This report came to me by email, so it must be true.

Queens University researchers have discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that

Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

A bunch of people out there believe that doing things better is the answer to our economic woes. I can’t argue with that, so I’ve recently joined the Chartered Quality Institute as its External Affairs spokesman, because I firmly believe that until and unless we get to grips with the wholly unnecessary and avoidable malaise which has afflicted our country, we’re doomed to second world status. I’m starting a CQI blog which will argue for a radical change in attitudes. Here’s a preview:

Few would argue that Quality, Service, Value are the cornerstones of a happy, prosperous and competitive economy. It is not good enough to explain the recent painful economic downturn on global macroeconomic conditions and wait for the upturn. No amount of economic or political smoke and mirrors will save a company, much less an economy, from the inevitable consequences of charging too much for indifferent products and services, produced wastefully. A high cost economy with diminishing competitive advantages cannot afford a £130 -160 billion budget deficit, growing at a rate of £11 billion per month.

The CQI is committed to opening a transparent debate as to whether UK Plc wishes to reaffirm its commitment to quality or continue as a casino economy with a few beacon enterprises but a static domestic manufacturing sector and an increasingly outsourced service sector. Politicians acknowledge that cuts in public spending will be necessary to make inroads into this unsustainable deficit, mitigated by improvements in efficiency and productivity. But this begs the question as to why this didn’t happen earlier. The answer is that quality management, in its absolute sense, took a back seat when cash was king.

Public sector net debt has risen from 50 – 60% of UK GDP since 1999 and public spending now accounts for over 43% of the UK national budget, or £13,000 for every adult UK citizen. Unless radical inroads are made to the cost of providing services – or radical cuts - the UK’s credit rating will be downgraded. This will not only affect the government’s ability to borrow,  but will impact on every business left standing.  Only a concerted, nationwide drive towards reducing costs – not reducing the numbers of people in work, by the way – waste reduction but, above all, realistic, sustained continuous improvement, in the way we work, in private and public sectors, will reduce the deficit between what we make and what we consume and enable us to export our surplus, competitively, thus creating jobs. Failure to do so will cripple our economy. This much is self-evident.

The CQI argues that the alternative to slash-and-burn is a root and branch revisiting of the Quality ethos. This in itself begs the question as to how and why we lost sight of these principles. One fundamental reason is that there is a fundamental semantic disconnect between the consumer perception of Quality and its technical application. Consumers value quality. Companies demand it from suppliers, but a significant number of businesses associate the term with quality assurance, compliance and conformance, which they regard as costing time, money and complexity whilst creating little added value. Standards and targets are important – the opposite is no consistency and no goals - but the first is an audit function and the second is an aspiration. The earliest formal definition of Quality states that:

Total quality control is an effective system for integrating the quality development, quality maintenance, and quality improvement efforts of the various groups in an organization so as to enable production and service at the most economical levels which allow full customer satisfaction. (A.V. Feigenbaum, 1956, Harvard Business Review).

The logic is simple and incontrovertible. Development, maintenance and improvement efforts are the basis of sustainability. Maintenance is relatively easy. Development should be a continous effort, but analysis of successive business cycles have shown that Quality is all-too-often a crisis driven initiative. Step changes in waste reduction, increased productivity, more satisfied customers and higher profits are often followed by a period of maintenance, characterised by audit and target-setting. But without holistic continuous improvement, entropy is inevitable and the root causes re-emerge. At this point the patient blames the medicine and fires the doctor and reaches for a new panacea.

Quality -or whatever you want to call it -  means making and doing things well and then working out how to do things better, at prices people can afford. There is no quick fix or magic potion – quite the reverse. We need to realign the ‘Q’ word and all its powerful nested values, tools and techniques, and rally our workforce around the slogan ‘making things better makes everything better.’ Customers need to be assured by the value and pleasure they derive from buying and using the best products and services that money can buy, not by adherence to international norms and standards. Workers need to be proud to deliver these goods, confident that in doing so, their careers and futures are assured. Anything less is simply not Quality. This much I know.

John J. Kelly

Clearly the Chinese government has a poor grasp of history. Last time they tried to stop English dope peddlers we sent gunboats up the Yellow River and pounded their Mandarin asses until they agreed to be addicted to opium.

In those great days we were helped by the US, then Imperial apprentices, now big swinging dicks. This time we have stopped short of war. Instead, our very own Great Helmsman, Gordon Brown, recognising the media opportunity, interrupted his Yuletide wassailing to summon the Chinese Ambassador, twice, no less, to the Foreign Office for a stern telling-off. The insolent Chinamens’ excuse was that smuggling more than 50 mg of heroin was an offence punishable by death under their sovereign laws, and claimed that the perpetrator’s 5 kg stash was enough to maim or kill more than 27,000 people. This overlooked the fact that he was British, possibly (but not provenly) suffering from bipolar syndrome (aka manic depression) and was clearly (provenly) delusional – as evidenced by a terrible song which he believed would make him a pop star. Tragic, but hardly worth provoking an international incident.

