimed: "The message was that we had to resolve the situation and there was to be no chance of failure, and that the hostages absolutely had to be protected. The Prime Minister did not want an ongoing problem beyond the embassy - which we took to mean that they didn’t want anybody coming out alive. No surviving terrorists."

The SAS and the Ministry of Defence have always refused to comment on the memo, fuelling rumours that Thatcher wanted the hostage-takers dead.

But Fairweather, who rose to the rank of colonel in the army and went on to become HM Inspector of Prisons in Scotland, says that the instructions from the government were quite different.

"The Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, issued everyone with a clear set of orders," he says. "They were that we had to play it long, that the rule of law must prevail throughout, that the police must be in charge and that only minimum force could be used with the aim of rescuing all the hostages. His last instruction to us was that no terrorists were to leave the country. A lot of people, with a wink and with eyebrows raised, thought that last one meant ‘kill them’.

"Not so. That simply meant we could have taken them out of the embassy and taken them to Heathrow but that no-one was leaving the country’s airspace.

"People thought the message from Thatcher was ‘waste them’, but that wasn’t the case. The message was to rescue the hostages, not kill terrorists."

From the very start, Fairweather insists, the plan was to avoid bloodshed. "The police, who had controlled the operation throughout the six days superbly well, always wanted it to end peacefully.

"The terrorists wanted publicity for their cause, which they got. But they literally lost the plot when they started trying to get other Arab countries involved in the negotiations. They must have been exhausted.

"They would probably still be alive today had they not opened fire on one of the hostages. At the end of the day, police had no option but to commit the SAS to the assault. It should be said that the SAS played a very small part in the operation compared to the police."

Britain’s insistence that the terrorists were not to leave the country followed the Leila Khaled affair, which pitched Edward Heath’s Conservative government headlong into an international crisis ten years earlier.

In September 1970, four airliners were seized by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), a radical faction.

Two of the planes were taken to a former RAF airstrip in the Jordanian desert, known as Dawson’s Field. A third was blown up in Cairo after the passengers and crew were released.

The fourth hijack ended when the two terrorists involved were overpowered on the plane. One was killed and the other, a woman named Leila Khaled, was arrested. The plane was diverted to Heathrow, the nearest airport, and Khaled was taken into custody.

The PFLP demanded her release and, a few days later, the group hijacked another plane en route from Bombay to Beirut. The guerrillas now held more than 300 hostages, 65 of them British.

Negotiations began and some of the hostages were released. But the hijackers were impatient for results and blew up the three planes. The hostages’ situation looked increasingly perilous as the heat increased on the British and Jordanian governments.

Mr Heath eventually agreed to trade Khaled for the hostages, sparking fury from Israel and souring relations with the United States.

After "Black September", Britain’s stance on terrorists was set in stone - no deals.

Says Fairweather: "There was a lot of criticism of Edward Heath subsequently, and that really sealed it. We were never again to let terrorists out of the country."

Bloody introduction to a new enemy for the West

WHILE the Iranian Embassy siege was a watershed for the SAS, thrusting Britain’s elite forces into the limelight for the first time, the dramatic events of April 1980 also put a formidable adversary on the international map.

For, all the time, it was the shadowy hand of Saddam Hussein that was pulling the strings. If not quite the mastermind behind the siege itself, the then Iraq leader was certainly the chief sponsor.

After the dust had settled on Operation Nimrod, it emerged that Iraq had trained and armed the six hostage-takers with the intention of embarrassing its enemy, Iran.

The drama that was played out in Princes Gate was a prelude to the Iran-Iraq war that was to explode four months later and send millions to their graves. The siege also marked "round one" of a running battle between the West and Saddam that ended only two years ago with the overthrow of his regime at the hands of troops from the US, UK and allies.

Clive Fairweather, who was second-in-command of the SAS mission to free the Iranian Embassy hostages, believes Saddam gained inspiration for his audacious plan from the seizing of US hostages in Tehran the previous year.

