Blogoir

I have joined the team of commenters and MPs and others over at Dale & Co, Iain Dale's new current affairs mega blog, providing some of the best political, media, social and sports commentary on the net.

Here's my first contribution, about (what else?) the Eurozone:

The point, of course, is that further EU federalization enforces further un-democratization. So what if national parliaments in the countries which perforce form the new so-called Vanguard step out into the bright light and vote to strip themselves of power? The ensuing Vanguard-level structures thereby might be proclaimed as legitimate. But they’ll enjoy at best only a trite, fleeting, formal legitimacy; they can have no intrinsic, sustainable, substantive legitimacy.

The net result? A transfer of substantive power and sovereignty to an EU uber-elite of unelected and for all practical purposes unaccountable politico-technocratic autocracy, many of whom will be former Marxist friends of Joschka Fischer. Many of us might see that as a bug. For the Fischers of this world it’s the main feature...

... As the Fischer piece helpfully makes clear at the start, the Vanguard vision builds on three explicit principles: (a) greater (sic) stability, brought about by (b) financial transfers which (c) are done in the name of mutual solidarity.

The whole project therefore rests on the final one: mutual solidarity. And this is where Fischer’s youthful extreme Marxist instincts bubble back to the surface.

What he is saying is that the people/regions who create wealth in Europe are nothing but cows to be milked for the benefit of anyone who needs it. Solidarity is a one-way street. Even if the recipients of solidarity don’t deserve it – nay, especially if they don’t deserve it – they get it anyway.

Hmmm. That idea sounds … familiar:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour … after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! (K Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)

Important and unfathomable issues affecting the highest principles of governance, democracy and morality as evolved in Europe for the past 400 years or so are coming our way fast

Quick! Get out the microscope, to study where in Whitehall the contingency planning for these momentous upheavals is being done...

Archbishop Cranmer surpassed himself today with a gracious and thoughtful piece about the Royal Wedding, to the point of being quoted on Sky TV.

Thus:

The occasion brings to mind that on 28th May 1533, His Grace declared the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn to be good and valid. As a consequence, both His Majesty and His Grace were abruptly excommunicated by the Pope.

The Church of England then split from Rome more for political than theological reasons, and through centuries of controversy, social upheaval and cultural change, we are where we are today: another royal wedding in Westminster Abbey in accordance with the distinctly Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the asymmetrical fusion of Scripture with reason and tradition...

We do not care much for our drab politicians and we care even less for our pompous prelates. But our Monarch is loved, admired and respected the world over: the institution is worthy of our support and loyalty.

One perceives in Prince William an understanding of and commitment to his duty, but it is increasingly apparent that he also possesses something of the common, modernising and even rebellious touch of his mother: he is immanent and tangible, if a little unknowable...

His Grace exhorts his readers and communicants to revel in the pomp and majesty and celebrate joyously all day long, because this ceremony represents stability and continuity in an age of insecurity and uncertainty: it is an act of faith in a world of doubt; it is hope in despair...

Insofar as I have any coherent thoughts on the Monarchy in our country, that sums them up.

Plenty of clever people come up with all sorts of reasons why we would be better off with our head of state elected and all sorts of royal (and social and class) flim-flam cast aside once and for all - it's not democratic or modern.

Yet the Monarchy sends a signal that cleverness is important but not enough - tradition and loyalty to some ideals which define a way of looking at and doing things over and beyond politics also count. Evolution, not revolution.

And when we look at the startling mass murder which followed the French and Russian and German and Chinese toppling of their respective royal families, all in the very name of 'reason', we can have pause for thought about what counts for stability, decency and even fairness in the long run.  

For a different view, here is a wail from German journalist Marco Evers, baffled and annoyed by the whole thing:

Great Britain is a strange country. It has no written constitution but a rigid class system. The lawyers wear wigs in court and there are no citizens, just subjects. By law, all swans, all whales and all sturgeons are the property of the Queen, but there's no British national football team.

And if the Queen wishes to award an honor to one of her subjects, he can proudly call himself "Officer" or even "Commander of the Order of the British Empire." What on earth do these titles actually refer to? Much in this realm seems at least as antiquated as the London Underground...

The whole world is waiting to admire Kate's wedding dress. The designer will be inundated with work after this. But the wearer of the dress faces a future that shouldn't really be desirable for an intelligent woman in the 21st century. Kate will have only three tasks from now on: serving her husband, looking good and bearing children, preferably boys. Apart from that, all she has to do is shut up. 

It's like in the 1950s -- only much worse because she will have to continue curtseying to the Queen and other higher-ranking members of the family she has married in to.

The whole thing feels even worse than just an aberration of history. It's a joke.

Achtung! All this British eccentricity - it's really annoying that hundreds of millions of people round the world like it so much. And how dare someone who was not born at the top of the 'rigid class system' now marry into that top tier, with a radiant smile on her face! A joke indeed - at least as defined by that legendary German sense of humour.

My own invitation to the Wedding was lost in the post. But it was a pleasure to see on TV two people who have made an impact in my own life.

First, Crown Prince Aleksandar of Serbia, who as any fule kno was born in a suite in Claridge's Hotel in London which was deemed by the British government to be Yugoslav territory for the occasion (or something like that - the point was that he had to be born on 'Yugoslav territory' to keep the right to the Serbian throne).

Second, the Bishop of London Richard Chartres, who as well as being close to HRH The Prince of Wales christened Crawford Major at St Stephen's Church in Rochester Row in London back in 1991 - a strong intellectual (conservative) voice in the Church of England. Read this nicely turned interview with him from 1996.