British heroin smuggler Akmal Shaikh knew what he was doing and did it for money. Bipolar syndrome does not imply the inability to determine right from wrong. China, like all the other countries which endorse or carry out the death penalty – notably the US – should be urged to join the civilised world, but Gordon Brown and his hypocrite cronies are hardly the folk to make them change their point of view. China executes the most people in absolute terms, but is 14th when per capita judicial killing is taken into account, with the US close behind. The Bahamas, a British Commonwealth nation, is top. Singapore, held up as a paragon state by unconvicted mass murderer Tony Blair – is second. Kuwait, whose ‘democratic freedom’ we defended in the first Gulf War, is sixth. British trading partners Jordan, Oman and Saudi Arabia are all in the top 10.

None of these countries are daft enough to execute a British, much less a US citizen, though Singapore and our lovely Saudi friends have been known to administer the cat o’ nine tails to errant expats for boozing/fornicating, while Thailand and Malaysia have mostly commuted the death sentence for EU citizens caught smuggling drugs (usually out of the country). Afghanistan, of course, is the world’s top exporter of heroin grade opium, while the brother of its democratically-elected and UN endorsed President, the fragrant Hamid Karzai (Thus passim ad nauseam) is allegedly Capo di Tutti Capi of the smack barons. But he’s our man, as banana boy Miliband is wont to remind us.

I’m sad for the family of Akmal Shaikh, but this is not about the rights and wrongs of a tragic individual case. It’s about the rank, steaming hypocrisy of a country which scarcely raised a finger in protest when 1200 citizens of occupied Gaza, mostly women and children, were bombed out of existence precisely one year earlier, on December 27, 2oo8. Britain defended the ’sovereign right’ of Iraq’s corrupt whacko puppets to publicly hang Saddam Hussein after a laughable show trial. As the Chinese pointed out, a country which has played a lead role in the killing and maiming of at least 200,000 Iraqi citizens and displacement of up to 4 million others, killed and wounded thousands of Afghanis and a growing number of Pakistanis, is in no position to point any fingers whatsoever. The same government gave Chinese Premier Wen a regal welcome in 2008 and brutally suppressed protests from Free Tibet campaigners on his triumphal procession through London before the Beijing Olympics. China was executing/ murdering dissidents (as well as common criminals, for offences less than murder) then as now. We’ll continue to buy its tat, often produced in slave labour conditions. We even sold them our beloved car company, Rover (although this could rank as a subtly hostile act).

This week, 10 Afghan citizens, including 8 children, were executed/murdered by US ‘Special Forces’, according to Afghan investigators. The US claim they were militants/terrorists. Even if they were, does this justify execution without trial of these and several thousand others on other sovereign territories? Ask Brown and Miliband. You won’t get a straight answer.

Britain has lost the high, middle and low ground in international diplomacy, and our citizens will suffer commensurately, as surely as we will lose the phony ‘war on terror.’

However distasteful and repugnant, China’s judicial killing of a British citizen carries more legitimacy than the countless acts of extra-judicial killing perpetrated daily by the US under the banner of liberal intervention. Both are crimes against humanity, but to paraphrase Stalin, one death is a tragedy. 1000 is a statistic.

John J Kelly

Thus predicted this outcome so long ago and so many times that I can scarcely be bothered to highlight our previous posts. Yet the grotesque reality of the US, Britain, NATO and especially the UN rewarding endemic fraud, corruption and weak government by a second term, all enacted under the banner of democracy, surpasses all expectations. Yesterday Tajik warlord Abdullah Abdullah declined to stand in the farcical runoff to the disgracefully-mismanaged Afghan ‘election.’ Not having the wherewithal and collateral to bribe as many ‘voters’ as President Karzai, he would have lost. His supporters have promised ‘Kalashnikovs on the streets.’ We predicted full-blown insurgency if Karzai got re-elected on a shoe-in. My views haven’t changed. Cry havoc and let slip.

Meanwhile, the same UN who spent between USD 150 – 250 million arranging this wet fish in the face of democratic practice, fired Peter Galbraith for daring to suggest that the outcome would be flawed and endorsed Kai Eide, the Norwegian Blue Parrot at the head of the UNAMA license to steal, are lining up to line their pockets anew. Why did the UN (and EU) doggedly stick by the election process, despite all the evidence that this will take the country (even further) down into the depths of violence and authoritarian kleptocracy? Sources in Kabul point to a new round of contracts, estimated at USD 4 billion, for the 5000+ UN agencies and NGOs running around in big white trucks doing fuck all. Bookmark this and see if I’m right. I apologise in advance if no new money is voted, Ban Ki Moon kicks Kai Eide up the arse and the ‘international community’ threatens withdrawal and sanctions. But the awful hypocrisy of  a rush to congratulate to Karzai from puddinghead Gordon Brown, wanky Ban Ki and the increasingly Bushlike Peace Prize Laureate Barack Obama are as emetic as anything I’ve seen for a very long time.