US forces launched an ultimately disastrous Operation Eagle Claw to free 53 citizens held captive since 4 November, 1979, when a mob seized the US embassy in Tehran.

But it was aborted after mechanical problems disabled two of the eight Navy and Marine helicopters and a third turned back in the face of a dust storm. The five remaining helicopters were one short of the minimum needed to continue.

Six Air Force transports had flown in Army Delta Force troops and fuel for the helicopters, which were supposed to take the soldiers to Desert One, a clandestine staging area near Tehran. The mission never got that far. After the abort order, one helicopter tried to leave Desert One in a cloud of dust but crashed into a parked C-130 cargo plane loaded with 44 Delta troops, killing eight servicemen.

The hostage crisis, Fairweather believes, inspired the Iraqi leader to stage a similar stunt to embarrass his neighbouring foes.

"I believe Saddam saw that and thought, ‘Why don’t I do something in London?’

"Saddam trained the hostage-takers, armed them and sent them to the embassy. Six terrorists wanted autonomy for Khuzestan and Saddam was keen to cause trouble. They said they came to London because they knew they would get a fair hearing from the British. Of course, they also knew they would get the world’s media attention."

Fairweather reveals that Saddam not only prepared the terrorists but also played a hand in the timing of the attack. "An Iraqi intelligence officer had been in London since March and left the day the six guys went in. This was actually an Iraqi operation."

The weapons used by the terrorists had probably arrived in Britain in the diplomatic bag, he added.

By late 1980, Baghdad and Tehran had embarked on a bloody war which was to preoccupy them for the next eight years. After that, an expansionist Saddam turned his attention to Kuwait, which sparked the Gulf war and, latterly, George Bush and Tony Blair’s controversial invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "Twenty-five years later, we’re still having to deal with the aftermath," says Fairweather.

While the indelible trace of Saddam has been left on the global political stage ever since April 1980, the face of international terrorism has changed almost beyond recognition. "In those naive days, both the police and ourselves negotiated with terrorists who we expected wanted to return to their country. The words ‘suicide bomber’ didn’t cross anyone’s mind.

"We thought the embassy might be rigged with explosives but essentially it was our belief that we were dealing with logical, ‘reasonable’ people who could be negotiated out."

The new, unpredictable and deadlier terrorism of today has presented "The Regiment", and its masters, with a massive challenge.

"The circumstances behind SAS operations have changed hugely since Princes Gate," says Fairweather, a major at the time of the siege and who left the army as a colonel. "Firstly, how do you negotiate with suicide bombers? A quarter of a century ago, terrorists behaved in a relatively predictable manner. Nowadays, the only authority a suicide bomber negotiates with is his or her maker."

"Secondly, the sheer scale of operations has altered out of all proportion. Look at the Moscow theatre incident and Beslan. You can have several hundred hostages and a far greater number of terrorists.

"In 1980, we were dealing with an embassy on six floors with 50 rooms. Imagine what it would be like if terrorists took over a shopping mall in any of our cities? How many people would be inside on a busy Saturday morning?

"And, once again, how do you do that in the spotlight of television cameras? The political and public pressure has been ratcheted up since Princes Gate because of the increasing ruthlessness of the terrorists and the spotlight of television.

"The public fascination with watching what is essentially a snuff movie seems to have intensified ever since the Iranian embassy siege."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is America's most important political ally, a nearly indispensable figure in the global war against terrorism.

He helps translate American policy to Europe and European policy to America, acting as an emissary to two political blocs that don't always agree on important issues. He has been a friend to American presidents, first Bill Clinton and now George W. Bush. When America has called, he has answered quickly, sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Blair is bidding on Thursday to lead the often fractious Labor Party to a third consecutive national victory in British elections. Polls show Blair and Labor comfortably ahead of their rivals, Michael Howard and the Conservatives and Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats.

