Feb
13

Falklands oil rig protection – a few practical problems…

by

The report from Edison Investment Research predicting almost £112bn worth of oil in Falklands territorial waters provides a few figures to add to the current debate over the sovereignty of the Islands.

But Ian McLelland, co-author of the report, warns that instability in the South Atlantic caused by Argentine belligerence, will prevent the required investment by oil companies. The sensible approach would be for the Falklands, Argentina and UK to join forces to jointly own the oil extraction operation.

Of course Argentina is unlikely to agree to this. After all, it’s their oil  – along with the Islands and their inhabitants.

The British garrison currently costs some £77m annually – although I can’t say if that’s just the cost of their being in the South Atlantic and not in UK, or the  overall cost of the units and their deployment – a much larger figure if  depreciation costs were included.

The Falklanders wish to pay for their defence once they have enough money, which one assumes will include protection of the oil rigs – for which there will have to be additional Royal Marine units with helicopters  and dedicated shipping. But with oil revenues  likely to be some £1.2bn a year once production gets going, there’s plenty to spare .

The oil will not be pumped ashore, but directly into tankers for processing elsewhere. The idea is for the Islands to be as little affected by the industrial infrastructure  that accompanies oil.

If Argentina continues to play dog-in-the-manger, the tankers will have to come from South Africa or Europe, which as far as I can see, isn’t any sort of problem – at least for the UK or the Falkland Islands.

It’s hard to see how the Argentines can do much more than make noises.  The Falklands naval war showed very clearly how by remaining far enough north and  east of the Islands, British warships could avoid Argentine air attack.  Using submarines and oil rig protection vessels, harassment of the rigs can be prevented.

If the tankers come from the north-east and leave by the same direction, their harassment by Argentine air and naval forces can also be prevented.  These are the High Seas, and Britain is perfectly entitled to deploy whatever naval forces it wishes, and keep them there ad infinitum.

Of course somebody in Whitehall is going to have to wake up to the reality that this operation will require at least three helicopter carriers plus supporting warships and logistic vessels, to rotate in and out of the often brutally rough South Atlantic.

It also begs the absence of an aircraft carrier – well at least two to ensure coverage…..

So why on earth was the Royal Navy  mugged at such an inopportune moment in British history?  Especially, why were the Harriers scrapped?  As a deterrent, they were proven, tried and tested.  No wonder Mrs Kirchner feels free to be so ludicrously bombastic.  The Black Widow and I  have something in common at last, in that it makes me wax the same.

The enforced extinction of the Harrier was ornithologically stupid.  Bird-brainedly ridiculous – because whereas Falklands oil would have paid for Harrier carriers to continue for a while, the new carriers will not be with us (if at all) for another (sticks finger in air) say… ten years – or do I mean twenty…?

Maybe for the interim (using Falklands oil money) we could buy a second-hand carrier from India  in exchange for some Eurofighters? Oh, hang on, INS Viraat  is actually HMS Hermes – flying Harriers…?  Wasn’t that one of the UK’s Falkland War carriers?  So that’s not on, and I can’t see the Americans selling us anything for this purpose.

Or maybe the Falkland Islanders will buy one of  their own.  There are plenty of Naval officers ready, willing and able to  don flight deck helmets and flying suits in a good cause that gets them back to doing what they’re so good at.   But leave it another five years or so, and even that idea will be impossible.

As I’ve always advised the Argentines; keep quiet and be nice, and the Falklands will be yours in time.  When we were sent down there in 1982, there were only some 1200 Islanders. Had they not invaded, this figure would have dwindled away to the point where new blood would have been welcomed.  Thanks to the war, a road system, low fuel taxes and fishery license money, now there are over 3,000 Islanders.  I’m guessing that when the oil revenue starts flowing, this figure will increase even more -  a reverse diaspora.

It’s all about numbers. I’d certainly advise the Islanders to play their part and procreate as quickly as they feel able. The more people there are to insist on their right to be British, the greater the moral compulsion for them to be supported.  The arithmetic of freedom…

But in the end, it all ends up with Tommy Atkins – with or without the right gear to do the job… and he’s a declining species as well.   But  history never repeats itself..  does it?