None of this was worth a single dead soldier, much less thousands of dead Afghan civilians. By the way, the ‘bad guys’ are in Pakistan – now. Drone bombing villages is winning no hearts and minds there either.

And another thing: while the grim spectre of mass murderer by proxy Tony Blair becoming EU President recedes, the boat is floating for David Miliband to become EU High Representative. His only qualification, apart from being a Blairite, is undying loyalty to Hillary Clinton and the US. If that’s what we want – the United States of Europe – he’ll be perfect and the EU will be involved in full scale conflicts, wherever liberal intervention sounds like a good idea, before you can skin a banana.

John J Kelly

Earlier this year the world’s media were largely banned from reporting in the North and East of Sri Lanka, with poignant echoes of Israel’s stance in Gaza. Some of us – mea culpa – believed the government when they claimed that it was largely for the safety of journalists and to avoid fanning the flickering flames of Tamil Tiger (LTTE) resistance – mea culpa. Unfortunately, murdering journalists and intimidating others achieves the polar opposite effect. Here is an article from Australian newspaper “The Age” which alleges serious abuse of human rights and indicates that Sri Lanka’s victory-gorged government is heading down a well-trodden path towards Totalitarianism. It’s a shame for all concerned. For a while I thought they were nice guys . . mea maxima culpa. Won’t get fooled again – and won’t be visiting Sri Lanka in a hurry, which is a shame, since it’s a nice country, full of nice people, but largely run by corrupt thugs, armed by China.

“FEARS over declining media freedoms in Sri Lanka have intensified after a newspaper editor was held by police and questioned about a report alleging tension between military officials and the Government. Chandana Srimalwtte, editor of the popular Sinhalese-language newspaper Lanka Irida Sangrahaya, was detained by armed police and questioned for publishing a report detailing tensions between military chief General Sarath Fonseka and the Government. Srimalwtte was in custody for more than three hours and investigators have made two subsequent visits to his office to question him. He now expects to be charged with ”’arousing the public against the Government” and could face two years in jail if found guilty. ”I told them I had no intention to stir up the society against the Government, I was just reporting what I had learnt from my sources,” Srimalwtte told The Age. ”The people have the right to know what powerful people are doing. They want to know about this crisis in the Government.” Sri Lanka has been ranked as one of the most dangerous countries for journalists. The suppression of free speech following Sri Lanka’s civil war will only heighten the fears of Sri Lanka’s minority Tamil population and give added incentive to Tamils to sail for Australia in hope of asylum. Journalists say independent reporting has become even more difficult since the end in May of Sri Lanka’s 25-year conflict between the government dominated by the Sinhalese majority and the Tamil Tigers. In June, Pobbala Jayantha, editor of the Sinhalese newspaper Silumina, which has published stories critical of the Government, was abducted and severely beaten. ”I was kidnapped for about 1½ hours,” he said. His injuries included two broken legs, which are likely to leave him with lifelong disabilities. ”I will definitely be returning to journalism, but I have to recover first,” he said. In recent months many senior journalists have fled Sri Lanka for India and Western countries and others have found work in other industries. There is concern at the police reaction to Srimalwtte’s report because the story was essentially political in nature and had nothing to do with terrorism. Despite his central role in the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers, General Fonseka was removed from his post soon after the conflict finished and given the largely ceremonial role of Chief of Defence Staff. Opposition parties now want the disaffected war hero to stand for them against President Mahinda Rajapaksa in elections likely to be held early next year. Three other reporters from Srimalwtte’s newspaper were arrested and charged after writing reports about allegations of corruption against members of President Rajapaksa’s family. In late August, journalist J. S. Tissainayagam was sentenced to 20 years’ jail when found guilty of ”causing communal disharmony” and ”receiving money from Tamil Tiger rebels to pay for his website”. In January the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Leader, Lasantha Wickrematunga, was assassinated on his way to work. No arrests have been made. Many Sri Lankans worry about the loss of freedom of expression. ”You can’t speak the truth here any more,” one government official told The Age. ”If you speak the truth today you’ll go missing tomorrow.”

This article,  by Anna Neistat, appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus, 16 October, 2009. Thus is publishing it because like the rest of the sane world, I am aghast that the actions of the Sri Lankan government are becoming more sinister by the day. Something should – and could – be done. Hit them where it hurts. The spontaneous outpouring of compassion following the Tsunami generated a wave of cash, much of which was misappropriated. Early signs are that not much has changed following the ‘end’ of the War: loadsamoney is pouring into the bank accounts of the rough and ready Colombo elites while they wring their hands and tell us that they are doing everything in their power to ‘free’ the Tamils whom they have condemned to an Indian Ocean version of Nakba. A tsunami of contempt for the government and international rage at the concentration camps in the north and east might bring them to their senses. Choke off all foreign aid and investment until they treat the Tamil population like equal human beings and make sure that they continue to do so, or cut them adrift from the international community. This is NOT an endorsement of the disgusting LTTE or the screechy Tamil diaspora. By John J Kelly

Atrocities and Cover-up

For several months during and after the end-game of the decades-long civil war between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Sri Lanka’s government brushed off Western criticism of its abusive practices. It has relied instead on moral and financial support from states less concerned with such matters, such as China and Pakistan. Countries with similar problems and equally questionable human rights records are paying close attention — has Sri Lanka discovered the magic formula for brazenly ignoring meddlesome Western countries and getting away with it? Sri Lanka’s policy of complete dismissal was initially successful. But now the government seems to have discovered that ignoring the strongly held opinions of powerful Western partners has consequences that might not be in the long-term interest of the country or its ruling elite after all.