* * * * *

The noisy ranks of post-modernist nihilists hate the idea that anyone should believe in anything. Belief and national identity are both a 'construct' needing radical deconstruction.

I'd be prepared to consider that seriously if I thought for a moment that the people spouting this verbiage had given real thought to what makes societies work and grow over decades and centuries, and therefore to what might replace tradition and continuity once they're wrecked on collectivist demand.

Most people in most countries can not define what makes them proud of their country, other than though giving a list of patriotic symbols and historic triumphs (if any). General de Gaulle had his 'certain idea' of France:

Toute ma vie, je me suis fait une certaine idée de la France.

If we can't articulate the deep reasons for national pride and national shared purpose - perhaps precisely because they aren't in any real sense rational but rather something organic, part of each people's cultural DNA - we can at least feel shared pride and purpose on specific occasions which somehow symbolise that pride and purpose.

As millions of us did today at the marvellous spectacle and joyful discipline in central London, all centred on two smart young people who are well on their way to representing us all, for richer for poorer, in the long uncertain decades to come.

Hurrah.

If you haven't read this superlative and yet creepy article about the lushly irradiated wildlife around Chernobyl, do so now:

On the surface, Igor says, the wildlife seems to be thriving, but under the fur and hide, the DNA of most species has become unstable.

They've eaten a lot of food contaminated with cesium and strontium. Even though the animals look fine, there are differences at the chromosomal level in every generation, as yet mostly invisible.

But some have started to show: there are bird populations with freakishly high levels of albinism, with 20 percent higher levels of asymmetry in their feathers, and higher cancer rates. There are strains of mice with resistance to radioactivity—meaning they've developed heritable systems to repair damaged cells.

Covered in radioactive particles after the disaster, one large pine forest turned from green to red: seedlings from this Red Forest placed in their own plantation have grown up with various genetic abnormalities. They have unusually long needles, and some grow not as trees but as bushes. The same has happened with some birch trees, which have grown in the shape of large, bushy feathers, without a recognizable trunk at all.

"Genomes, er, unpredictable," says Igor. "Genome not exactly same from generation to generation. They change."

This is not good for a species. Genomes are supposed to stay the same. That's what holds a species together. No one knows what these changes could result in.

"Soon or late," Igor says, "new species will evolve."

In other words, new animals could actually be in the making here. The area has become a laboratory of microevolution—"very rapid evolution," says Igor—but no one knows what will emerge or when...

Something to look forward to.

Mulling over diplomats in danger has jogged my memory of a ghastly diplomatic hunting accident in Tito-era Yugoslavia.

In those innocent times (1970s) the communist regime in Belgrade would organise hunting expeditions for the Diplomatic Corps to echo Tito's own love of killing animals. On one such hunt one Ambassador blasted another with an inadvertent gun-shot and killed him. A grave breach of protocol.

Does anyone from Belgrade know who died and who did the shooting and when this episode occurred? I have a feeling that the then French Ambassador was in one or other category. With the Austrian or Belgian Ambassador in there too. 

Update  a helpful reader tells me that the French Ambassador Pierre Sebija (sp?) was the one killed.

Last night I attended a dinner for current and former political activists.

Some were long retired. One man told me how he had lived for the past 84 years in the house where he was born. I wonder if there is or has been anyone else in the UK who has lived in one house for so long, right from Day One.

One lady, a former teacher, told me how things had been in her school in the days after World War Two. In those days books and teaching materials were meagre. So how best to reproduce simple maps and other diagrams for the children each to use?

The answer? A special jelly.

This jelly would be warmed up and spread carefully across a baking tray. When it had set, the teacher would draw the required map outline (for example Australia) on a piece of paper with special ink. The paper would be placed face down on the jelly, then carefully peeled off. This would leave ink in the jelly in the right shape.

Once all that had been done, a blank piece of paper could be laid on top of the jelly and a map-shaped outline would be transferred onto it. This would work some 30 times, giving all the children in the class a map on a piece of paper to work with. Then the jelly would have to be dissolved and the process would start again.

In those days that was the only way to create copies. Then came proper stencils and hand-turned machines for running off many copies. I remember one of those in my father's office when he was headmaster at a primary school in the 1960s.

Then came electrication of those machines. Then bulky and extremely expensive photocopiers. Then everything we have now.

The point is that once upon a time knowledge was relatively scarce, or at least hard to transmit in bulk. People had two main sources of information: mass-produced printed material (newspapers, magazines and books), plus whatever they carried around in their own heads. That was the main point of schools -- to give people knowledge which they could take with them through life.

We're now in a totally different world. It will not be long before most people on the planet have cheap mobile phones which can access via the Internet most of the knowledge that has ever been known.

What in these transformed circumstances should schools in fact be teaching?

Maybe some of the problems of modern political life stem from the fact that "knowledge" as such has been lost. Why bother to learn anything if you can find out whatever you want, whenever you want?

In this situation is it any surprise that what counts is less and less all about what you know or what you rationally can explain, and more and more all about what you simply feel? And that what counts is not the level of reasoning supporting your feelings, but rather the sheer intensity of those feelings?

In other words, as we move towards infinitely large Knowledge we end up with infinitely small Wisdom. Then we're surprised that things don't work too well.

Toy Story 3 is just superb. Go and see it.

One highlight is Barbie abruptly hollering out one of the greatest ideas of Thomas Jefferson:

Authority should derive from the consent of the governed; not from the threat of force

Hurrah!

Yet ... what if those governing start off that way, but then slowly but surely change the rules towards rewarding themselves first and looking after the governed second?

How are the governed to withdraw their consent from this situation, when the governors of all main political parties seem to have more in common with each other than with those who pay taxes and vote?

