Blogoir: July

Assorted Crawfs are off to Greece for a couple of weeks.

Back on the day when Craig Murray of the militant PAHMiP tendency soars to victory in the Norwich North by-election.

If you feel bored as my postings dwindle to a sun-stroked trickle in the coming fortnight, read Sam the Sudden.

And you'll feel much better.

Here, via Tim Worstall, is the blandly smiling, terrifying Tooheyesque face of Richard Murphy, a man bent on extracting ever-more tax to increase the flow of his collectivist coffee:

It is in the private sector that we need cuts – or more tax if they refuse to do it. The reason is straightforward: much (and I know, not all) of what the the private sector does is froth on the top of the cappuccino, nice but wholly unnecessary.

It’s the state sector that provides what we need most: health, education, housing (oh yes – all of it is regulated), safe food (oh yes – again, we only have that because it is regulated), transport infrastructure, safety, protection and so much more.

They are, if you like the coffee in life. The froth is the extra. And we can do without some froth – we can’t do without the coffee.

Curious how he confuses the fact that the state regulates all these things with the idea that the state provides them.

Oh, and what is the basis for deciding what is or is not 'wholly unnecessary'? That's a big adverb there, Mr Murphy.

I wonder how much money/coffee from the state goes into his private pocket?

He: undertakes work on taxation policy for a wide range of clients including governments, government agencies, commercial organisations, aid agencies and pressure groups in the UK and abroad.

Who needs a gravy train when there is a gushing state-run coffee geyser instead?

If you want to come up for a gasp of clean air, read this brilliant little piece about sliced bread and how progress and wealth come from the almost invisible growth of small drops of private cleverness.

Cafe Hayek: where orders emerge.

Because countless free people do things.

Not because a Murphyist 'government agency' or a 'pressure group' decides one day that they are wholly necessary. 

When does guilt stop being passed on - indeed just stop?

If you are someone who has led a blameless life but happen to be the grandchild of some monstrous villian from history, is it fair that you and your name be reviled?

Should you be directly punished for the crimes committed by your long-lost relatives?

To the point of being Cut Down?

Surely not. You are not to blame for what was done by those who created you.

How far does this principle extend? What if Hitler planted other seeds?

In the UK most political letters announcing the writer's resignation say what they have to say, perhaps with a feigned or even real sentence or two of respect, then stop.

Some go into some vital policy detail, albeit in thinly coded and very general terms. See Geoffrey Howe's letter to Margaret Thatcher and her reply.

Here's a more recent but no less elegant elegant Conservative example from Graham Brady to David Cameron.

Some resignation letters say rather too much about the writer's state of mind.

But in Poland they work on a grander scale.

Take this awesome recent missive from disgruntled but ambitious Andrzej Olechowski to Prime Minister Tusk:

Warsaw, 2 July 2009
Mr Donald Tusk
Chairman of the Civic Platform of the Republic of Poland

Dear Mr Chairman,

 
I wish to inform you that I have decided to hand in my resignation from the Civic Platform of the Republic of Poland.

I believe that we are both involved in politics not for the sake of trivial personal or collective interests but because we have a task to do. The task that I have taken on involves modernising Poland and developing liberal democracy. The current state of this project is worrying me seriously. Despite personal achievements brought off by millions of Poles, we are lagging far behind the modern centre. The Poles are still hostage to poor education, absurd economic laws, a makeshift infrastructure, an ineffective, biased and corrupt state apparatus, and an embarrassing political culture. Still worse, there is no strategic vision of our future. How do we want to keep pace with this world? What should Polish capitalism involve? How much state intervention should there be? What role do we want to play in the world? Politicians are not addressing these questions. In times of a deep economic crisis and elections to the European Parliament, no serious voices can be heard, a thing ! that is equally sad as embarrassing. Poland is not a solid high-speed train that moves along a proven track. Everything can happen to us - both good and bad things. It is not enough to administer Poland. It is necessary to lead it by setting patterns, recognising obstacles and arguing in favour of efforts to take up challenges.

It is necessary to restore the serious tone of political debates. We must shake off this overpowering shallowness and atmosphere of gamesmanship that dominate today's endeavours. It is necessary to formulate new proposals and to make attempts to persuade people about them. I feel obliged to take up this challenge. The PO should be a natural place for such activity on my part. However, having given this matter careful consideration, I came to a conclusion that is very difficult to me: I cannot face up to this challenge in this party. Why? There are four reasons.