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , , ,

1 comment

Jan
24

Falkland Islanders petition President Obama

by

Dear President Obama,

We’ve got every one of us 3200-odd Falkland Islanders to sign this petition. A few couldn’t be bothered as they couldn’t see the point. But the rest of us feel you should understand a few very basic things, in your consideration of foreign policy and your other South American neighbours.

Even though you have more people sightseeing at the White House every day than live in our Islands, we are a country in our own right, with our own democracy, laws and values. If you compare us to our neighbours, we have far more in common with the USA in terms of democratic values, language and culture. We are also similar to the USA in its founding years, the product of emigration from the UK. At one point in our history we were even defended from Argentina by the US Navy!

The reason for sending you this petition right now, is in order that you can do something about the harassment we’re receiving from Argentina. As in 1982, they have their own political reasons for increasing pressure on us – plus of course the additional lure of oil dollars. In 1982 the USA created the impression that it would not oppose an Argentine move to take us over – an impression which astonishingly the British Foreign Office and Government of that time seemed also to be giving. Argentina knows our attitude well enough, but as that has never been a factor in their consideration, they invaded us and the rest is history.

The situation is similar today – with oil as an added Argentine incentive.

They don’t actually want these islands – not really. As we saw in 1982, they’re too bleak, windswept and remote for warm-blooded Latins to do anything other than take photos of penguins. Argentines aren’t going to settle here, unless of course their government enforces a resettlement programme – or as they tried to do in the 19th century, use the Islands as a penal colony.

We’re a vibrant, independent nation, and a very tight-knit community, practicing the sort of values that the USA encourages with varying degrees of success in other countries throughout the world.

Our only fault appears to be numbers. It would seem in the eyes of many people in Washington (and elsewhere too), the extent to which the principle of democracy should be protected is related to the numbers of people affected. It would perhaps be helpful if the numbers could be clarified. Exactly how many democratically-determined people are needed to qualify for US support against tyranny?

At the moment the UK pays for our defence, which if there is revenue from oil, we intend to pay for ourselves. The only reason for this is NOT that we’re a British colony or that the UK wants us as a possession, but that it’s the only way we can retain our independence against the Argentine Leviathan. (More like the Luo were they to be turned off their lands by the Kikuyu; than some part of Kenya desiring to remain under British rule.)

The UK’s colonial aspirations with regard to us are very much worse than non-existent. Within the confines of the UK Treasury, there will be mandarins privately wishing that we were not under British protection so that the cost of our defence might become a saving. But for the moment, while the memories of the 255 British servicemen killed and 777 wounded are still a political factor, UK governments will continue to pay.

But with the UK no longer having an aircraft carrier, there’s the risk that Argentina may well be tempted to try a second invasion. Even in late March 1982, that last invasion was considered by all the so-called experts, to be a ridiculous improbability.

Today, with only four Typhoon fighter bombers to block the 300 mile gap between the Falklands and Argentina, another invasion might well seem like a reasonable risk; send in several large civilian-marked passenger jets full of special forces, then confuse the RAF by launching a huge wave of fighters. The ensuing melee stands a good chance of landing troops into the Mount Pleasant military airfield; at which point it’s game over with no chance of a military re-invasion by Britain.

So at this point Argentina assumes that you, Mr President, are not going to insist on an Argentine withdrawal. Britain’s only military option would be to patrol Falkland waters with submarines, imposing a blockade that will damage the Islanders as much as the invaders. The international outcry whenever the Royal Navy sinks Argentine ships would pretty much preclude that option.

The likelihood is that increased rhetoric from Argentina will lead to something unfortunate – possibly involving Argentine attacks on shipping, leading to actions by Royal Navy submarines – and further escalation. Not helpful. All a massive waste of time and money – and very dangerous. And all in your backyard Sir.