On May 19, 2009, the Sri Lankan government declared victory over the LTTE. This marked an end to a 26-year-long civil war that killed tens of thousands of people. Human Rights Watch’s continuous research in the country established that during the final phase of the conflict, both the Sri Lankan Armed Forces (SLAF) and the LTTE repeatedly violated the laws of war, causing numerous civilian casualties. Forced to retreat by SLA offensive operations, the LTTE drove civilians into a narrow strip of land on the northeastern coast of Sri Lanka. They effectively used several hundred thousand people as human shields. On at least several occasions, the Tamil Tigers shot at those trying to flee to government-held territory. LTTE forces also deployed near densely populated areas, placing civilians in greater danger from government attacks. As the fighting intensified, the LTTE stepped up its practice of forcibly recruiting civilians, including children, into its ranks and into hazardous forced labor on the battlefield.

The government, in turn, used the LTTE’s grim practices to justify its own atrocities. Sri Lankan forces repeatedly and indiscriminately shelled areas densely populated with civilians, sometimes using area weapons incapable of distinguishing between civilians and combatants. As the LTTE-controlled area shrank, the government unilaterally declared “no-fire zones” or “safe zones” on three different occasions, telling civilians to seek shelter there. Nevertheless, government forces continued attacking these areas. In blatant disregard of the laws of war, government forces also fired artillery that directly struck or landed near hospitals on at least 30 occasions. Sri Lanka claimed that in the last days of the war, it carried out “the largest hostage-rescue operation” that liberated thousands of Tamils from the oppressive rule of the LTTE. Yet in reality, to this day the “rescued” Tamil population has seen neither freedom nor relief. From March 2008 until the present, the government has confined virtually all civilians displaced by the war in military-controlled detention camps, euphemistically called “welfare centers.” In violation of international law, the government denied the displaced their rights to liberty and freedom of movement. The camp residents are kept in the dark regarding their own future and the fate of their missing relatives. More than four months after the end of hostilities, the government continues to hold more than 250,000 civilians in illegal detention.

The full extent of the crimes committed by both sides to the conflict is still unknown. The Sri Lankan government spared no effort to prevent independent coverage of its military operations and the plight of displaced civilians. It has kept out both international and local media as well as human rights organizations, has made sure that witnesses to its abuses are securely locked up in camps, and has harassed and persecuted those who dared to speak out — doctors, activists and journalists. It has even deported outspoken UN officials.

Turning East

Despite mounting evidence of abuses in Sri Lanka, the response from Western countries was initially weak, though eventually several governments, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France, raised their voices. They strongly condemned indiscriminate attacks and urged a humanitarian corridor for civilians trapped in the war zone. After the war, they called for an independent investigation and continued to advocate against indefinite detention of the displaced. In a show of disapproval of Sri Lanka’s human rights violations, these countries, along with Germany and Argentina, also made the unprecedented move of abstaining from the vote on the International Monetary Fund’s $2.6 billion loan to Sri Lanka. The loan, delayed for several months because of these concerns, was eventually approved in July 2009. But each quarterly installment will need a separate vote of approval by the IMF’s board of governors. The Sri Lankan government, however, gambled on the idea that no matter how upset the West may be, nobody would judge the “winners.” It dismissed all criticism out of hand. It attacked Western governments for their own human rights practices, calling the pleas for civilian protection “hypocrisy and sanctimony.” And it accused critical governments and international institutions of being LTTE sympathizers. Sri Lanka’s confidence in the face of criticism was also boosted by a gradual re-orientation of its foreign policy toward the East. According to some defense experts, Chinese military ordnance was decisive in the final stages of the war against the LTTE. Pakistan has boosted its annual military assistance loans to Sri Lanka to nearly $100 million. Iran granted $450 million for a hydropower project and provided a seven-month credit facility so that Sri Lanka’s entire crude oil requirement could be sourced from there; it also reportedly provided low-interest credit so that Sri Lanka could purchase military equipment from Pakistan and China. Libya pledged $500 million as a financial co-operation package for development projects. Even Burma donated $50,000 to the Sri Lankan government.