First of all, the PO has lost the character of a party that follows a political platform. When I was creating the PO with you and Maciej Plazynski, I hoped that this party would become a consistent leader in efforts to modernise Poland and the Poles and that it would lead us towards the centre of the modern world. I would like to reiterate that back then we regarded "the freedom of individuals and citizens together with their dignity, creativity and aspirations" as the greatest value. Our task was to "release the energy of the Poles," to help "Poland's star shine brighter," and to "prevent the state apparatus from being concerned only with its own well-being!" Watching the transformations of the PO's political platform, I have become increasingly embittered by the infamous alliance with the collectivists from Law and Justice [PiS], submission to the obsession with attempts to hold people accountable for the period of the Polish People's Republic [communist-era Poland], the "dalliance" with the idea of the Fourth Polish Republic, the rumpus over [the Treaty of] Nice, approval for lower democratic standards, the abandonment of tax reform plans, indifference towards the degradation of the civil service, and so on. These fascinations and about-faces have led to efforts to look after the social advancement of the Poles being pushed aside together with ambitious education programmes and efforts to remove barriers to business and to cut taxes. Efforts to follow a political platform were made subordinate to political gamesmanship and rivalry with the PiS, a thing that completed this devastation. Just like many Poles, I cannot say what party the PO is now. I only know that it is not the PiS on this or that issue.

Secondly, the PO is no longer coherent. When I was helping create our political platform, I promised publicly that it would be formed by "a coherent community focused on the ideas and platform-related goals that bind its members together, not an ill-assorted group or a clever joint-venture formed to gain influence and power." Our party was said to be composed of "proven people who have demonstrated faithfulness to their principles on numerous occasions and proved their competence and responsibility not only in their words but also in their actions." I was not the only one who was stunned by the fact that Mr Marian Krzaklewski, who has come to symbolise resistance against openness and modernisation in Poland, had been invited to join the group of candidates to the European Parliament. And he is only one of many people whose views and political background have plunged the PO into a state of chaos, stripped it of credibility in my eyes, and added a touch of cynicism to this ! group, a thing that no reform-oriented party can afford.

Thirdly, the PO has become a party that represents the ruling establishment. When we were building it, we assured the Poles that it would differ from other parties, which "resemble multi-branch corporations with interests in all areas of social and economic life. They are consolidating their influence and managing the balance of interests at all levels of administration (from housing estate management offices to the Senate) and in all state-funded units - from health care funds, through theatres all the way to municipal cemeteries." Could we now provide a different description of the PO? Could we say that it is "different and better and is championing not its own interests but what represents the essence of a political party, namely efforts to implement its political platform in parliament"? Could we disagree with Mr Rafal Dutkiewicz [Wroclaw mayor], who claims that the PO representatives in "local governments regard the partisan apparatus, not voters, as the decisionmaker"? Primary elections, cooperation with social organizations and groups as well "light structures patterned on the US models" have all sunk into oblivion. The PO joined the infamous group of its predecessors, which politicised the state apparatus, confused private and public interests, and blatantly extended the nomenklatura.

There is no room for me or the task I have taken on in a chaotic and ambiguous party that represents the ruling establishment and is forgetting about its objectives and promises. Within such a party, it is impossible to reach agreement and implement ambitious modernization plans, strategically profound projects and initiatives that encroach upon the interests of important social groups. I will be unable to change such a party and this is the fourth reason [why I am leaving]. Opinions and proposals, no matter if they are voiced publicly or privately, do not help when there are no basic forms of internal debates and democratic procedures that allow conclusions to be drawn from such debates. And this is the case with the PO. Criticism and demands for changes are seen as a sign of personal ambitions, willingness to undermine the authority of the leadership or an intention to step into someone else's shoes. I find the idea of becoming involved in this process repulsive.

These are the reasons for my decision. I am leaving the party I helped create with a heavy heart. However, I am not leaving the circles of people who brought the PO into existence. These are also my circles. I respect and like these people and treat them as my friends. Democrats and liberals, "independent and enterprising people with moderate and modern views, the intelligentsia and the young; people who understand the modern world, can use it and develop in a creative manner; people who appreciate the importance of a reasonable attachment to traditions and rules." I am not leaving these people. I am leaving a political party in order not to let them down, in order to voice our objections and dreams anew. I believe that I am doing this for the welfare of the Republic of Poland.