Blair is not unscarred, though. Like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher before him, Blair has suffered slippage at home despite significant international stature. That's a political fact of life in Britain, where voters gripe a lot about the state of their economy, schools and national health system. When voters complain, their anger weighs against the prime minister, who influences far more facets of everyday life than even the American president.

Weighing most heavily on Blair is that thousands of British troops remain in Iraq and many Britons are upset about that. Voters remain keen to debate how Britain got into the war and how Britain now intends to get out. The war is very personal in a relatively small country. In the campaign's closing days, the widow of a British soldier blamed Blair for her husband's death in Iraq.

Those in Britain who opposed the war don't have a credible alternative, though. The Conservatives supported the invasion. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war, but they remain the country's third party.

Apathy appears to be the biggest threat to Blair's power and influence. If Labor's advantage in parliament falls below 100 seats, Blair's leadership could get shaky. If Labor's advantage falls to only several dozen seats, Blair may not have the political muscle to serve out a full third term. In that case, Blair's sometime Labor rival, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, looms as a likely successor.

Blair, though, should never be underestimated. The British media have spent years trying to detect the beginning of the end of his leadership. They'll likely keep on guessing and waiting after the Thursday vote.

It's early yet to write Blair's political legacy, but there are outlines that Americans can appreciate. Like Clinton with the Democrats, Blair moved his party from the far left to the mainstream. Like Bush, he saw a terrorist threat in terms of good and evil and acted decisively.

Blair has fundamental disagreements with America on some large issues, such as global warming. But he is willing to work closely with America no matter which party is in power here. The U.S. has a real stake in a significant Blair victory on Thursday. He is America's greatest political friend.








Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

We'll forgive Tony for the global warming. If you lived in Chicago in April, that issue would be the last of your concerns:)

Forza Tony! Down with the Labour...as contradictory as it sounds.

Bah. Down with both of them, but it doesn't sound contradictory. Blair is an intelligent and sane human being, unlike Straw, Brown, Prescott and most of his silly party.

Labour will win anyway

Marko

They will...If somebody told me 15-20 years ago that Tories would be as pathetic as they currently are, I would laugh in disbelief.

Well, we owe Great Britain a lot, maybe one day we'll save our true common motherland:)

Well I'd appreciate that, but don't know how saving us would be done. As much of a mess the Tories are in, I'll vote for them because Labour will always remind me of socialism and loonies like Benn (if i can find my voting registration card lol).

Marko

True enough, alas modern Tories aren't really champions of the free-market economy either.

Sometimes Republicans haven't guts to do what they say. Tories don't even have guts to say the right thing.

Yeah, you are right of course. Perhaps we do need saving.

I see a slippery slope when Brown takes over, but not much I could do about it. If I, or someone like me, ever came and told the British public what we REALLY think on many issues, we'd be very unpopular to put it mildly. I've already seen the reaction I got last summer on these very boards )

I've got an appointment to keep in the morning, so cheers, Leo.

National Review
Andrew Stuttaford

The Trouble with Tony


It can be a lonely business being a critic of Tony Blair in this country — outside, at least, the fever swamps of the far Left. Speaking at a crowded debate in downtown Manhattan last week, my myopic eyes could only find one brave individual who agreed that the British prime minister did not deserve reelection As my solitary supporter (thanks Myrna!) writes for NRO, I suspect kindness to a beleaguered colleague played no small part in this welcome gesture of support. Perhaps my feeble, muttered oratory was to blame, or was it the arguments skillfully marshaled by my opponent? Maybe, but it’s just as likely that this result was mainly a reflection of the American infatuation with Tony, the saint, the hero, the Churchill with hair, but no cigar.


Whenever I post any criticism of Blair over on The Corner a few angry e-mails usually come my way. Their gist: Blair is a great, great man, America’s ally; don’t bother us with the internal squabbles of your miserable little islands. This misses the point. In understanding why Tony Blair deserves to lose, remember that he’s the prime minister, not of the world, but only of those unfortunate specks in the sea. He may have been good for America, but he’s been bad for Britain.