This problem featured in a very different context in the famous 1957 book by Milovan Djilas, The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System.

Djilas had been one of the very top Titoist communists after WW2. Some older Serbian staff working in the Embassy in the early 1980s hated his memory, as (they said) he had dominated Belgrade after the war wearing jackboots and carrying a whip brutally to impose comunist rule.

With the publication of this book Djilas was sent to prison by the Yugo-communists and achieved international glory as the first senior communist leader to renounce communism in its Stalinist-bureaucratic form.

Djilas' core ideologically devastating argument was that far from replacing a class-free society, the new communist elite themselves had become an effective class, hoarding power and privileges for themselves at the expense of the masses.

Which leads us now, via Barbie, straight to this:

The current state of American politics can be summed up in this poll data, published today by Rasmussen Reports:

75% of Likely Voters prefer free markets over a government managed economy. Just 14% think a government managed economy is better while 11% are not sure.

Well, one would hope so. But here is the kicker:

America's Political Class is far less enamored with the virtues of a free market. In fact, Political Class voters narrowly prefer a government managed economy over free markets by a 44% to 37% margin.

... It strikes me that these data largely explain the political turmoil of the last year. The political class, now firmly in the saddle in Washington, wants to substitute government control for free choice wherever possible.

Since members of the political class communicate mostly with each other, they evidently underestimated the extent to which such policies would be unpopular with mainstream Americans.

A point also made eloquently by Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit).

All of which applies to the European Union too. Whatever its merits in allowing all sorts of processes to be 'harmonised' for general public benefit, the fact remains that the 'consent of the governed' is not exactly something which preys upon EU elite minds as they pile on new 'Directives'.

Where is all this heading?

Somewhere dangerous, I fear.

Welcome Britblog Roundup readers.

As readers will have noticed, someone describing himself/herself as George Dutton is now following this site closely and commenting with oh-so-clever remarks celebrating Socialism.

He quotes from a remarkable essay by Albert Einstein on Why Socialism? from 1949.

Here is Albert fretting over the survival of the human race (as well he might, given his busy contribution to atom bombs):

The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society.

It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees.

The murder of Eugene Terreblanche has forced into prominence a number of difficult issues for South Africa.

Namely the startling murder rate for 'white' farmers.

And the fact that for all the impressive political reconciliation achieved (or not) in South Africa since apartheid ended, the ANC still enjoys celebrating its success with its war-song "Kill the Boer".

I never met Eugene Terreblanche. But as part of my job in the Embassy in South Africa to go to more exotic parts of the South African political spectrum, I did meet many so-called conservative if not extreme Afrikaners such as Carel Boshoff and Clive Derby-Lewis, who subsequently went to prison for murdering top South African communist/ANC figure Chris Hani in 1993.

Plus on one fine day back in 1990 or thereabouts I went to an outdoor rally for the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) at which Terreblanche appeared on his horse. The event was strangely demure, hundreds of Afrikaner families having neat and tidy picnics as the prelude to Terreblanche's windy oratory.

The AWB and various other such organisations of varying degrees of militancy are always presented as 'far-right', whereas of course they were and are primarily national-socialistic. Far from wanting to exert 'supremacy' over Africans, a strong theme was (and remains) a separate homeland for Afrikaners where they can run their own affairs and preserve their undoubtedly specific culture and religion, within a highly communal context and tight central economic control.

Carel Boshoff has given the greatest thought to how this that this homeland should be achieved in a way obviously not at the expense of South Africa's African majority, to the point of creating a small private Afrikaner enclave called Orania. It has not taken off.

The AWB as led by Terreblanche were a more primitive, blustering and sporadically violent group bent on threatening racial confrontation aimed at partitioning South Africa, but never quite getting round to it (other than a farcical but bloody attempt in 1994 to stop the Bophuthatswana homeland being reincorporated into South Africa).

The harsh reality of South Africa is that Kill the Boer political idiom as a metaphor for 'black' African supremacy is very popular. It was this exuberant militant chanting which led to communist Joe Slovo being publicly humiliated at one of the first ANC rallies after the ANC was unbanned.

Up in Zimbabwe it is precisely this Africanist sentiment which has motivated Mugabe to drive his country into the ground. Better a land racially cleansed of 'white settlers', achieved if necessary at the price of destroying much of the country's agricultural and industrial infrastructure.

South Africa is heading in the same direction, but from a far higher economic altitude and with a shallower glide-path towards eventual disaster. The steady attrition of attacks on white farmers (and the sadistic violence often accompanying them) is just part of that deeper process.

As for Eugene Terreblanche, he achieved notoriety for his vainglorious 'white supremacy', and ended up being hacked to death by obscure workers motivated consciously or otherwise by ideas of lumpen African supremacy. 

I wonder if in his final horrible seconds alive he was surprised. 

My posting on the film Storm and its setting - the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) - quoted two lines from the movie:

Two powerful lines from the film stand out:

• "What are these trials for?"
• "This (ie ICTY) is not therapy..."

Some thoughts.

What is ICTY's mandate and jurisdiction? Thus:

The mandate of the Tribunal is to bring to justice those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 and thus contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace in the region.

... It has jurisdiction over individual persons and not organisations, political parties, army units, administrative entities or other legal subjects.

Although the ICTY and national courts have concurrent jurisdiction over serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY can claim primacy and may take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage if this proves to be in the interest of international justice. It can also refer its cases to competent national authorities in the former Yugoslavia.

The Tribunal has authority to prosecute and try individuals on four categories of offences: grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The ICTY has no authority to prosecute states for aggression or crimes against peace; these crimes are within the jurisdiction of The International Court of Justice.