Blimey. One does rather get the impression that he is leaving.

I always enjoy ruining films being watched by my children by calling out product placement every time the camera lovingly dwells on a can of Pepsi or a specific range of car or a new Sony gizmo. The new James Bond films are almost unwatchable now, such is this junk.

In fact product placement has been going on for years in one form or another.

Movies, schmovies.

Time to move on.

Let's see how many KFC references we can get into a typical funeral oration.

Well done Magic Johnson.

Did PM Putin deliberately sit President Obama in a chair way too low, to make him look and feel awkward for the TV cameras?

The great debate unfolds.

The point of such sly diplomatic insults is that the victim dare not show that s/he is aware of them, even if s/he is.

So heads you win - the victim not realising what is going on is somehow belittled (maybe even subconsciously) in the eyes of TV viewers.

And tails you win - the victim does realise what is going on but dare not show it, for fear of looking petulant for no obvious reason. Hence you can relish the victim's inward helpless squirmishings, with both of you knowing what is happening.

All very psychologically involved.

But highly effective.

And why articles like these somehow fail to capture something important.

Whether the Kremlin has 'bargaining power' depends on what you think each side is trying to achieve. 

Is here.

It is better than his Cairo speech which had rather too many philosophically incoherent passages.

This one is easier to make, of course, as he is aiming it at one country in particular and not at an amorphous 'Muslim world'. So the key messages can be more finely honed and better aimed.

Let's put to one side his rather feeble explanation for why the Cold War ended:

... make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

Or the fact that he praised Soviet heroism in WW2 but alas in this anniversary year ducked mentioning the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which started it.

President Obama gave the audience of young Russians a strong sense of a new hand of friendly partnership, while steering close to mainstream US positions as President Bush might have done.

On the key issue of missile defence in Europe, Obama deftly linked the issue to shared progress elsewhere:

I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defense in Europe. And my administration is reviewing these plans to enhance the security of America, Europe and the world. And I've made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran. It has nothing to do with Russia.

In fact, I want to work together with Russia on a missile defense architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated, and that is in our mutual interests.

Message: Help us (I mean really help us) on Iran and we can see what we can do to scale back this missile deployment you dislike. Over to you, Russia.

See also this not too oblique criticism of Russian corruption:

... the greatest resource of any nation in the 21st century is you. It's people; it's young people especially. And the country which taps that resource will be the country that will succeed. That success depends upon economies that function within the rule of law.

As President Medvedev has rightly said, a mature and effective legal system is a condition for sustained economic development. People everywhere should have the right to do business or get an education without paying a bribe. Whether they are in America or Russia or Africa or Latin America, that's not a American idea or a Russian idea -- that's how people and countries will succeed in the 21st century.

The passages on democracy and why it works are good, until the odd Honduras bit at the end:

America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. And we haven't always done what we should have on that front.

Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies. We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not.

Not exactly the point at issue in Honduras?

On the Russian view of its 'near abroad', Obama says that just as Russia has its sovereign rights so do the other new states:

State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy.

That's why we must apply this principle to all nations -- and that includes nations like Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For any country to become a member of an organization like NATO, for example, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; they must be able to contribute to the Alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO should be seeking collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

Well, OK. But what about the Russian move to hive off parts of Georgia last year? How to reconcile that event with this earlier passage about the NPT? Thus:

If we fail to stand together, then the NPT and the Security Council will lose credibility, and international law will give way to the law of the jungle. And that benefits no one. As I said in Prague, rules must be binding, violations must be punished, and words must mean something.

No sign that Russia is being 'punished' at all for that Georgia lunge?

And so on.

This speech and the visit as a whole represent an energetic new Obama administration effort to persuade the Russians to work nicely with the USA and not cause problems.

The nuclear arms reductions agreed during the visit make a great headline but little if any practical difference, as they will take place at a very leisurely rate.

The problem lies elsewhere, namely in the fact that Russia's idea of partnership with the USA involves a far higher degree of operational cooperation and closeness than Washington can or wants to concede to a country whose incessant almost inherent awkwardness is not offset by any special economic weight outside the energy area.

Hence if Russia can not be in practice a real partner for the USA, it seeks its global political market niche in behaving awkwardly towards US policies at the UN and elsewhere, as this at least marks out some sort of continuing Big Power status even if in a negative way.