And yet, when Britain votes on May 5 Blair will win. The only question will be by how much. But this seemingly inevitable success will owe little or nothing to Blair the international statesman (it will not be a referendum on the war, which, however unfairly, has done little for Blair other than to bolster his reputation for untrustworthiness) and almost everything to an economy that appears, however deceptively, still to be ticking over quite nicely. Critically too, Blair benefits from the weakness of an opposition seen by most voters as unprepared for prime time.


The Party Scene

Beyond the usual ragbag of Celtic nationalists, single-issue campaigners, maniacs, mad hats, and cranks, there are two opposition parties that count, one worse than Labour, and one better. The one that is worse, the Liberal Democrats, is the successor of a party that has not won an election since it dragged Britain into the First World War (thanks guys!) and it is not going to now. Nowadays it is a pro-tax party of the left that calls itself centrist, defines itself by its opposition to the liberation of Iraq, and has an alarming tendency to appeal to the sort of men who like to wear socks with their sandals.

The Conservatives would, at least, be an improvement on Labour. They aren’t much, but they’ll do (come to think of it, that should be their slogan). After the traumas of recent years, they have been reduced to a rather tatty rump, led by a man sometimes compared to a vampire (well he has been endorsed by Christopher Lee), but, given the obstacles they face, this is inevitable. Nobody entirely normal would agree to take on the task of toppling Labour. That this is such a challenge is a measure of the Conservatives’ failure. Labour rule has been marked by sleaze, spin, economic mismanagement, relentless political correctness and a chaotic immigration policy, a record that, given more effective opposition, should be enough to ensure defeat.


Sleaze-fest

Of all the blots on Labour, it’s the sleaze that is the most ironic. Accusations of "Tory sleaze" played a very large part in helping Blair to his 1997 landslide. These were often unfair, but sometimes deserved. The Conservatives had shown themselves increasingly prone to the petty — and occasionally not so petty — corruption that characterizes political parties in power for a long time. Throw in John Major’s ill-advised, and impertinent, family-values campaign (which opened the door to a relentless procession of revelations about naughty Tory MPs), and Tory sleaze, whether it was payments in brown envelopes, numerous adulteries, dodgy foreign donations or, even, an autoerotic disaster, became the media story of the day, the month and the year.

Labour was going to be different — and so it was if not quite in the way (“purer than pure”) that the electorate had been led to believe. Labour scandals may have actually exceeded anything associated with the Conservatives, and might even include the electoral process itself. In an attempt to boost turnout by its supporters Labour has made it much easier to vote by post. To the judge presiding over an election court (the first to be summoned to investigate corruption for more than a century), the new system is an “open invitation to fraud” — an invitation apparently accepted by a number of Labour politicians in Birmingham. And if it’s happening there, where else?

But the most important thing to understand about Labour sleaze is not that the entire national party is corrupt (it’s not), but what it reveals about a government that became too used too quickly to the exercise — and abuse — of power. In eight years in office it has wrecked civil-service neutrality, taken a chainsaw to the constitution, packed the House of Lords with its cronies, and never seen a freedom anywhere that it did not want to crush. Worried about overreach by the "religious Right" over here? Well, take a look at Blair’s plans to make incitement to "religious hatred," whatever that might be, a crime. Salman Rushdie is horrified and he is right so to be.


Blair Economic-Spin Project

And then there’s Britain’s economic performance since 1997, supposedly the definitive proof that "new" Labour has shed the caveman economics of the party’s past. Writing a panegyric to Blair in a recent edition of the New York Times, Tom Friedman managed to conjure up a portrait of Britain so misleading that Baron Munchausen would have been proud to call it one of his own. In between sips of Kool-Aid, Friedman gushed about the strong economy “engineered” by Blair and his “deft” finance minister, Gordon Brown. New Labour had, he argued, embraced the free market with such gusto that the resulting prosperity had enabled the government to deliver much-needed improvements to public services: “And these improvements, which still have a way to go, have all been accomplished so far with few tax increases. The vibrant British economy and welfare-to-work programs have, in turn, resulted in the lowest unemployment in Britain in 30 years. This has led to higher tax receipts and helped the government pay down its national debt.”