In addition to substantial financial support, Sri Lanka’s new friends also stood up to defend Sri Lanka against accountability at the UN Security Council. In the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka received wholehearted support from countries like Cuba, Pakistan, Venezuela, Iran, and others who ensured the adoption of a deeply flawed resolution that largely commended the Sri Lankan government for its current policies. In June, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — an intergovernmental mutual-security organization founded by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan — granted Sri Lanka the status of Dialogue Partner. While the support for Sri Lanka was largely driven by each country’s political and economic motives, some common factors were also clearly in play — an effort to counterbalance India’s influence in the region (in the case of China and Pakistan), similar problems with separatist groups and abusive counterinsurgency campaigns, and an overall tendency to jointly oppose Western criticism and challenge Western domination in the international arena.

Reality Bites

Sri Lanka’s hardnosed response to its Western critics may have worked in the short term but it may not be, after all, sustainable. The first reality check came with the European Union’s threat to withdraw significant trading privileges granted to Sri Lanka under a trading scheme called the Generalized System of Preferences plus (GSP+). Since 2005, the privileges allowed Sri Lanka to export goods and products duty-free to EU countries. According to an EU estimate, the agreement was worth €900 million and employment of over 100,000 people in the apparel sector in Sri Lanka.

In September 2009, the EU presented the Sri Lankan government with the results of a year-long investigation of Sri Lanka’s compliance with human rights requirements for continued GSP+ status. The Sri Lankan government refused to cooperate with the investigation. However, upon realizing that the threat of withdrawal was real and could become politically costly if the government calls early presidential elections, authorities launched an aggressive campaign, spearheaded by a president-appointed ministerial task force, to ensure the continuation of the trade concessions. Through it all, the government insisted at home that it wouldn’t bend under Western pressure. In the meantime, the U.S. State Department has been preparing a congressionally mandated investigative report into allegations of war crimes committed by both sides during the final phase of the conflict. Around September 21, when the investigation was due to be presented in Congress, pro-government Sri Lankan media published dismissals of the report, saying that it was based on hearsay and “violates Sri Lanka’s rights and sovereignty.” The critics admitted they hadn’t seen the text — which wasn’t surprising, given that the presentation of the report had been postponed and the whole campaign proved to be a false start. It did indicate, however, how anxious Sri Lanka is about the report’s possible conclusions. Some of the top officials must be particularly concerned about being accused of war crimes by a country where they hold citizenship or permanent residency status.

Sri Lanka’s nervousness about its international standing has not yet triggered any significant improvement on human rights matters, and there is no indication that the government is genuinely rethinking its policies. The changing discourse, however, implies that the government may be more susceptible to pressure than the international community previously believed. And the international community should use this moment to ensure progress on some of the burning human rights issues — freedom for thousands of displaced Tamil civilians, the end of persecution of journalists and civil society activists, and accountability for violations committed during the conflict.

In addition to pushing publicly and privately for the release of the displaced, the United States has a particularly important role to play on the issue of accountability. It should use its influence at the UN to help launch an international independent investigation into violations of humanitarian law. Washington should also make clear that future development aid to Colombo will depend on concrete progress on these key issues. Abstaining from the vote on the second tranche of Sri Lanka’s IMF loan would be an appropriate way to convey the message.

Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Anna Neistat is a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch’s emergencies division and is a specialist in humanitarian crises.

Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, decided by an eminent panel of brown nosing illuminati in February 2009, less than a month after his inauguration, has been unfairly criticised by spoilsports and racists, determined to diss the US and generally keep a good man down. What will they say when it is revealed that has also scooped the prestigious UK Strictly Come Dancing award? Although Obama hasn’t entered, or declared any intention of doing so, clearly he should win on the grounds that if he did, he would be a perfect role model, leading to a spontaneous rise in ballroom dancing amongst world leaders. Tripping the light fantastic in taffeta and tails would be infinitely preferable to watching the G8 gargoyles justify pointless invasions, carpet bombing – now with drones – civilian populations, replacing genocidal kleptocracies seemingly at random with narco-genocidal kleptocracies, all in the in the name of fantasy ideologies and corporate plunder.

This is not to denigrate the Nobel Peace Prize. Previous US winners have included Henry Kissinger, without whose efforts Agent Orange or Pol Pot might just as well have been the names of household detergents. And let’s not forget Kofi Annan – crazy name, crazy guy – whose inspired and proactive UN leadership during a global upsurge of genocide and unrest – er – did fuck all to stop anything. So far, Obama has not closed down Guantanamo and has fudged the issue of outlawing US sponsored torture. He is poised to enthrone a blatantly corrupt warlord and stands on the brink of escalating the Afghan conflict into a full-blown war which carries no prospect of ‘victory’ for the US or anyone else. He regularly condones the use of pre-emptive murder of political opponents in foreign countries – drone bombing in Pakistan and Somalia, for example. He was notoriously silent on the Gaza atrocities and is turning a blind eye to Israel’s cruel, illegal East Jerusalem land grabs designed to provoke a third ‘final solution’ Intifada, while blathering about peace in the Middle East. Paradoxically, and probably for all the wrong reasons, Netanyahu is doing a far better job of facing down the extremists, but he’s no John Lennon.