In practice it is simple. Will Russia start to work more closely with the USA to squeeze N Korea and Iran and some other dodgy places as only the Russians know how? Or not?

On past experience, a bit more cooperation openly and covertly will happen for a while.

Moscow will expect Washington to be effusively grateful. Washington will think that Moscow has only scratched the surface of what it might do if it set its mind to it.

Moscow will not give up trying to influence things across the CIS. Washington will see this as clumsy anti-democratic Russian post-imperial power-plays.

And it will all fray again. 

Should a civil servant be sacked for posting a disobliging comment about a Minister on a website anonymously, using an official computer to do so?

Iain Dale has the link.

He asks:

Does this strike you as being a bit over the top? What it implies is that there is an army of civil service snoopers tracing anonymous blog comments all over the internet and then trying to trace them back to government employees. I am not sure how they do this, but no doubt someone out there can enlighten me.

Here is what happened as explained by the sacked civil servant Lisa Greenwood:

1)   She used google and ended up on Hazel Blear's page on TheyWorkForYou.com
2)   She clicked through from it to Hazel's official site
3)   She found the 'contact me' page on the official site and then
clicked on the email address, which, using a mailto: tag popped up her
work email client.
4)   She wrote and sent her fatal email, which was delivered from her
DCSF email account, not her Hotmail which she'd normally use.

Mystery solved. The recipients would have been able to spot from the email address that the sender was working for a government department and so report the matter to the Department responsible for further action. No army of government cyber-snoopers needed (or indeed existing).

Sacking someone for this silly behaviour is obnoxious and excessive.

But it is also wrong in principle - and fat-headed - to write rude comments about anyone let alone a Minister on a website using a government-funded computer.

Here is a tricky one which I heard about recently.

You are a senior civil servant preparing a confidential paper for Ministers on your experiences on the ground in an intervention hot-spot.

You list various recommendations for the way forward. But your main concern is that the British troops and money as currently allocated are just not enough to make a difference. You propose to say so in pretty brisk terms.

You show the draft paper to a colleague who suggests knocking out that paragraph about the insufficient resources:

• Even if it is true that resources are inadequate in this case, resources invariably are inadequate, plus there are plenty of other HMG priorities screaming for More
• Ministers therefore will see this as 'unhelpful criticism' and lose interest in the many other sensible things you propose, some of which might even get approved
• You aren't an expert in military or civilian resource deployments anyway - best to leave such recommendations to people who are
• And the paper might leak, causing a huge row which will waste time and cause new trouble justifying the already unpopular mission

So you heave a sigh and delete the key paragraph.

Life goes on.

Years later there is to be an enquiry into the whole miserable deployment. This paper can be expected to be produced. Now you ponder: would it not have been better to say then what you really thought?

What is the job of a civil servant?

To say what he/she really thinks, come what may?

Or to say sensible things a Minister is likely to accept, but leave out some key things which may be true but which will just go down badly?

Can the gap between these two in fact be crossed by crafty drafting?

Discuss.

Reader Willie Garvin has sent in several thoughtful contributions in response to my request for personal experiences of donor/military cooperation (or not) on the ground in different hotspots.

His basic point is that Western 'interventions' in conflict-ridden or fragile states are doomed to fail because the underlying objectives are invariably unclear or unwise or incoherent.

A bleak but not necessarily wrong view.

I have been talking to two top Brits involved in these matters personally in Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are two 'deep' categories of problems, I conclude.

Can there be Peace without Justice, or Justice without Peace?

Can there be Development without Stability, or Stability without Development?

Our governments are just not tasked to look at issues in this way, then to draw clear-headed conclusions one way or the other, then to act on them systematically and over the timescale needed to make a lasting impact. 

Rival Departments and Ministers jostle for funds and influence. The NGO circus wants a slice of the action but only if they all stay 'independent' (albeit heavily funded by taxpayers). Voters get bored.

The impoverished locals are unhappy that the place is overrun with busybody, highly-paid foreigners whose actions are too often not consistent with their lofty rhetoric. Local baddies know that we want to do them down, and plan to stay around longer than we do.

An interesting new but vital point is that weaponry has been democratised. Think what a mess the tiny IRA created over a long time here in civilised UK. What honourably intentioned intervention force (military or civilian) is going to be able to sustain itself and achieve anything when maybe thousands of canny but hostile local people are able to get AK47s and roadside bomb kits and make incessant ad hoc attacks, just to wear down the outsiders' will? 

