by David Steven | Apr 26, 2010 | Cooperation and coherence, UK
From the Telegraph, contrasting reactions to Popegate – the FCO memo that ridiculed Pope Benedict XVI. Damian Thompson – “editor of Telegraph Blogs and a journalist specialising in religion”:
The Foreign Office’s sick attack on the Pope: what did you expect?… My reaction is to say to the Bishops of England and Wales:
NOW do you finally understand what sort of snide, cheap and ignorant prejudice has flourished under this Government and its civil servants – wall-to-wall secularists for whom the Roman Catholic Church is at best an antiquated irrelevance and at worst a sick joke? […]
Oh, sure, the Foreign Office says: “This is clearly a foolish document that does not in any way reflect UK Government or Foreign Office policy or views” – and, of course, most of these proposals wouldn’t have seen the light of day.
But reflect the attitudes of Brown’s government and its politically correct employees is precisely what the document does.
Tim Collard – former diplomat and, apparently, “an active member of the Labour Party”:
Predictably, the usual suspects have blown it up into an international incident. I regret to say that our blogmeister Damian Thompson has made himself look a bit of a Charlie, heading his posting “The Foreign Office’s sick attack on the Pope: what did you expect?”
No, the FCO is not institutionally secularist, Satanist or whatever: it just contains a lot of people who like taking the mickey. Chuck it, Thompson!
Perhaps, we should ask why British diplomats are having to spend their time prepping for the visit of a head of state who (i) leads a religion rather than a state (diplomatic relations are with the Holy See, not Vatican City); (ii) exerts a disproportionate influence on international organisations, especially whenever abortion, contraception or HIV/AIDS is on the agenda (denouncing the latter as a ‘true pathology of the spirit” at the General Assembly Special Session on AIDS in 2001, opposing emergency contraception for women raped in Kosovo).
According to Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the principal agent of Papal diplomacy is the Pope himself, part of whose global role is to “contest systems or ideas that corrode the dignity of the person.” In practice, this means using international fora to oppose:
Delegations from certain Western countries who wish… to impose models of life that were actually the result of the propaganda of certain minorities within their societies… It will always be the duty of the Holy See to prevent the lowering of personal and social moral standards and to contribute to raising them.
No other religion enjoys the diplomatic privileges accorded to the Holy See=, with its status is yet another example of how Europe’s historical dominance skews the international system.
Maybe some brave soul in the FCO should set to work on a memo suggesting that it is time to start treating the Catholic Church like any other religious organisation…
by Michael Harvey | Apr 23, 2010 | Cooperation and coherence, East Asia and Pacific, Economics and development, Global system, Middle East and North Africa, North America, UK
– Writing in the The New York Review of Books, Paul Krugman and Robin Wells highlight the importance of historical perspective in understanding the financial crisis. Experience, they suggest, shows that a failure to implement significant post-crisis reforms leads to “a resurgence of financial folly, which always flourishes given a chance.”
Michael Pomerleano explains the need for a new institution with the necessary legitimacy to provide global financial stability, arguing that “[n]ational public policies can no longer be independent of global collective-action problems”. Amartya Sen, meanwhile, explores the continuing significance of the 18th Century ideas of Adam Smith to contemporary global economic troubles.
– Elsewhere, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, Henry Kissinger offers his views on Obama’s recent nuclear initiatives, US-China relations, and coherence among the BRICs. Over at World Politics Review, Nikolas Gvosdev reports on the lack of support forthcoming among BRIC countries for strict sanctions on Iran and highlights some of the other options open to the US administration in dealing with Tehran. Jonathan Holslag, meanwhile, assesses China’s recent diplomatic “charm offensive”, concluding that this will yield little over the long-term if words aren’t backed up by meaningful action.
– Finally, two television debates and nearly three weeks into the British general election campaign, David Marquand explains why this is “a moment for careful historical reconnaissance”. Assessing the rise of Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, he explores comparisons with the three-party politics of Britain in the early 1920s. The FT’s Philip Stephens, meanwhile, assesses the impact of the debates and the implications of a hung parliament for the British electoral system.
by David Steven | Apr 22, 2010 | UK
No advantages to Europe
Cameron: “In Europe, but not run by Europe.” Clegg: “I want to lead in the European Union.” Brown: “Never let us be an empty chair again in Europe.” Clegg wants us a referendum to stay in the EU, but Cameron thinks that would be a con (take that Europe sceptics). Brown: “David is anti-European. Nick is anti-American.” Half the audience heads for the pub.
Should the UK invade another failing state.
