“Dark Forces” at work in the FCO
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPY5PiGWH7s&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Popegate – the gays and foreigners did it
Today, the Telegraph plumbs new depths in its vendetta against the FCO over Popegate.
Yesterday, after quoting an anonymous threat from the Vatican to cancel the Papal visit, it was forced to admit that official sources had dismissed the memo as having “absolutely” no impact on the Pope’s plans.
Instead of backing off (having made the most of what was, even without the garnish, a good story), the paper has now doubled down in a truly despicable article that:
- Outs the author of the memo, 23 year-old Steven Mulvain, as gay, based on his Facebook status. (I wonder how the paper got that information? Surely, Mulvain didn’t have a completely open profile.)
- Names Mulvain’s boss – Anjoum Noorani – printing his photo to ensure that readers are in no doubt that Noorani is (gasp) a member of an ethnic minority.
- Hassles Noorani’s mother (!) in Windsor, as if she is in any way relevant to the story.
Of course, the paper doesn’t come straight out and allege that the whole affair is a gay/Muslim plot, though that is clearly the implication. Instead, it complains that the FCO failed to put a Catholic in charge of the visit, rustling up another anonymous quote from the Vatican:
The most striking thing about the Foreign Office team has been how ineffectual they are. They have been disengaged and, frankly, clueless.
I have never had the impression that any members of the team were informed or even sensitive to the Catholic Church or Catholicism generally.
Gutter journalism.
Update: Damian Thompson throws some more paraffin on the fire:
The Catholic Church in this country is (a) not wildly enthusiastic about Benedict XVI, and (b) paralysed by political correctness. The four-strong FO team was led by a member of an ethnic minority and included a gay man. There’s nothing wrong with that: they could have done a fantastic job, particularly if the team had included a practising Catholic (perhaps from an ethnic community – they’re the ones who go to Mass these days). But they didn’t.
And there’s no evidence that any danger signals were spotted by Eccleston Square, which has delegated the papal visit organisation to the Left-wing Mgr Andrew Summersgill, a Magic Circle hardliner some of whose colleagues are heavily into rainbow coalition-style politicking. (If Summersgill had been told that the FO team included an Asian and a gay guy, I can imagine him asking why the transgendered community had been left out.)
Popegate – time to downgrade the Holy See?
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…
On the web: history and economics, the voice of the BRICs, and the UK’s emerging three-party politics…
– 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.
The Foreign Policy Debate – Live
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.