Key point: ICTY focuses only on 'bringing to justice' individuals charged with specific war crimes or crimes against humanity. It is not there to give victims of such crimes any special satisfaction ('therapy'). In fact they may well be very dissatisfied at seeing the elaborate efforts made to ensure that people accused by ICTY get a fair trial. And the cost of the whole business.

Since it was set up in 1993, the cost of ICTY has soared beyond anything the UN (and the nations who foot the ICTY bill) expected.

The early years were cheap - very few defendants. But then it started to get expensive, jumping from $25m per year in 1995 to $96m in 2001, then steadily up and up towards the $150m or so for 2010.

That's $3 million a week, going to heavy legal fees, registry work, translation work, witness protection, judges and the rest. Accused persons (ie their lawyers) get legal aid.

161 people have been indicted, at a cost (if my maths are right) of some $12 million per indictee.

In short, a lot of people are getting very wealthy on tax-free payments and allowances, poring over the misery of impoverished Yugoslavs.

Why was it done this way? Above all, why are the trials so slow?

Answer: in good part to avoid a repeat of the Nazi war crimes trials across Europe following WW2.

We tend to remember the supreme trial of the Nazi leadership at Nuremburg, culminating in the death sentences passed on Göring, Streicher, von Ribbentrop and others.

But most people have forgotten (if they ever knew) that there were many other war crimes trials in Europe and the Far East, often conducted at high speed and with scores of executions resulting.

See for example the Mauthausen-Gusen trials: 69 former Nazi officials, most sentenced to death and promptly executed in hearings lasting only a few weeks.

Or the Auschwitz Trial of 1947, which lasted four weeks and ended with 23 death sentences.

And a lot more.

Basically, the Allies handed out very rough justice in a very short time, to the point of attracting sharp criticism from some senior jurists and politicians back home.

Plus, of course, the whole war crimes process was skewed by the fact that countless Soviet war crimes could not be examined, most notably Katyn. The Perfect Crime.

ICTY was designed to be Different. To be carried out to the best standards of procedural and substantive fairness and meticulous records kept, so that decades from now people could understand why it was done that way and agree that, yes, the process for all its difficulties had been legitimate.

Enter furious complaints, to the effect that the process has been skewed from the start "against the Serbs". Look at the procession of Serbian political and military leaders who have gone to ICTY. Why were Bosniac leader Izetbegovic and Croatia leader Tudjman not indicted, when their responsibility along with Milosevic for the start of the conflict and its subsequent conduct was so obvious? KLA atrocities in Kosovo? Scarcely touched.

Searching ICTY investigations of both Tudjman and Izetbegovic were in fact conducted. Did the Tribunal under various political pressures delay issuing indictments against them, knowing that they were both ailing - thereby allowing them to die without that formal stain on their name?

I do not know, but I suspect (a) that there is a case to answer there, and (b) that it will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction.

That said, Serbia can not have it both ways. As much the largest of the former Yugoslav republics it just failed for year after year to give intelligent reasonable leadership as Titoist Yugoslavia dis-integrated, relying instead on brute force and inat.

Those Serbs indicted by ICTY did each play leading parts in appalling events of different shapes and sizes. But not all senior Serbs were guilty. Look at Milan Milutinovic, President of Serbia during key episodes of the Kosovo conflict, acquitted by ICTY on all charges. ICTY has not erred in convicting many different senior Serbs whose behaviour and policies did verge far into the criminal, at huge cost to others.

* * * * *

In any case, ICTY is by no means the whole story. To deal with 'lesser' war crimes special courts have been set up in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia.  

These important processes and the steady cooperation between the different courts are scarcely acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. As HM Ambassador in Belgrade I briefly hosted a Kosovo family who had come to Belgrade to give evidence in one such trial. They said that they had been treated correctly by the Serbia authorities.

Here is the impressive list of war crimes trials in Belgrade. And a Wikipedia entry on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The core problem with these trials is that they appear to proceed in a sort of local moral and political limbo. Each community concerned likes to see a conviction of someone from another community who brutalised their fellow ethnic cousins. But they hate it when 'their' court is expected to put on trial one of 'their' people, and hate it even more when a court elsewhere in the region looks to go lightly on someone from 'its' community.

And above all they suspect that local courts pull their punches in looking at 'their' war crimes suspects? Why, cry Serbs, has the Bosnian legal system for nearly 20 years done next to nothing about the 1992 Dobrovoljacka St killings?

In short, the outcomes you like are obviously fair, those you dislike are blatantly and appallingly unfair - and show that (unlike you) the 'others' can't be trusted to look objectively at these sensitive issues. 

The harsh reality is that every community in former Yugoslavia sees itself as a Victim of something or other. And a central part of being a Victim is that you never get Justice.

Those local politicians who know that this is a hopeless way to think face an uphill task - where are the votes in saying so?

Not to mention the awkward fact that (as an Amnesty woman at the Storm screening rightly pointed out) other European countries have shown themselves unwilling to respect warrants issued from Belgrade to arrest people indicted in Serbia on war crimes charges, the UK setting an important (and she said welcome) precedent in arresting Ejup Ganic.

There is an important policy issue here. It makes no sense for EU member states to insist that the region take ownership of war crimes issues and run these trials to high international standards, and then not respect what look like serious local efforts to achieve that.

That said, Serbs and Bosniacs alike will all be suspecting that Belgrade's decision to press London for Ganic's extradition was in one way or the other politically motivated (see eg tendentious state TV reporting in Belgrade).

The difference is only that most Serbs are quietly cheering, whereas most Bosniacs think it is just more of the same old Karadzic/Milosevic scheming to delegitimise Bosniac resistance and thereby Bosniacs per se. 