And so on.

On I trudge to write my paper.

More contributions please: mail@charlescrawford.biz

Once again the Guardian talking sense, this time on the Sir John Sawers' untimely Facebook story:

... the revelations of Lady Shelley surely contain very little that those in search of such information could not find somewhere else in the course of an afternoon. And certainly there seems to be nothing here to suggest that Sir John is a man of such incurable indiscretion that he should never have been given the job, let alone that he ought to relinquish it.

His appointment continues to look decidedly more acceptable than that of his predecessor, Sir John Scarlett, promoted to head MI6 by Tony Blair despite the role he had played in the build-up to the Iraq war. Sir John, one can safely assume, is better equipped than most to safeguard his family's security. We do not need yet another inquiry. This whole affair has been overblown.

Of course it has been. But the point of newspapers is only to sell newspapers, and pictures of the new head of MI6 in some antique-looking swimming trunks throwing a frisbee are likely to do well in that noble direction.

Here's a typical real Sawers story.

When we were posted together in Cape Town in 1988 or thereabouts, John had a super plan for a hot Boxing Day. To walk/climb up the sheer cliff of Table Mountain.

Somehow I agreed to this madness.

It turns out that a few lunatics plus some sea eagles and mountain goats know a path up the mountain via this route, ending not far from the cable-car terminus. The path wends its way steeply up and up and up, at times involving some short tricky climbing and sections no more than a couple of feet wide, with a sheer long drop on the wrong side.

As you can see, this is no normal stroll.

So under John's inspiring and perspiring leadership, we made it.

Phew.

John and his family are both energetic and proud of their close family life.

Deal with it.

As our friend Ivor wrote:

On one side, the United Nations, the OAS, the United States government and, apparently, most informed opinion worldwide. Lined up against them, someone who spent 12 months as Honduran Minister of Culture - a political big-hitter, quite clearly - and your good self. It promises to be quite a battle of ideas!

Indeed it does.

And, as if by magic, the tide is turning my way, if Michael Lisman in the Guardian is anything to go by:

As the standoff continues this week, the international community would be wise to bite its tongue and instead, push for what world leaders initially called a "Honduran solution" – even if it's not the one they had in mind.

Two points.

Honduras is very poor and (I am told) depends on a tanker of oil every couple of weeks to keep its modest economy bumping along. If those tankers stop under the weight of international pressure, popular discontent might grow. But maybe eg Taiwan or Israel will find a way to keep the odd tanker arriving..?

Second, new elections are due in Honduras in November. A good outcome for Honduras could be, as the article suggests, to bring forward those elections in which the disgraced and scheming 'President' Zelaya can not stand anyway and have a new President elected triumphantly to end the whole silly business.

Best outcome?

Honduras 1   World Opinion 0

Is hosted by Mr Eugenides, holding back his rage (or not).

Here is one link to another pseudoynmous blogger: an English magistrate giving us insights on the law in practice. And there are some gruesome things happening in Norwich...

And Unmitigated England rebukes Sir Paul and pigs out, as it were, on meat.

Witty Ivor (sneaking past my comment box defences without leaving an email address) piles on the pressure:

This is splendidly comical.  On one side, the United Nations, the OAS, the United States government and, apparently, most informed opinion worldwide. Lined up against them, someone who spent 12 months as Honduran Minister of Culture - a political big-hitter, quite clearly - and your good self. It promises to be quite a battle of ideas!

If we are entering a "post-democratic age" (tremendous stuff - a counsel of impotence and despair reduced to one glib soundbite), perhaps we will nevertheless be better served by "post-democratic" elected politicians promoting self-interested constitutional change, rather than "post-democratic" Third World generals mounting coups. Just a thought.

But Francisco who has a Honduran wife and (unlike I suspect Ivor and I) knows something about the subject, replies:

My wife is from Honduras.  Her family and the majority of other Hondurans are totally in support of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court requesting that the military remove the president who was in direct defiance of the Honduran Constitution.  Not a military acting independently.  This is not a coup. 

This is a democratic country acting in defense of its democratic government.  The bad guy here is Zelaya who was thumbing his nose at the Honduran Constitution and its people.  Its sad to see that an American President is ok with that.  I wonder why?

Battle is joined.