A token prize to a token President who deems destroying Afghanistan part of a ‘necessary war’ on the grounds that eight years earlier the (Saudi) perpetrators of 9/11 lived there, while still fawning at the feet of the country which provided 17 of the 19 known terrorists involved and funds Wahabbist hate regimes sets a fine example to warmongers everywhere. Whatever next? Tony Blair as President of Europe? Or is that too far-fetched?

A credible, inclusive and secure election was intended to deliver a government with sufficient legitimacy to win back the trust of the population and to work with the US and NATO to restore Afghan Sovereignty.  Instead, the Afghan population in general, and the youth and political activists in particular, now believe that a deeply flawed and corrupted election, marked by systematic fraud and low turnout, has robbed the country of the possibility of peaceful change.  The direct engagement of international organizations in the election and their endorsement of its credibility has made them suspect, simultaneously providing Iran and the Moslem world with an opportunity to question the West’s commitment to democracy. Salvaging a satisfactory outcome from a flawed process is still possible, provided urgent steps are taken. By John J Kelly.

Thus predicted that widespread fraud would take place in the Afghan elections, based on first source analysis on the ground allied to the hunch that the occupation forces would allow blind faith, optimism, expediency and an ideological fundamentalist belief in ‘democracy’ to triumph over common sense.  Kai Eide, Ostrich-in-Chief of  UNAMA and the EU clown troupe observers decreed the elections ‘fair but not necessarily free‘ before any votes had been counted. On the grounds alone that UNAMA spent an improbable $250 million engineering the mechanisms for this danse macabre on the grave of democracy in a failed state, Mr Eide and his money eaters should be declared unfit for purpose. Expecting the current process to produce a team with the credibility to tackle the insurgency and restore stability is, therefore, not realistic. It is more likely that a disenchanted population that now feels disenfranchised will tolerate an expanded insurgency, thereby endangering allied lives and assets, and significantly increasing the nature and dimensions of the challenge to NATO.

Should the election process be validated and the results accepted, the following consequences are probable: First, the government will become more predatory as the officials who committed fraud will feel emboldened by getting away with large scale corruption. Favours promised will be called in. Second, the population would be disenchanted with the process, the integrity and intentions of the Allied and international mission, and the new government, and withdraw further into devising ways to protect themselves from all sides.   Third, the insurgency, facing an openly illegitimate government, will have a renewed rallying cry and cause for recruitment. Fourth, the neighbours, particularly Iran, will become more assertive in Afghan affairs, and the struggle between intelligence services, particularly that of India, Pakistan and Russia, will increase significantly. Fifth, a weaker international community will not be able to take a strong posture vis-à-vis the government.

Richard Holbrooke, US ambassador to Afghanistan, is meanwhile trying to backstop the mess by engineering a runoff between Hamid Karzai and ex-foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah (who declared the election fraudulent at an early stage). This is unlikely to enhance the legitimacy of the outcome, as corrupt chains of entrenched interests allied to both Karzai and Abdullah have already mobilized and near term measures will not suffice to loosen their grip on the levers of power and money. A rerun could consolidate and embolden those interests. Furthermore, an election in October will face major logistical obstacles. Given the discredit brought both on IEC and the UN agencies, proceeding with round 2 is likely to perpetuate some of the same symptoms. Moreover, according to complaints submitted to the Afghan Independent Election Commission, both candidates have engaged in widespread ballot rigging. Afghan sources speculate that if Karzai is disqualified (a big if) then the US should shift its backing to Abdullah on the basis that because he is weak he would be easier to control. The flaw in this twisted logic is that Abdullah has neither the strength, popular mandate nor ethnicity to keep the key warlords in check, his corruption might increase if mandated and once support was withdrawn he would be vaporised. Another option is a Karzai-Abdullah coalition – an infernal tag team if ever there was one.

Ashraf Ghani, whom, like Bashardost, ran on the anti-corruption ticket (as did Abdullah when he saw its potential) has proven experience in establishing governance and financial controls – he was finance minister in the last transitional government – has no presidential mandate (and originally stood reluctantly) but could play a key role as mediator, intermediary and Grand Vizier in a government of national unity, embracing all stakeholders, governed under strict, designed to restore sovereignty to the Afghans – an ostensibly ‘weak’ coalition, but infinitely preferable to a licence to steal for the next five years.

Thus has so far been the only site to point out the seeming anomaly between Karzai’s declaration of dubiously modest assets of $1000.00 plus $10,200 in family jewels‘ and his officially declared campaign war chest of a $2 million dollar interest free loan from the Bank of Ghazanhar. This sum represents 20% of the funds of this ‘bank,’ a philanthropic institution founded and run by the Ghazanfar family. How and when is this modest unassuming man on a salary of $487 per month going to repay the generosity of his altruistic supporters? Rather like the eponymous Producers in the Mel Brooks movie, he has already promised more seats in the new cabinet than currently available, to lovely men such as Dostum (Thus passim). He has polled 3000 votes in stations where observers only recorded 30 people voting. His brother Walid coincidentally hangs out with folks who allegedly control the opium trade while other family members, through sheer hard work no doubt, appear to run the country’s most  lucrative business franchises. He talks of having no truck with the Taliban but shamelessly passed the notorious wife-starving law shortly before the election. Is this a man ‘we’ can do business with? Though it pains me to say it, we have little choice. The most expedient figurehead leader would be Karzai, supported but not endorsed by the international community under strict and irreversible terms of conditionality.