All of which and much more combines to ensure that these difficult trials seem to achieve no real higher status in achieving either justice or 'closure' for the region as a whole, even if a small but growing number of war crimes victims do get the belated satisfaction of seeing war crimes perpetrators being sent to prison.

The Conclusion?

Only that great crimes do deserve great punishment. But delivering that punishment in an effective way is far from easy.

Maybe, after all, there was wisdom in ruthlessly executing after WW2 many Nazis believed to have done or led or ordered unspeakable things.

That sort of thing is cruel. But not necessarily unjust in the greater scheme of things. Above all it signals the symbolic end of something bad - and so opens options for a New Start under new rules. 

Has ICTY in its laborious and stunningly expensive way created a New Start and helped end the Sakic-Milosevic Syndrome across this troubled region?

We'll know how things are trending in, say, 100 years' time.

Until then, the jury's out.

Former Bosnia Presidency member Ejup Ganic has been released on bail, albeit subject to some strict conditions. Serbia has to continue mustering evidence for the process to move forward.

In the end current BH Bosniac Presidency member Haris Silajdzic did not visit him in jail, but instead remonstrated with David Miliband about the whole business.

The British Government are sticking to the line that this is a purely legal matter with no (no) political connotations in any way whatsoever either for the present or in terms of any view of what happened in the past. See HM Ambassador in Sarajevo, Michael Tatham, on his blog (in Bosnian!).

That position, of course, is exactly what critics of the whole affair are attacking:

Please. Be serious. How can the fact that you have arrested a former senior Bosniac on war crimes charges emanating from a Serbia which refuses to hand over Mladic be 'solely' a legal matter?

Fair enough. But that's today's Europe. Better to tackle complex questions by stuffing all concerned with the Porridge of Procedure than through ethnic cleansing and the rest?

So on it all trundles. As things now stand, it is hard to imagine that the Serbia side will not assemble enough material to persuade a judge that prima facie the issue deserves a substantive hearing (unless, that is, the Bosniac side knock down the extradition application on jurisdictional or other procedural grounds).

Is a British court in due course to pore over the origins of the Bosnian conflict and the Dobrovoljacka St shootings back in 1992 and try to reach a conclusion?

"It seems to me, Jeeves, that the ceremony may be one fraught with considerable interest."

“Yes, sir.”

“What, in your opinion, will the harvest be?”

“One finds it difficult to hazard a conjecture, sir.”

“You mean imagination boggles?”

“Yes, sir.”

I inspected my imagination. He was right. It boggled.

A bracing visionary view at Edge of how the Internet is transforming everything, by David Gelernter.

Interesting intro:

Take a look at the photos from the recent Edge annual dinner and you will find the people who are re-writing global culture, and also changing your business, and, your head.

What do Evan Williams (Twitter), Larry Page (Google), Tim Berners-Lee (World Wide Web Consortium), Sergey Brin (Google), Bill Joy (Sun), Salar Kamangar (Google), Keith Coleman (Google Gmail), Marissa Mayer (Google), Lori Park (Google), W. Daniel Hillis (Applied Minds), Nathan Myhrvold (Intellectual Ventures), Dave Morin (formerly Facebook), Michael Tchao (Apple iPad), Tony Fadell (Apple/iPod), Jeff Skoll (formerly eBay), Chad Hurley (YouTube), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos (Amazon) have in common?

All are software engineers or scientists.

So what's the point? It's a culture. Call it the algorithmic culture. To get it, you need to be part of it, you need to come out of it. Otherwise, you spend the rest of your life dancing to the tune of other people's code.

Just look at Europe where the idea of competition in the Internet space appears to focus on litigation, legislation, regulation, and criminalization...

Gelernter:

Nowness is one of the most important cultural phenomena of the modern age: the western world's attention shifted gradually from the deep but narrow domain of one family or village and its history to the (broader but shallower) domains of the larger community, the nation, the world.

The cult of celebrity, the importance of opinion polls, the decline in the teaching and learning of history, the uniformity of opinions and attitudes in academia and other educated elites — they are all part of one phenomenon.

Nowness ignores all other moments but this. In the ultimate Internet culture, flooded in nowness like a piazza flooded in sea water, drenched in a tropical downpour of nowness, everyone talks alike, dresses alike, thinks alike.

... As I wrote at the start of this piece, no moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than "now." As we learn more about now, we know less about then.

The Internet increases the supply of information hugely, but the capacity of the human mind not at all.  (Some scientists talk about artificially increasing the power of minds and memories — but then they are no longer talking about human beings. They are discussing some new species we know nothing about. And in this field, we would be fools to doubt our own ignorance.)  

The effect of nowness resembles the effect of light pollution in large cities, which makes it impossible to see the stars. A flood of information about the present shuts out the past...

Read the whole thing. Clever.

I was down at Guidhall in the City yesterday, to watch the special ceremony of Poland's excellent Ambassador Barbara Tuge-Erecinksa being accepted as a Freeman of the City.

Barbara was deeply involved in the Gdansk Shipyard protests and the heroic rise of the Solidarity movement:

Active in the underground during the martial law in Poland, she was harassed by the communist party. "It wasn't a big deal compared to what happened to some," she remembers. "The worst experience was when my son was one year old -- to see those security men searching in my baby's cot."

The ceremony in part marked Guildhall's expression of appreciation for the remarkable generosity of Poles who during WW2 found a way to offer money to help repair Nazi bomb damage to the building.

And did you know another proud Polish connection? That Chopin's final concert was at Guildhall in November 1848, to raise money for Poles who had fled France to escape more continental revolutionary violence?