Oh really?

Now, it is certainly true that Britain has continued to prosper since Labour took over, but with one exception — the bold decision to give the Bank of England operational independence — this is despite Labour, not because of it. In 1997, Blair and Brown took over an economy that was already in excellent shape. The only surprise has been how long it has taken them to mess it up. Contrary to the fears of many skeptics (including this one), they had learned from the failures of previous Labour governments. The traditional smash and grab has been replaced by something subtler, but the consequences will, in the end, be just as poisonous.

Much of the blame for this lies with that “deft” Gordon Brown, the oddball Scot to whom Blair has delegated control of the British economy. Brown is living, snarling, and sulking proof of P. G. Wodehouse’s observation that it is “never very difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.” To cut a (very) long story short, Brown believes that Blair reneged on a promise to hand over the premiership to him at some point during his second term and, while he bides his time, impatiently waiting to play Brutus to you-know-who’s Caesar, he is taking out his rage and disappointment on the luckless British taxpayer.

Brown is an intense, slightly loopy son of the manse, a weird blend of Karl Marx and Ken Lay, whose term in office has been marked by messianic egalitarianism, excitingaccounting and resistance to the real reforms needed to bring Britain’s crumbling public services into the 21st century. Rather than challenge the existing model (which dates back to the 1940s) his only remedy is to throw people and pay rises into what has become a bottomless pit. Overall public spending has increased by over a quarter in real terms since 1999, and there’s much, much more to come. Half the new jobs created since 1997 have been in the public sector, twice the rate of job-creation in the economy as a whole. The state now employs one in four Britons, a handy constituency, doubtless, for future Labour governments, but a powerful brake on future attempts at reform. Needless to say, Brown is beloved by Labour-party loyalists and he will almost certainly be Blair’s successor. A vote for Blair now is a vote for Brown in a year or so.

Paying the bill for Brown so far has sent Britain’s tax burden heading for its highest levels in 25 years and government borrowing is accelerating alarmingly. In 2001 Brown forecast he would borrow 12 billion pounds over the following six years, the actual figure will be (touch wood) 112 billion pounds. Include Brown’s, um, off-balance sheet financing, and government debt has increased by 13.4 percent of GDP under Labour, a dismal achievement at a time of consistent economic growth. The tragedy is that all this spending has produced little in the way of results. Education standards have barely budged and productivity in the National Health Service may have actually declined. That’s not a lot to show for all those taxpayer billions.

And the cracks are beginning to show: crippled by one of Brown’s stealth taxes, the occupational pension system is in crisis, private savings have fallen by a half, inflation is rising (the day Brown took over it was 2.6 percent; it is 3.2 percent today) and the trade balance has deteriorated. Allocating all those resources to the public sector has taken its inevitable toll, made even worse by the imposition of a massive regulatory burden (now priced at ?75 billion): productivity growth is slowing (2 percent to 1.5 percent), and GDP growth is slightly lower (2.75 percent) than in the Major years (3 percent).


Bye Lady T, Bye England

And if, as Blair intends, Britain signs up for the draft EU "constitution," matters will only get worse. The U.K. will be forced to give up what is left of Thatcherite deregulation in favor of micromanagement by Brussels and the adoption of the Franco-German economic model, a sure route to economic stagnation.

Just as damagingly, once enmeshed within the EU’s constitutional system, Britain will rapidly lose the right to an independent foreign policy. It’s this freedom that has enabled Blair to stand so resolutely alongside the U.S. over the last few years, the stance that has won him so many admirers over here. To his credit, the prime minister has been prepared to react to the threat represented by Islamic fundamentalism far more forcefully than most European politicians and to his credit, and at considerable political cost, he also understood what had to be done in Iraq.