So I hope you can see Mr President, our situation is one for which you as the leader of the free world could do a lot to promote American values of democracy, freedom and justice – simply by being supportive of our desire to remain an independent nation. Oil isn’t an issue for us; we didn’t come here because of oil, but we don’t want to be forced out because of it. We are one (albeit it very tiny) nation, and very much a part of your Americas. We have our motto “Desire the Right”, and the support of the UK 8000 miles away. It would be very helpful if we could also have a touch of support from you as well. It doesn’t have to be overt.

Your quiet, behind-the-scenes support of our right to freedom would pre-empt further difficulties for everyone in this region. It would also make clear that the rights of people take precedence over the demands of nations or the bargaining of diplomats. There are so few opportunities to do this without spending billions of USD’s, killing people, and suffering complicating reverberations. Not to do so now seems to be missing a trick.

PS: We’re democrats.

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , , ,

Leave comment

Jan
11

Test-exploding a nuclear bomb makes Iran much LESS safe than it is now.

by

For some reason Iran believes once it’s test-exploded a nuclear weapon it’s game over for Israel, and the USA and allies will just have to roll over and agree with whatever the newly empowered “Peacock” regime wants to do.

I’ve never understood this. (Nor indeed have I ever understood the arguments for the nuclear disarmament.) It takes a long time to move from a making a big bang underground, to creating a bomb small and reliable enough to put inside a rocket, that will explode at exactly the right height over a city even assuming it’s not detected in flight and destroyed on the way in.

To risk a pre-emptive strike, you have to be quite sure that your rocket is going to get there and do its job, otherwise your ludicrously dangerous gamble in actually launching fails abysmally; not unlike going all-in at a poker table while holding a pair of say nines….

And “Second strike capability” is easy to achieve against a country like Iran which would only have a few relatively short range nuclear rockets – once its missile (or missiles) explode. In any case, the USA will certainly strike back if Israel is attacked, and nobody Russia included can do anything to threaten the USA’s second strike capability. In any case, Israel is well equipped with protective bunkers and hardened command communications. If your enemy can see that it’s not going to be Armageddon for you and you can strike back with nuclear weapons, they won’t strike you first with theirs.

It’s the “usability” of nuclear weapons that gives them true deterrence value. If you have very precise nuclear weapons that can be very accurately targeted – and with multiple re-entry vehicle (MRRV) bombs of limited explosive yield capable of taking out several targets from the one rocket, you can make strikes that don’t have to kill thousands or destroy cities. “Going nuclear” is certainly a very serious escalation, but it’s graduated – and can be carefully calculated.

Whereas nuclear nations like Iran with it’s newly developed hanger-full of untested rocketry, leave themselves wide open for the sort of attacks Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies has recently simulated as part of practicing the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear strike.

The journalist who reported this for the FT from Jerusalem Tobias Buck, writes that this “runs counter to the widely held view that countries in possession of a nuclear weapon are largely immune to attack, because of the fear that a strike could trigger a nuclear conflict with devastating consequences.”

SO, Iran may want to believe this – along with North Korea I’d imagine, but nobody else does. Iran’s greatest card is its threat of filling the Persian Gulf with mines, so oil tankers can no longer get in and out. The USA is developing its own oil resources against this threat.

But when it comes to the possibility of Israel being obliterated by Iranian nuclear weapons once Iran manages to get one ‘weaponised’ and mounted into a viable rocket, the Jewish vote in the USA will ensure that the opposite will in fact be true. Obtaining viable nuclear weapons puts Iran into far more very real danger than it’s in at present.

In fact, without nuclear weapons, Iran can call the tune in the Gulf – as the USA would never use nuclear weapons were Iran to make the Gulf impassable for tankers – thus directly threatening the US economy.

But once Iran definitely owns usable nuclear weapons, its threat to blockade the Gulf turns into something very different. Floating for example nuclear mines into the Strait of Hormuz – which would be a splendid terrorist act of great bravado for Iran, but give the USA the golden opportunity to use nuclear weapons and deep penetrator missiles on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Their proximity to the holy city of Qom would certainly not be considered a limiting factor in this instance…. Exit Iran from the poker game….