The Taliban, meanwhile, have sat on their hands – having threatened to cut off the hands of anyone who voted – and shrewdly allowed the forces of ‘democracy’ to do their heavy lifting for them. They stand to gain from the continued uncertainty of a protracted runoff, a popular insurrection resulting from forcing through a blatantly corrupt result and a turf war between Tajik, Uzbek and Pashtun forces which would erupt if Abdullah is awarded the paper crown. Time is short: the results will be final on 17 September. So what to do? Clare Lockhart, of the Institute for State Effectiveness, summarises four options thus:

1. Accommodation with Mujahadeen: Accept Karzai’s claim of victory, and put together a Karzai-Abdullah coalition. This government could be stable in the short term, but is likely to be highly corrupt and unstable in the medium term. Some concessions could be extracted, including the inclusion of technocratic positions and commitment to the US 5-point agenda already discussed with candidates and the restoration of Afghan sovereignty. It is questionable as to whether concessions would be agreed upon or adhered to.

2. Formation of a national government headed by Karzai: Instead of waiting for implosion, action is taken now to put together a national government, with inclusion of broad stakeholder interest groups. A set of benchmarks and processes could be followed and the international community and the Afghan government could sign a binding compact.

3. Formation of a Transitional Government for a two to three year period: The election is deemed fatally flawed and the International Community declare it invalid and disqualify Mr Karzai. A Transitional Government is put together, along the lines of the Bonn Agreement 2002-4, with the key change that key figures will commit not to run for elected office in future. This Administration would be tasked with stabilizing the country and building the basic institutions that would allow for exit of the international presence.

4. Form a quasi-protectorate under an US/international driven agenda, creating governance bottom up, and marginalize the Afghan institutions for a period of time.

Option 2 is the most likely and the most expedient. The loser in this entire sorry process has been the notion of democracy, at least in its US interpretation. The bigger loser could be Barack Obama, who will be a one term President if his administration allows Afghanistan to become his Vietnam.

“If Karzai’s warlord cronies have over-egged the firnee and their boy romps home with an incredible margin, Iran-style riots are almost inevitable. On the other hand, if he narrowly wins, it will be more difficult for the opposition forces to cry foul. Given that he achieved only 54 per cent in 2004, the ‘ideal’ result for Karzai would be a tight margin of victory but no runoff, so we’ll see how these figures change if and when the penny drops.” (Thus passim)

There are more twists in the tale of the Afghan elections than Hamid Karzai’s S shaped bed – not that I’d know, I hasten to add. What I do know is that donkeys laden with ballot boxes are finding their way back to Kabul to deliver the verdict that the international community needs – ‘don’t panic, democracy is flowering in Afghanistan.’ Well I reserve the right to panic. Another four soldiers died today, along with at least 30 civilians and 56 others wounded in Kandahar.

Here’s a suggestion for the Afghan election theme:

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss . . .

We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray We don’t get fooled again. (The Who: Won’t get fooled again)

The only thing flowering is Poppy, and the chief gardener, who ‘borrowed’ $2 million interest free from the Ghazanfar Bank, (how and in what form will he make repayments?) has now seen his ‘massive lead’ whittled down to a ‘narrow lead’ over the man who spent the second biggest amount campaigning. To this extent, the Afghan campaign followed the ‘democratic’ model of the US – money talks. As I said several posts back, in lieu of a fair result, we might as well accept Karzai in preference to a prolonged period of even more violence and bloodcurdling carryings-on that might be generated in a runoff – but on the other hand, Abdullah has hinted that his supporters might get frisky if the ‘election is seen to be rigged’. Todays preliminary results (based on 10% of the votes cast, give Karzai 41% and Abdullah 39%, but do not include any votes from the south, where Karzai will win whatever votes the Taliban allowed to be cast. I’ve seen more convincing all-in wrestling bouts – in fact, a novel runoff might take the form of Karzai vs Abdullah, mano a mano, in the ring, wearing tights and masks, of course.

But let’s be serious for once. Thus has a brilliant idea (though I say so myself). Why not bring in Jeb Bush, Former Governor of Florida, to supervise and fine tune the election count? No-one could argue with that – after all, they didn’t in the 2000 US elections.