No, you didn't. Here is some background from Jack Gibbons, with deft musical accompaniment:

His last public appearance took place in London at the old Guildhall on 16th November 1848. The occasion was a concert and ball in aid of Polish refugees. Chopin played several of his shorter pieces on an upright piano in a side-room adjoining the main hall.

According to his pupil, Princess Marcelina Czartoryska, "Chopin played like an angel". By now completely exhausted, Chopin was greatly relieved to return to Paris where he spent the last months of his life virtually bedridden, supported by the generosity of his friends and pupils.

Yesterday a delicate modern bust of Chopin by Jaroslaw Alfer (latterly not on display as renovation works at Guildhall proceeded) was unveiled by the Ambassador in a new place of honour.

Or should it be honor?

All right-thinking and/or snooty English people will say that of course it is honour.

Honor is an Americanism. Ugh.

And they are right, these days at least. The different usages became formalised in the nineteenth century.

Not that the great men of 1800 or thereabouts minded too much. Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the US Declaration of Independence used honour.

And there on the wall of the room in Guildhall where Ambassador Tuge-Erecinska was sworn in as Freeman is a framed letter from Lord Nelson, expressing his honor.

All in all, a most honourable day for UK/Polish relations.

Since Classic Communism (more or less) ended nearly twenty years ago, which country has done better, China or Russia? And why?

Big Questions

Big answers.

Are there levels of Evil?

If over the course of a couple of thousand years Hitler and his mass extermination policies represents the deepest level reached so far (only a tad deeper than Stalin/Mao, but, yes, deeper), is there anything still deeper waiting to emerge?

This is a great piece by Ron Rosenbaum relentlessly demolishing famous intellectual Hannah Arendt and her much quoted idea of the Banality of Evil:

To my mind, the use of the phrase banality of evil is an almost infallible sign of shallow thinkers attempting to seem intellectually sophisticated. Come on, people: It's a bankrupt phrase, a subprime phrase, a Dr. Phil-level phrase masquerading as a profound contrarianism.

Oooh, so daring! Evil comes not only in the form of mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash types, but in the form of paper pushers who followed evil orders. And when applied—as she originally did to Adolf Eichmann, Hitler's eager executioner, responsible for the logistics of the Final Solution—the phrase was utterly fraudulent...

Either one knows what one is doing is evil or one does not. If one knows and does it anyway, one is evil, not some special subcategory of evil. If one doesn't know, one is ignorant, and not evil. But genuine ignorance is rare when evil is going on.

Arendt should have stuck with her original formulation for the Nazi crimes, "radical evil." Not an easy concept to define, but, you might say, you know it when you see it. Certainly one with more validity than banality. (Wasserstein dryly notes that "her epigones have tried valiantly to reconcile the two positions, she herself recognized the inconsistency"—between radical and banal evil—"but never satisfactorily resolved the fundamental self-contradiction.") But Arendt fled from radical evil into banality in more ways than one...

Ron Rosenbaum's own superb book Explaining Hitler takes one by one all available explanations for Hitler's behaviour (eg he was crazy; he had a bad childhood; he was rational; he didn't really mean it; he was evil) and takes them to bits, drawing on extensive research and tight arguement. A book for grown-ups thinking about Cause and Effect:

The following Comment is from Anticant; it somehow got lost in the comment moderation process. Apologies

Yes, Rosenbaum’s book is fascinating but I’m not sure it takes us any closer to understanding the Hitler phenomenon. Was he really ‘uniquely evil’ – a once-off human aberration? I doubt it. He was an acute psychopath and sociopath and a spellbinding orator whose delusions happened to chime in with the post-1918 demoralisation of a Germany which had, since Bismarck, been accustomed to regard itself as the up-and-coming European (and ultimately World) Power, and which was literally and emotionally shell-shocked by the self-inflicted military defeat resulting from the incompetence of Ludendorff, who promptly invented the ‘stab in the back’ myth and became Hitler’s ally in the abortive Munich beer-cellar putsch.

And it isn’t plausible to hold Hitler solely responsible for the Holocaust, even if he was its main midwife. Anti-Semitism – which Klaus P. Fisher in his brilliant book “The History of an Obsession” says should more accurately be called Judeophobia – has a long and sordid history not only in Germany but also in many other European (mostly Roman Catholic) countries as well as in Russia.

A few days ago I recommended The Historian, a long and elegantly intelligent modern reworking of the Dracula story with lots of well-tuned Balkan detail: 

Here for those who want More is a gripping look by Andrew Stuttaford at one of my favourite films, Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre: 

Stuttaford describes how Herzog develops the ideas and imagery of a 1922 expressionist classic film by Friedrich Murnau but ingeniously echoes contemporary oppressiveness and evil:

So it’s perhaps fitting that the consequences of that evil resonate in the very locations where Herzog’s movie was shot. The sequences filmed in then-Communist Czechoslovakia were a reminder of an Eastern Europe torn apart and cut off by the catastrophes of the 1930s and 1940s.

In 1979, this region seemed irrevocably lost as, in a different way, so much of the Lübeck and Wismar of Murnau’s Nosferatu were; many of those cities’ centuries-old buildings had been devastated by Allied bombing and, in Wismar’s case, the malice of the East German state. Despite one notable sequence featuring the same row of Lübeck buildings that Murnau had, Herzog’s Wismar (he dropped the idea of “Wisborg”) was largely represented by the Dutch city of Delft — gorgeous, intact, and, by its very architectural survival, a pointed comment on all that Germany had lost.