The modest point I am trying to make (but not managing to get across to Ivor at least) is that a weighty body of Honduran opinion and the Honduras top court agree that the 'former' President was acting illegally/unconstitutionally.

This at the least qualifies the bland claim that his ouster is 'illegal'.

The Honduras constitution appears to have been drafted precisely to stop this sort of situation arising, by deterring those in office from manoeuvring to carry on doing so beyond the constitutionally allotted time as has happened ruinously elsewhere.

I can well agree that the way the President was bundled out of office was not ideal. But if the Honduran political and legal establishment think that (a) the President is acting illegally, and (b) that he is planning to abuse his power to thwart all normal legal measures to respond to that alleged illegality, what else should they do? 

Wait until he is able to rig an election to get his way when it will be too late?

In other words, constitutional change has to be proposed constitutionally. If not it's just a sly coup wearing different trousers. 

The big point here is that so many of the countries which have voted at the UN for Mr Zelaya howl like banshees against 'interference' when anyone dares criticise their own wretched human rights records.

And see eg the African Union now digging in its heels over the Sudanese President's ICC indictment. So much for 'legality' there. Do I hear the thud of footsteps down UN corridors as Ambassadors rush to condemn this studied African slap in the face for the UN and international rule of law? Nope.

As far as I can tell, Honduras under this current constitution has made a significant effort to move towards substantive constitutionality, ie the regular turnover of its leaders by democratic means and the national stability/consensus that brings. 

No wonder it now has so many vociferous international critics. 

Knowing next to nothing about Honduras I am forced to rely on perusing the world's media.

Ousted President Zelaya is cranking up a lot of international pressure in his favour:

The Organization of American States has suspended Honduras in protest at the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya.

The rare decision was made at an emergency meeting of the 35-member group in Washington...

The OAS approved suspending Honduras by 33 votes to zero, with Honduras itself not voting.

It was the first time the organisation had taken such a measure since Cuba was suspended in 1962, when it allied itself with the USSR.

Interesting, given the mayhem which has taken place in many Latin American countries since 1962.

On a previous posting I made on the subject, one Ivor sent in this charming comment:

Indeed, how better to defend democracy than having the army depose an elected president before the end of his mandate. This isn't even a convincing take on neo-conservative foreign policy, it's just moronic. 

The reason Obama opposes the coup is because it's legally and morally wrong - do try to keep up.

Legally and morally wrong?

Well, Ivor, what are we all to make of this? A careful explanation by a former Honduran Minister based on things which look rather like actual facts about the Honduras constitution.

The writer explains that to avoid any one politician trying to stay in power for far too long, the Hondurans decided years ago to put in their law a strict set of norms intended not only to prevent Continuismo but also to stop any one even proposing it:

When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents.

In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo...

Noteworthy that the BBC website Q and A on the crisis does not mention these key constitutional provisions explicitly, presenting the issue instead as mainly a political row (which of course it also will be).

If the legal case as summarised above is correct, the vast noise being drummed up in favour of Zelaya is a dishonest disgrace, . And risks plunging Honduras into ruin.

My original question:

So, what if you are a country who sees its President scheming to extend his power and using illegal or at least legally dubious tricks to achieve that, such as trying to run an illicit referendum and shipping in ballot papers from another country known for playing fast and loose with democracy?

When do you stop him? And how?

What if he ignores court rulings and presses on anyway, hoping to use the power of the state machinery improperly to get his way?

I await good answers.

And please don't use the fact that the UN General Assembly voted to support Zelaya as a moral fact in his favour.

We are moving in to a post-democratic age, where what counts is not what is right or what the rules say but rather what you can get away with.

Most UN Ambassadors will be close associates of the rulers of the countries they represent. Many make no pretense to be democratic, and are not dismayed if democratic standards are breached. In fact they are rather pleased.

Even heads of democratic states and governments these days will not to be too impressed with one of their own being bundled unceremoniously from office apparently for deliberately breaking the rules under which he was elected. Good grief, what sort of precedent does that set?

So it suits too many people for all sorts of reasons to beat up on little Honduras.

And if Honduras goes up in smoke as a result, hey, that's politics.

Here is a striking story of a young Bosnian (Bosniac/Muslim) woman who fled Sarajevo during the war there and ended up in London.

Where she now is doing rather well.