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , , , ,

1 comment

Dec
30

Space and the futility of war.

by

When George W Bush knee-jerk reacted to the horror of 911 by declaring war on the Axis Of Evil, he achieved nothing as there was no Axis Of Evil, and the war he wanted rapidly turned into something he hadn’t bargained (or prepared) for – and wasn’t actually a war either….

He got a lot of people killed (54,800 Americans, over a million Iraqis, some 50k Afghans and several thousand Pakistanis); and also amongst many other ramifications, delayed Planet Earth’s expansion into space by at least three decades.

Bush Junior also spent huge amounts of money: $1.8 trillion on military and conflict-related costs since 2001. Long-term medical care for US veterans alone is estimated at between $600m and $900m. Building a basic infrastructure in all the impoverished nations of this troubled the region, which would have cost a lot less but gone a long way towards creating lasting peace.

Instead, once the last spasms of Republican jehad are over, the West will abandon Iraq and Afghanistan to their own devices.

Trauamtised by asymmetric warfare, all those involved – returning western veterans, guerrilla fighters, local inhabitants, local governments, tribal leaders et al – are now far less able to make the decisions and do the work necessary to create a lasting peace.

The western armies return home, to grateful nations in the throes of cost-cutting. They face troop reductions and the unemployment of recession.

There are no transferable skills to be gained from asymmetric warfare – especially for those allowed to remain in uniform. All these years of low-to-medium intensity counter insurgency, as with the more intense operations of the Vietnam War, kill people but teach bad lessons which haunt commanders for decades to come.

The British Army will take a long time to recover from Afghanistan. Apart frm the effect of not having trained for anything else apart from Afghanistan, it also needs considerable additional funding to develop the weaponry and other equipment to fight wars in places other than Afghanistan, against enemies other than the Taliban….

Wars can only succeed if they have serious, honestly defined purpose. When I was at Staff College, Vendetta was never considered to be an act of war – rather one of the many follies of politicians. The result of the Bush vendetta is a politically gridlocked USA, the Leader of the Free World strapped for cash, unable even to provide hospital care for its less affluent citizens.

Coupled with revolution in an Arab world stirred up by the Bush “War’, there is poverty elsewhere; actual real grinding poverty for most people, and impending poverty for Europeans. As for space…. forget it!

But now the Chinese are taking up the torch – or rather lighting the lantern of their intention to place humans on the Moon by 2020. This effort will benefit their nation enormously – technology, national purpose, pride and genuine achievement. But far more than this, it continues human progress outwards and upwards, diverting us from the sordid, pointless exaction of revenge. It’s an honest effort. A worthy project. A humanitarian endeavour. (But I do hope there won’t be official Chinese slogans along those lines….)

So why can’t we just bury our differences and all work together to get men back on the Moon. We could all build a space station there to do the medical research required to allow men to get safely to Mars and back? Our two knights of the realm Branson and Forte could combine forces, build hotels and run excursions there… We’d all benefit…

Whereas it’s certain that our planet’s combined resources are equal to this challenge, on their own, it’s hard to see how the Chinese can do any other than exhaust their spare capacity. Mining the Moon or Mars for resources could turn a huge profit but requires far more investment of time, effort and treasure than any other project thus far attempted by humans. It would be far more worthwhile than the brutal, bloody waste of time, lives and money forced upon us by calculating terrorists, and the unthinking reactions of our organ-grinder-like politicians – of Bush, with his Blair.

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , , ,

2 comments

Nov
29

“Germany Stalling” – European reunification requires a Ruler to impose the rules.

by

We’ve had decades of EU countries variously ignoring EU directives and fiscal requirements – dishonesty coupled with institutional myopia. Greece joined by telling porkies about its economy, then like various other countries received huge amounts of money from the EU for all sorts of infrastructure projects, plus the vast cheap loans that borrowers probably never thought in terms of actually paying off.