But destruction isn’t only physical. When Dracula brings an army of rats (Herzog imported 11,000 of them from Hungary, painting each of them gray) and, with them, plague, into Wismar, its buildings endure as the city empties out. Among the most striking characteristics of Herzog’s Nosferatu is the way the director uses images of great beauty to tell a story of great horror. This is never more so than in the film’s depiction of Wismar’s losing its elegance as its people lose their lives; the shreds of their civilization are shown unraveling in astounding, merciless sequences of ravishing desolation...

Dracula himself is soft-spoken, his words slow, deliberate, and almost hesitant, his voice sometimes caressing, sometimes menacing, and always weary. He comes across as an exhausted figure, still powerful, yes, but tired of his own power.

He is at the crossroads of human, demon, animal, and even insect, but he is still painfully conscious of the traces of humanity within him; he is alienated, isolated, lonely, envious, and resentful.

Check out the scene in a night-struck Wismar where Dracula (illuminated an almost electric blue) peers through a window that reveals a cozy, candle-lit domestic scene: Satan gazing at a Vermeer interior, and mourning, and wanting and craving. To watch Kinski’s evocative face for just those few moments is to understand how the loneliness that envelops Dracula will lead this iron-willed predator into vulnerability and danger

What beautiful writing. Read the whole thing.

And, for less than £4.00 from Amazon.co.uk, this DVD is a bargain to sink one's teeth into.

Even if that means ending a sentence with a preposition. 

My various blog posts on the Kaminski story have caught a wider audience.

So I have decided today to come out.

Back in May this year I, like everyone else, was revolted by the goings-on in Parliament and Government over expenses and other abuses.

What especially annoyed me was the fact that over some 28 years in the FCO I had been meticulously careful in spending public money, both under the rules and within the spirit of the rules.

Had I been caught straying in either respect, I (rightly) would have been punished. And Labour Ministers/MPs would be pointing to my punishment as evidence for their own integrity in managing public money.

Yet lo, it turned out that within that world of MPs/MEPs going to the highest levels in all Parties there were far too many people manipulating the allowances/expenses system for heavy personal gain.

So when David Cameron said that people who previously had not been involved in politics might apply to join the Conservative Party Candidates List as part of a wider move to effect a tough spring-clean at Westminster, I thought "why not?"

Thus at the end of May I set in motion the procedures for getting some serious references and formally applying. Which, of course, meant that I had to leap off the non-political fence and join the Conservative Party, which I finally did on 11 August.

That was my first time as a member of any Party since I left Oxford University in 1976, having been briefly on the OU Conservative Association committee during a period of seething left-wing activism including lots of fiery speeches by my co-lawyer at St John's College, one T Blair.

Having applied to get on the Candidates List, one then has to go through a Parliamentary Assessment Board, a half-day series of quite lively and even stressful tests (written and oral). I did that, paying £250 for the privilege, at the end of July. And I passed. See this account of the success of the Conservative initiative to attract new blood into the Party and politics more generally via these PABs.

Once one is on the List, one waits for lists of seats seeking candidates to be put round. Then one has to decide to apply or not.

The fact that one is on the List is private until the person concerns decides to make it public. I chose to maintain my privacy, mainly because I did not expect to win a chance to fight a seat and the moment would pass.

I have applied for only one seat so far, namely Devizes - not far from where we now live. I heard a couple of weeks ago that I had done well enough to be a reserve (in the top eight from some 170 candidates) but not the final six, who present themselves to the Devizes Conservatives tomorrow when the new candidate is to be chosen.

A good first showing. But not good enough. Unless one of the successful six would-be candidates drops out for some reason in the next few hours, that's that. On to the next try, if one suitable for the Crawfs as a whole emerges. 

So there it is.

Some no doubt will now crow that anything I have written about Michal Kaminski or the Labour Party or anything else can be dismissed as typical Tory double-dealing.  

Well, so be it. Nothing I have said about Kaminski was private, confidential or otherwise unavailable information. 

I served as a diplomat under Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and (briefly) Gordon Brown. I rose up through the FCO ranks steadily enough under the Conservatives, enjoying my two years as Geoffrey Howe's FCO speechwriter.

But my FCO career accelerated under New Labour, since Robin Cook in particular appreciated my quirky energy and grasp of Balkan issues, as did No 10. My file of FCO appraisals contains many compliments from Ministers and politicians from different Parties. In short, I did my job as a politically neutral civil servant.

Now I am again a free person. I am happy to put myself forward to serve the public in a different role. If I am lucky enough to get the opportunity to run for a Parliamentary seat, and then persuade enough voters to vote for me so that I win an election and get in to Parliament, my life will change. If not, not. 

On my blog which has run since early 2008 without a single peep of concern or even interest from anyone in the FCO, I have been critical of the current UK government and its policies on various occasions. But I have been careful not to put out embarrassing tittle-tattle or other really confidential material gleaned from my own career in a way designed to cause deliberate embarrassment. I also have not opined on many issues where my main role in so opining would be to reveal sensitive inside information.  

Of course during 28 years in the FCO I have seen, read and heard plenty of significant and senior things which 'the public' might well like to know. Part of the code of ethics of the civil service involves respecting due professional confidentiality. That is what I have done, using some real-life examples to comment instead to my small but loyal blog readership on deeper issues of principle which rise up and collide with reality in our public life.

On we go.

The Problem of our times is not addressed by fleeting party-political bickering about who does/did what or said what.

It is the operational management of Complexity, at all levels.

We are confronted with far too many private and public institutions which (we are told) are Too Big To Fail - yet also in practice Too Big To Succeed.

Labour as currently constituted has (in my view) no philosophical answer on this question, only an instinct to extend the state in all its modern bossy intrusiveness and a hope to minimise its losses through dumbing down the arguments by smears and gimmicks.