As is Arminka Helic, another young Bosniac who is a foreign policy adviser to William Hague and so gets in on some senior policy brainstorming events.

Interesting examples of personal disaster propelling people to new heights of ambition and determination?

The appointment of Sir John Sawers as head of MI6 continues to give the public shock and awe.

Their care-free former lifestyle which my family and I once joined at their luxury penthouse holiday pad high on a Cornwall cliff is no more.

Have we just had a vast new shift in the way the European Union is to be run, with we dopey Wimbledon- and Michael Jackson-obsessed Brits utterly missing the story?

Germany's top Constitutional Court has taken a view on the Lisbon Treaty and come up with some far-reaching conclusions.

Which appear to be that the Treaty can go ahead only if German national laws and institutions in effect are significantly empowered in the process.

Two articles in Spiegel Online are well worth reading.

One gives the views of the German politician who forced the issue before the Court (my emphasis added):

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Part of your challenge to the treaty had to do with whether the European Court of Justice would pair down the rights of the Federal Constitutional Court. What can we expect on that issue now?

Gauweiler: In its decision, the court interpreted Declaration No. 17 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets forth the decision-making authority of the European Court of Justice, and expressly clarified that when the European Union has legal acts that are at variance with German laws ...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: ... meaning, when the European Court of Justice makes decisions that overstep its authority ...

Gauweiler: ... then German citizens have the right to legal protection by the Federal Constitutional court -- even against EU regulations. Karlsruhe can rule that EU laws that go too far cannot be applied in Germany. For the citizens of Germany, that is a huge success.

The second says that Euro-skeptics should be delighted by the ruling:

People aren't talking about a unified Europe anymore. Nowadays, you're much more likely to hear people talking about a "Europe of the fatherlands." ...

Long-standing euro-skeptics like the British will say that, in doing so, Germany has finally made up its mind that Europe is an unruly, undemocratic monster.

Still others will say that this decision reflects the reality that Europe is not a truly united entity and that, as a result, it has put the (what is, in terms of realpolitik, useful) kibosh on the altogether too ambitious fantasies about a future "United States of Europe."

The decision once again anchors Europe's power a bit more securely in its capital cities. And the only ones who won't support it are euro-boosters like Cohn-Bendit and Joschka Fischer, who are fervent in their belief that the process of European integration has not kept pace with the thoroughly globalized world.

Whitehall's top lawyers will be poring over this development with an eye to the next UK election to see what if anything it means for the way British courts might interpret EU norms and their supposed pre-eminence.

But on the face of it, a new Conservative government in London determined to wrest more formal power and expensive decision-taking (not always the same thing) back to national capitals in general and to national parliaments/courts in particular will find a lot in this ruling to enjoy.

And to build on.

So let us take Rochelle Riley, writing in Saturday's National Post, at her word, and agree that "Aaliyah was Mercury rising. She was Saturn with brilliant rings of movies, songs and laughter getting brighter and hotter."

"But she was more," adds Miss Riley, hastily, just in case you're getting blase. "Unlike others on the verge of greatness, Aaliyah's success had already mounted the horizon and was coming at her like a sunrise in a hurry ... For her, the what-might-have-beens weren't untouchable."

The trouble was, unlike others on the verge of the Street of Dreams, Aaliyah's gold-plated Cadillac had already mounted the sidewalk and was coming at her like a Rochelle Riley sentence careering toward a multi-metaphor pile-up.

Dying young can be a good career move, but not too young...

Mark Steyn soaring to the sky, just before 9/11.

Chris Bryant, the new Foreign Office minister, who is gay, has started writing personal letters of congratulations to British diplomats who show public support for gay rights. He is praising them for such support even if it draws anger from national governments or local homophobic groups...

In a letter to the British ambassador in Poland, Ric Todd, Bryant wrote: "I wanted to congratulate you on your flying of the Rainbow flag next to the Union flag last year, and your guide to lesbian gay and bisexual and transgender rights translated in Polish this year. I know you had some flak, but frankly more power to your elbow. Britain is not just a tolerant country. We fully respect the rights of everyone, regardless of their sexuality."

Life imitates Art. As always.

Go it, Minister.

Show an exhausted world that you are a serious supporter of human rights.

Write handwritten letters to HM Ambassadors in eg Saudi Arabia, Moscow and Beijing instructing them to fly the Rainbow Flag beside the Union flag.

Then brief the Guardian to let us know what happens next.