Brits regularly fulminate about how we seem to to be the only nation in Europe that complies by its rules. We hugely disadvantage ourselves by being fair and obedient, while other nations profit. But now of course it’s all come home to roost – and looks as though we too must suffer.

Germany wants to stick with the EU’s current structure and rules – only this time actually impose them on the membership, as a precondition to bailing everyone out. This will give Germany unequivocal Euro-leadership, which I suppose might allow German politicians to justify to their electors the huge expense of propping up the EU.

But what makes any of us think that Italy, Greece and the rest of Club Med will in fact abide by the rules? Germany was too busy lending money in order to profit, than to crack the whip. Greece is incapable of collecting taxes from its own people. Italy defines itself through the stylishness of its dishonesty. How could Germany actually impose the rules on such people – not with tanks that’s for sure.

Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski has just said that “I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity.”

Britain won the Second World War, but our war effort was funded by the USA which had to be paid back, so we lost the peace; whilst Germany (with Italy) benefited from loans and development assistance. Germany re-unified itself at great expense to the former West Germany. Now it must reunify Europe, beginning with a very clear explanation of exactly how it will ensure that the EU’s economic rules are obeyed by Greece and Italy.

This may well require a re-think of the notion of Europe as being the sum total of its members. The perceptual divide between German workers and Greek something-or-others (for example)… I’m not sure exactly how to describe them, as clearly there are people in Greece who do a fair day’s work – makes it hard to think of Europe as capable of becoming one economic unit. Paying people across the EU according to the actual work they perform and its economic value, rather than to stop them revolting, would be a good start. But how could that be made to happen, and who would enforce it?

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , ,

Leave comment

Oct
28

Championship Muay Thai Boxing In Oxford

by

I went to a very interesting event at the weekend – a Muay Thai boxing night at East Oxford’s Regal disco-cum-music venue, a large, converted 1930’s cinema.

Having MC’d a very-near riot at the 2010 Varsity Boxing Match, I know quite a bit about how these things work. As a result of what I saw, I’m not sure whether this otherwise interesting and meritorious event is likely to be repeated – at least I’d be surprised if it was.

I’ll give you chapter and verse on this, in the hope that it might help the people who organised it (or maybe it won’t, but I do try to help with these things as I think they should be encouraged).

They had lots of security staff – big and beefy, inside and out. But the audience were hard-drinking from 1700 onwards with phalanxes of bar staff eliminating waiting, and mini-skirted waitresses mincing around giving free booze to the heroes in the VIP area. There was obvious drunkenness before the bouts began.

The Regal has a marvelous 40kw cohedra sound system, but sadly didn’t do the proper acoustic tuning of the hall before installation (it costs a lot of money). The Royal Albert Hall has the same sort of problem so they’re in good company. Unfortunately the only solution to this is to turn it up very loud – as does Eric Clapton’s sound engineer in the Royal Albert (see my earlier blog…).

So at the Muay Thai contest this is what happened – which soon became became very tiring. (Not being a rock music gig, I hadn’t brought my earplugs). Even during the bouts they played slightly less loud Thai-type drumming music – which as a long-time boxer/official I found inexplicable.

The bouts started over half an hour late, but also they hadn’t got a system for getting the fighters ready to come on immediately they were announced. The process hadn’t been coordinated or rehearsed and took over half an hour for just the first bout. With 16 bouts on the card, this was going to be a long night.

The second bout was announced, and the first fighter introduced – but nobody appeared for ten minutes – a recipe for disaster. The MC and judges just stood there (it’s not their responsibility, but there wasn’t anyone for them to remonstrate with as far as I could see.)

The crowd was interesting…. some gaunt, fit, martial arts-looking people, but also podgy wannabee hard boys showing off loudly to their mates.

The fighters were very fit and able – but the ones we watched seemed overly keen on touching gloves and being sporting – which an ABA ref wouldn’t allow. They wore interesting Thai-style headbands and robes, performing namaste-type bowings on entering the ring, to officials and their opponent and seconds.