But taking such positions will be all but impossible once the UK is subject to the disciplines of the EU constitution. Article 1-16 commits all member states to a "common foreign and security policy." Member states are required to "actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's actions in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness." This is quite clearly designed to pave the way for a European defense capability owing little to the Atlantic alliance, and everything to the agenda of Paris, Berlin, and Brussels.

For Brits, that’s another good reason to reject Blair, and it even ought to make his American fans pause for thought.

The Belgravia Dispatch

The British Election

"Great Britain has lost an empire and has not found a role."

Dean Acheson stirred up a trans-Atlantic controversy in late 1962 by making a speech containing this observation, which was cruel, painful, and completely true. Part of Tony Blair's problem right now is that it still is.

I haven't posted on the British election before now mostly because I suspect it will turn primarily on domestic and economic issues, as most elections do. About these I have only one not terribly original observation, which is that having long since decided that Thatcherism was no ideology for gentlemen the Tories are stuck with "me, too-ism" and "yes, but-ism." You only win elections on that sort of platform if your opposition is an obvious failure or enmeshed in a particularly lurid scandal of some kind, and Blair is neither. So at this writing Blair's Labor Party is expected to win easily, though perhaps not as easily as it did four years ago.

Blair is the object of much discontent over foreign policy, primarily for his leadership in the Iraq war. Let me say that I think his critics are perfectly sincere in saying that what they object to is Blair having exaggerated the former Iraqi government's weapons of mass destruction programs and shifted his rationalization for Britain's involvement in the war. I also think their discontent has deeper roots than that.

Blair, to his credit, has his own ideas of what Britain's world role ought to be -- a champion of freedom, a foe of poverty and disease (particularly in Africa) and an advocate for the global environment, more or less in that order. It's not an unworthy vision, nor does it represent a radical departure from that of earlier British Prime Ministers, particularly Thatcher. Thatcher, though, had two great advantages that Blair does not. One was a familiar enemy, the Soviet Union that only dissolved the year after Thatcher left office. The other was the Falklands War.

Blair close collaboration with the United States, especially during the Presidency of the very unpopular George Bush, has inevitably created some confusion over whether he is serving British interests or American ones. His answer -- and that of every other Prime Minister since Churchill, with the possible exception of Edward Heath -- would be that these are not inconsistent. But there is no getting around the fact that British forces would never have gone into Iraq except at the side of the Americans. Thatcher was able to inoculate herself against similar confusion by sending a task force to throw the Argentinians off British territory, an exclusively British operation for an exclusively British interest (for all that it could not have been carried out without discreet logistical cooperation by the United States). After the Falklands, no one accusing Thatcher of being an American toady could be believed.

But besides that, Blair inherited Britain's chief post-imperial liability: it isn't large enough, or rich enough, or strong enough to be decisive on any of the issues he thinks are important, not without enormous effort and sacrifice and in most cases not even with them. Britain can be America's junior partner, or it can be a scold on the subject of Western aid to poor countries, like a big Canada or Norway. Or it can be part of Europe.

There was little ambiguity in Thatcher's thinking about that last option: No. Blair's priorities make working with Europe (or at least trying to) unavoidable; anything closer than that will have to wait on events. He still sees Britain as a leader on his great causes, if not materially then morally.

The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not. In important ways Britain is already part of Europe: an aging society, enjoying its prosperity, troubled by change, desirous above all of a quiet life.

This is not a criticism, merely an observation. British voters might well ask why British troops are in Iraq; whether Saddam Hussein's regime continued, even whether he eventually got and used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors, was not a terribly high priority to the British public. Blair will find, in his third term as Prime Minister, that his other foreign priorities really aren't either. The public will go along with them, but without Blair's enthusiasm or moral fervor and certainly without any great willingness to disrupt their lives on behalf of his goals. He will probably retire before he reaches the point of being forced out by a people or party grown tired of him as Churchill and Thatcher wer