The Conservatives in turn face appalling problems if they do get into office next time round. Where to start in hacking back the state in all its post-modern luxuriant forms, while at the same time keeping intelligent government going?

Goodness knows.

But the answer surely lies at the libertarian/conservative end of the philosophical spectrum - trusting people more, and the state less.

Perhaps it will help to have to hand some independent-minded people on board who believe that and who know the system inside out -  and are ready to wield a large spring-cleaning brush.

Welcome Iain Dale readers.

* * * * *

One of the points made by Labour against Kaminski is that he was in effect playing an anti-semitic card by arguing against the apology by then President Kwasniewski for the Jedwabne massacre.

It's obvious! Any Pole arguing against the form or principle of such an apology has to be at the very least a revolting person, and more probably a horrid anti-semitic extremist.

Well...

80% of Poles at the time (2001) felt that is was good that the crime at Jedwabne had been made public, but a similar 80% did not feel any moral responsibility for it - why should they? Opinion on President Kwasniewski's apology was divided, with a slight margin in favour.

Noting the complexity of these issues, the then Polish PM Jerzy Buzek was very careful in the way he chose his words:

The slaughter in Jedwabne was not perpetrated in the name of the nation, nor in the name of the Polish state. Poland was at the time an occupied country. Yet, if as a nation we have the right to be proud of those Poles who, at the risk of their lives, sheltered Jews then we must also acknowledge the guilt of those who took part in their slaughter.

We are ready to confront even the darkest facts of our history, but in the spirit of truth, without seeking presumed justifications. We will not, however, agree to have the Jedwabne event serve to popularize false theses of Poland's complicity in the Holocaust or about inborn Polish anti-Semitism.

Hmm. Is that formulation not just a bit defensive. Even ... shifty? Surely that crafty drafting masks a deep anti-semitic instinct!

And where is Mr Buzek these days?

Oh yes, here. 

Some things are complicated and deeply morally challenging. Simplify them for banal political purposes at your peril.

The decision by the Catholic Church to create a formula to allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church but keep some of their Anglican persona is a stunner.

Above all, because it represents the latest move in a Great Negotiation which has proceeded for some 500 years as between Rome and the English Church. Who answers to whom, and why? And who gets the valuable property portfolio? How best to effect this move itself has been the subject of learned theological manoeuvring for well over a century. 

But it is astonishing also because the current Pope performed this move in a crude but tough power-play sort of way.

He concluded that the current Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Church had lost authority to the point where the Catholic Church could 'just do it' by announcing both a plan and a quite new outcome, rather than painstakingly carry on haggling over it for, say, a few more decades.

Remarkable.

Try this beyond awesome line from the Times (emphasis added):

Meanwhile, the Church of England will recapture the moral high ground in the eyes of the secular, English-speaking world by consecrating women bishops. It might even liberalise its position on homosexuality.

Exactly.

The Church of England has decided - after generations of feebly trying to please everyone - to go for the Moral High Ground of the decadent and vapid secular English-speaking world which has no moral reference points at all and, indeed, specifically asserts that in principle no such moral reference points can exist.

Because it's all relative, see?

But from that rather unlofty moral high ground vantage point rump Anglicanism will have a good but dwindling view as the Pope tidies up some loose ends to get the planet's growing Catholic/Christian world in better shape to tackle the Muslim challenge.

Now that's what I call a real Negotiation. With, say, another 1000 years or so to go before our distant descendants can decide who's winning.

In the meantime, we have merely joy. And a forlorn Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yesterday I heard an exultant Catholic friend say that the Anglican Church now looked like a lollypop left in the sun on a park bench:

"Soon all there'll be left will be a stick with a damp stain on the end".

Update: Have a look at the various links here at First Things where the Anchoress is following the issue much more closely than I ever can.

I like her reference to distinctions between the churches that teach the era throughout the faith, and those that teach the faith throughout the age.

Tory Bear does some digging on the Labour Party's zany allies in the European Parliament.

And strikes gold.

Or does he?

He is unimpressed with Mr Andrzej ("It is impossible to rape a prostitute!") Lepper:

Where to start with their leader and the sleaze, the criminal activities and the general insanity of the man. Another former communist, he has done time for assault and even demanded sexual favours for jobs in his office.

Of course I met Lepper a few times when I was Ambassador in Poland. He was a genial and wily Polish version of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, although being Polish Mr Lepper's excesses are much more genteel and do not involve shooting at voters' pets from a railway carriage.

For a few helter-skelter months Lepper was even Agriculture Minister in the Polish government, where he made a rather favourable impression on a passing House of Commons delegation. But eventually Jaroslaw Kaczynski threw him overboard, having drawn away the core of Lepper's voting base.

Alas Tory Bear is wrong to say that Labour "sit hand in hand" in Europe with Mr Lepper's Self Defence party. The empty Lepper tendency collapsed in the 2009 EP elections and they won no seats.

And is another of his targets the Troofer Giulietto Chiesa still an MEP? Apparently not.

Hmm.

Looking at the way Thomas Jefferson set about his work representing the new United States of America in France in the years immediately leading up to the French Revolution, I came across a fine observation.

Jefferson over in London was taken aback by the ribald anarchy of the British press:

The licentiousness of the press produces the same effect which the
restraint of the press was intended to do. If the restraint prevents things
from being told, the licentiousness of the press prevents things from being
believed when they are told.

No change there?

Or is it even worse? That the licentiousness and sheer babble of the press are so grotesque that people will believe every daft thing they read? And if you believe in anything, you believe in nothing?

That said, a cacophony of free voices is better than the silence of mewling media people doffing their cap to ridiculous injunctions.