But we didn’t stay for the top bouts as the atmosphere was declining due to drink and the noise/music. (This may well illustrate my increasing maturity – as in age.) But even had they really sorted out the logistics, it was going to be midnight or later by the time it would be over – and seven hours of hoovering down strong lager would in itself set a lot of the people we were sitting with off against each other. As it was, I had to tell one bloke (with his eight mates staring at me) to stop waving his lager glass in my face.

So I’m expecting to learn of civil disorder in East Oxford later that night – although the Regal is probably well able to deal with such occurrences.

It’s a shame; the Regal should have spent the money on their acoustics, which would have sorted out the atmosphere right from the start.

So anyway – it was a real spectacle, but one in which the disco-experience of the venue wasn’t properly matched with the requirements of a martial arts contest – fantasy world versus something real…. I was watching in case it seemed like the Regal could be a good venue for the Varsity Boxing; probably not. It would be difficult to get them to run things differently, which is what I think lay at the heart of the problems we saw.

However, maybe by midnight (or later) it was a huge success. If so, then my comments are misguided.

For my money however, the sport is the important thing. Martial arts are dramatic enough without all the razzmatazz – especially the very loud music.

But I get cross at music venues when the sound engineers insist on playing “their” music through the PA before the bands come on. “From silence cometh music.” Music is a combination of notes and the silences in between. Without dynamics music is boring. Dynamics require silence as well as sound. All else is noise. An audience is much more appreciative of live music when it’s preceded by silence.

I think there’s also something similar applicable to martial arts contests. Far better the shouts of the audience, with the grunting of contestants and sounds of leather on flesh. This is true drama – or at least as near “true drama” as could be laid on as entertainment, which technology cannot embellish – but which like so much these days, was to my way of looking at it dumbed-down into something unreal and thereby much reduced.

But maybe it’s all to do with our need to be entertained? Television news footage of real events – of wars, riots, fires and other disasters – is presented as entertainment to everyone else not involved.

But then the true value of drama has always been to make us feel that our own lives are safer and better than those of others. But I’m not quite sure what this has got to do with I saw at The Regal on Saturday….. possibly because as the night wore on, I felt in slightly more in danger than the people we were watching in the ring.

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , ,

2 comments

Jul
13

Is it the crime that’s so bad – or does a certain sort of victim make it unacceptable? (Vis a vis phone-hacking of course)

by

It’s strange that it’s taken a particular sort of phone hacking target to cause the condemnation and outrage that has engulfed News International – of the especially vulnerable victims of high profile crimes. The actual crime – hacking – is the same whether it’s of a wayward tv soap star or a 911 victim. But it’s taken allegations of the hacking of 911 victims and their families, to get US legislators calling for investigations.

In Britain, not even the hacking of the Royal Family with all the serious implications for security that entails, led to the furore we’re seeing now.

Maybe this is the backlash MPs have been predicting privately since being outed by the media over their expenses? Is this just a massive swinging-back of the pendulum, as the media-dominated British public who’d previously lapped up tabloid phone-hacked stories, suddenly take against journalists – and obviously their crony politicians? Who will be next? We’ve already had bankers… estate agents? Once the rotten apples have been thrown away, will anything have changed?

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: ,

2 comments

Jul
13

News International really IS “international” – like terrorism

by

Senator Jay Rockefeller is asking that News International be investigated in the USA for alleged phone hacking of 911 victims. As Mr Murdoch’s empire gets most of its revenue from 20th Century Fox and the Fox network, losing its name in the USA is potentially very serious.

But I’d say this is actually a wake-up call for anybody who still believes problems like this can be isolated to just one country. News media is international, although the product is tailored for the tastes of various populations by local editors. Allowing one man and one company to oversee a global news and media network, invites problems.

For decades British politicians have been boosting their reputations through courting media magnates, giving men like Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch influence they do not deserve. In the USA, political support is conferred via large amounts of money for election campaigns, with less-than-transparent paybacks later on. In the UK, with our hierarchical social system, the paybacks come from media magnates and their editors becoming part of the chattering community of Great and Good who set much of the agenda – as opposed to remaining separate from it and commenting impartially. The toadying becomes mutual and the Country suffers.