Clegg: Yes, but we’d do the job properly next time (right equipment, right strategy). I’d drop Eurofighter and would avoid thinking about Trident. Brown: Al Qaeda in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan.”Terrorists cannot be allowed to have bases in the world where they attack the United Kingdom.” And the Afghan army can beat the Taliban, even if we can’t. What does IED stand for? Cameron: “I will think carefully about what’s in the national interest.” I practically live in Afghanistan and I speak fluent COIN.
Cameron and Brown gang up on Clegg. Cameron has now had a dig at Clegg for opposing or flip-flopping on Trident and wanting to sell our place for the P5. Brown to Clegg: “get real.” Clegg: You want to exclude the biggest question of all from your defence review.
Fluff about climate change – what are leaders doing personally to reduce emissions?
Brown, Cameron try and turn back to policy. Cameron: I’ve come out… against the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Clegg: Can I spend a minute being boring about aviation tax?Brown – Cameron’s against wind power, Clegg’s against nuclear – I believe in both. Cameron mentions the Green Deal – houses to get £6.5k of energy improvement goodies, paid for by the money they’ll save on future bills. Clegg jabs at Brown for being sidelined in Copenhagen – while the US and Europe stitched up the deal.
Do you hate the Pope as much as I do?
Clegg comes out… as an atheist. Brown: I’m a Presbyterian. Cameron: I don’t agree with the Pope on abortion.
Er – I think that’s it for foreign policy – which has bored the nation rigid… Yep – it’s all sparked up now we’re off international issues. Meanwhile, people are wondering which channel this is on.
Banking system (not a question – just came up by chance).
Clegg: Brown’s failed to tackle the banks – he should break them up. High street should be split from investment banking. Brown: We don’t need small banks, but more capital and international supervision. Cameron: _______.
On Twitter, the UK’s aid community is going bonkers about the failure to mention development. And this pic is doing the rounds…
And it’s over… Foreign policy barely got a look in. Nothing at all on poverty or international development. Today’s threats may be global, but British politics can only cope with local. Whoever is the next PM is going to need a new narrative on how we survive in a world where all the game changers come from overseas…
Gideon Rachman reacts.
by Alex Evans | Apr 22, 2010 | Conflict and security, UK
How bemusing is all the muttering from the Navy about UK warships being deployed to help rescue stranded tourists from the continent? First we had Admiral Jock Slater saying on Radio 4 that he was “uneasy” about warships being used to ferry people when no hostile environment was involved. And then yesterday, someone gave a savage anonymous briefing to the FT’s Sue Cameron:
“These are military ships, they’re all having to be moved around away from their normal duties and where do you stop?” said one senior figure. “Some of the stranded people are in Thailand and Australia. Are we going to sail there to pick them up? These vessels are totally unsuited to the task anyway. They’re not exactly fitted with safety belts for children.”
And:
The whole idea seems to have come from Lord West, former first sea lord and chief of naval staff, and now one of GB’s ministerial Goats – government of all talents. Much of Whitehall’s angst is centred on him. Says one observer, Lord West “seems to think he is still in charge of the navy”. With a defence review coming up after the election, Lord West doubtless saw it as a way of justifying the navy’s budget and its plans for two new, hugely expensive carriers. If so it’s a costly piece of PR. Military experts put the cost of keeping HMS Ark Royal afloat at a whopping £3,500 an hour.
Right, because if HMS Ark Royal has much better things to be doing. Like maintaining readiness for a possible Soviet invasion… I… er… oh.
Truly, one could not make this up. The RN is offered a wide open goal to show itself as a flexible, can-do operator. In the middle of the election campaign. With brutal spending cuts in prospect. At a time when everyone’s suddenly remembering that Britan’s an island. Far from being a costly piece of PR, this is all the Navy’s Christmases at once – or would be, if they weren’t so apparently hellbent on cocking it up.
by Alex Evans | Apr 22, 2010 | Economics and development, UK
Owen Barder has a suggestion for a question that someone ought to ask in tonight’s leaders debate:
We understand that all the main parties are committed to increasing aid to 0.7% of GDP, with some relatively minor differences about how that would be used. But if we are serious about development, we need to look beyond aid to address the circumstances in which developing countries are trying to establish economic growth and political stability. Our other policies – for example, on trade, climate change or immigration – make a huge difference to how quickly poor countries can develop. Will you, as Prime Minister, be willing to make changes to UK policies which are against the immediate interests of a group of UK citizens – for example, arms exporters or pharmaceutical firms – but which support our collective longer term interest in seeing a fairer, safer and more prosperous world? If so, what concessions would you make?