This also reminds me of that other international problem – terrorism.

Certain countries are considered ambivalent to terrorists – harbouring them, turning a blind eye to their presence; and if not actually helping them, not taking action against them. In some of these countries, the terrorists’ ideals or aims are shared by influential sectors of the population. Their governments dare not take action, and the terrorists are able to develop this popular support whilst carrying out terror operations in other countries. The USA is critical of several countries in this respect – threatening them with sanctions, and taking unilateral military action within their borders against these terrorists.

The UK with its vainglorious political leaders has certainly encouraged News International, and now it looks as though the USA might be recognising the implications. I’m pretty sure the USA will consider the problem to be of British making, through the toleration and possible duplicity of many including policemen – some very senior I’m sure, and the lack of establishment desire to upset Murdoch. There’s an obvious parallel in this to certain countries’ toleration – and exportation – of terror. Some might even accuse of News International and the Fox empire of cultural terrorism. Britain’s international reputation will suffer.

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , ,

Leave comment

Jul
07

News International Phone Hacking and Bereaved Forces Families

by

I’ve just been listening to Richard Dannet the former Chief of the General Staff, being asked on Radio Four’s Today program what he thinks of News of the World’s dodgy detective holding details of the phones of bereaved relatives of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

General Dannet expressed surprise that News International had stooped so low, especially as The Sun and other of their newspapers have long been staunch supporters of British servicemen and women, especially when on operations. Interviewer Jame Naughtie suggested hypocrisy might be involved, to which the general said he could understand if this matter was known about up to a certain level in the News International hierarchy, but not if it went to the top.

Mr Naughtie will know this already, but I suppose it’s unfair to think the general ought also; that bad news sells newspapers. Whenever there’s a tragedy, every news editors first and overriding instinct and need is for a quote from the victims; or if they’re dead, from their closest next of kin. Ramming home the drama of a tragedy sells, especially using words of pain from the lips of the recently bereaved. With the war in Afghanistan, the value of these words can be further enhanced and an additional story created if there’s also some criticism of government policy, or the MoD’s inability to provide safe vehicles – or equipment that might have saved the lives lost….

Next down the scale of newspaper-selling stories is the flag-waving ‘Our Boys are Fantastic’ stuff: campaigns to provide Christmas puddings for the chaps, pen pals – you name it. It’s easy for newspapers to move from this to criticism of the MoD when it lets our boys down – over poor equipment, rancid housing, mean and unfair disability awards and so on.

Many individual journalists are genuinely supportive of British Service men and women, and have real relationships with them – and as a result are trusted, and write serious stories that help people in the Forces. But as I was told early in my own former career as a journalist, “you will eventually have to burn your contacts” – meaning use and expose them to get information for a story the news desk needs.

This phone hacking scandal isn’t misunderstood within the newspaper industry, where getting hold of people’s private telephone numbers is a day to day part of what journalists do in order to get people to say the things needed to make stories stand up. A quote from a recently bereaved war widow goes straight to the front page, so every effort is made to get to her…

There’s nothing new about this. In 1982, after the Paras’ battle for Darwin Goose Green, journalists were immediately dispatched en mass to Aldershot with orders to find the widows and get them to talk. They were very obvious, lurking around the married ‘patches’, but when the head of Army PR the then Brigadier David Ramsbotham, complained to one newspaper editor, he denied it. However, as David Ramsbotham was in Aldershot and named a couple of journalists from the editors own paper, rapid back-tracking and a strategic withdrawal were achieved.

In newspaper world, nobody gets killed. It’s all about stories. Nobody shoots the messenger… do they? Then when a a journalist is actually killed, there’s a readjustment as story world is suspended and what’s actually happened is registered. Not entirely though, as the death might be newsworthy… But I don’t think the widow’s phones would be hacked – or her children doorstepped after school.

Personally, I think Forces families should be protected from such intrusions by specific laws – and the rear parties of units away on operations be permitted to use force to ensure this. But this isn’t going to happen – freedom of speech and all that. We should therefore I think be much more aware of how newspapers manipulate our emotions to make money out of us. We buy the papers, whose editor’s jobs are to give us what we’ll pay for – and it’s mass entertainment.

These days the actual news is on line, constantly updating – not frozen in time at around 7pm the night before. Newspapers know this, and are desperately trying to find unique and colourful stuff to retain readers; the human dramas enacted around the news events themselves. “How did it feel?” is the question they ask, always in the moment people least want to even think about their own feelings in the shock of their loss. The editors know this, but it’s not going to stop them.

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , ,

Leave comment

Jul
06

Hague Dutchbat Verdict should make UN operations more effective

by

Nobody expected judges at The Hague to hold responsible Dutch troops who handed over members of their interpreter’s family to certain torture and execution by Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica. Until now, troops operating under UN command – and their governments, have been immune from any liability for their actions (or inaction), as the UN itself is immune from prosecution.

Anyone who’s served with the UN in places like post-invasion Cyprus, the Middle East, Bosnia and Kosovo, will know that the troops of some nations are less effective militarily than others.

As a member of 41 Commando Group, we were transferred en mass to wear the coveted blue beret in order to protect vulnerable Turkish Cypriot villages whose men had left for the frontline, in the more isolated parts of the Troodos Mountains, in what became the southern Greek sector. Although we were not operating as soldiers, it was quite clear to the Greek National Guard, which came sniffing and snooping – aiming to frighten, loot, abuse and worse if allowed, that we could very quickly revert.

The other nations in UNFICYP at that time were notable by where they’d been posted and what they perceived their role to be. Some, particularly those whose governments paid them the UN salaries in addition to their normal national salaries (which in our case the UK government pocketed ), were professional “peacekeepers”, enjoying double-wages, a beach lifestyle and all Cyprus’ lovely wines and natural beauty. The invasion, and what was needed in the aftermath of a real war, were not on their agenda. Special mention however to the Australians, who provided civilian policemen. These guys had their own station in northern Limassol, American cop-style cars with sirens etc, and behaved exactly as the hard-nosed cops they were back in on the streets of Sydney or Melbourne.

As the youngest officer in the Commando, I was put in charge of the 41 Commando Group choir for the UNFICYP Christmas Carol Service, held in the cathedral at Limassol. I think in those early weeks, Nicosia was still too dangerous for such things. Our heart-felt rendition of “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” was completely eclipsed by the Austrians’ truly beautiful (and exactingly rehearsed) “Silent Night”. It was quite clear that several other contingents had taken this military duty equally seriously, and the choral standard generally was high.

But the Aussie Police beat everyone else hands-down with their rendition of “Six White Boomers”, which for others unfortunate enough not to have been brought up in Oz, has the chorus “Six white boomers, snow white boomers, pulling Santa’s sleight in the Australian sun…” – a boomer being a kangaroo.

But these more recent years, with peacekeeping operations in most places hardened into “peace-enforcement”, real soldiers are required, who obey orders from UN commanders (rather than run everything past their own governments, doing only what they’re told from home), take responsibility for their tactical areas of responsibility, and make autonomous decisions in line with UN command requirements when operational circumstances require it.

This court ruling could – and certainly should – change attitudes. Whereas a bevy of ‘other nations’ are required on UN operations so that for example the USA and UK cannot be accused of intervening under a UN flag of convenience, some of these ‘other nations’ are not ready, equipped or capable of proper military action. The UN must field capable troops ready and willing to fight.

It’s entirely appropriate for the international criminal court to make the offending Dutchbat contingent responsible for having acquiesced to thuggish threats and handed over innocent people to certain death. This preliminary verdict will be the test case for many others, which if finally successful will give the UN the incentive to be something very much more effective than presently. Most would agree that this is what the world desperately needs.

Share this:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave comment

Older posts «