John J Kelly

It is rumoured in Kabul that the Independent Election Commission is under pressure to rush out election results in an effort to accustom public opinion to the legitimacy of a Karzai victory which some are already claiming could be greater than 70 percent. Unofficial reports (Press TV) claim that Karzai has won with 3,244,196 votes (70 percent), Abdullah 1,029,467 9 (23 percent), the populist Bashardost 189,659 and Thus man Ghani trailing in fourth with only 47,954, proving that nice guys finish last in Death Race 2009. Given that hardly anyone voted in Helmand for obvious reasons and the Pashtuns were – sort of – obliged to vote for Karzai, only those who clung to the belief that this was a democratic process should be surprised.

The same report claimed that only 7.5 million of Afghanistan’s 17.5 million eligible voters had registered. Free and fair?

If Karzai’s warlord cronies have over-egged the firnee and their boy romps home with an incredible margin, Iran-style riots are almost inevitable. On the other hand, if he narrowly wins, it will be more difficult for the opposition forces to cry foul. Given that he achieved only 54 per cent in 2004, the ‘ideal’ result for Karzai would be a tight margin of victory but no runoff, so we’ll see how these figures change if and when the penny drops. Since Abdullah has already declared the election to be rigged, Karzai has retaliated by declaring that he has evidence that Abdullah engaged in fraud and Ghani has submitted evidence to show that both engaged in fraud (previous post) it would perhaps be pruduent to publicly examine these claims before declaring results and certainly before starting the next Karzai puppet show.

Meanwhile, an Aljazeera film report, broadcast on YouTube shows that rumours of Taliban inactivity during the deeply troubled Afghan election may have been wishful thinking on the part of the UN observers. Indeed, the relative calm from the fundamentally religious fanatics may have more to do with the month of Ramadan, when killing and amputating, especially during daylight hours, especially of other Muslims and women, is strictly prohibited, as any Talib scholar knows. The news clip shows Taliban fighters accusing hapless voters of ’standing in line with the Jews.’ This pointless and immature anti-semitism should not surprise us but adds another horrid ingredient to the devil’s brew in this terrible conflict. If a central plank of the Taliban’s twisted ideology is to equate the US and occupying forces with ‘Jews’ and the Palestine question, this explains why the US cannot leave (and why AIPAC were so keen to get them in there in the first place). However, it has clearly escaped the attention of the men in black that ‘Jews’ aside,  Hamas themselves have been fighting Taliban/Al Quaeda in Gaza and Fatah is likewise fiercely secularist. Ideologically, the Taliban have more in common with fundamentalist Jewish settlers than they do with secular Palestinians, who have more in common with everyday Israelis than politicians on either side would have us believe.

Elections need a bedrock of governance, and Afghanistan is naturally federalist, to say the least. Given the overwhelming evidence of fraud, intimidation and corruption, it would make most sense to form an interim government of national unity charged with establishing  norms of representative governance, auditable finances, prioritising aid and (preferably) development to the benighted swathes of the population who cannot eat votes.  Easy to say – and actually, relatively easy to do, in principle. A constructive task of nation-building would give everyone hope and put some of the whackjobs on the back foot, whilst buying time for the occupying forces to think up a face-saving exit strategy. Legitimising a joke election will sustain a toxic status quo and will almost certainly lead to more instability and bloodshed, which would suit the Taliban just fine. What price democracy? About $250 million if we’re talking about the UNAMA budget to mismanage this farce.

John J Kelly

This morning, in a cynical volte face, Abdullah Abdullah, the leading challenger to incumbent, President Karzai, declared that the Afghan election was rigged, having previously declared himself the winner. Earlier speculation that the two candidates identified by a Free and Fair Elections spokesman as responsible for widespread intimidation and ballot-rigging in the Afghan election (Thus passim) were the two front runners has been strengthened by a leaked document to the Afghan Election Complaints Commission from the Ashraf Ghani campaign detailing and citing specific abuses. The document alleges abuses by both the Karzai and Abdullah factions, and places the incidents in specific locations. This coincides with news from Kabul that owing to widespread complaints of fraud, intimidation and bribery, the election results may be delayed.

Whilst acknowledging that Thus supports the Ghani campaign and allowing for the fact that ‘he would say that,’  we publish the Ghani camp complaints without comment and without vouching for the detail, which will no doubt be judged by the Election Complaints Commission. What it demonstrates is that this was neither a free nor a fair election, and the result should not be allowed to stand, at least not under the banner of democracy or any such other fantasy construct. Abdullah Abdullah’s statement today shows that he agrees, and from the look of this document, he’s in a perfect position to know. Here’s the list in full:

Election Fraud Complaints Filed to the ECC by Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai Campaign

John J. Kelly

Gordon Brown (the ugly one on the left) congratulates Colonel Gaddafi, thinking he is Sarah Boyle, winner of Britain's Got Talent

Over the past three days, as the Lockerbie ‘terrorist’ release turns into a full-blown international incident, we have heard not one word, or even a Twitter, from the man who saved the wurreld (and its banks). This is highly unusual; Gordon and his wife Sarah Twittered from Inverkilliecrankie, or wherever they are on holiday, catching crabs and burying each other in the sand, when the ungrateful Evil Empire dissed the NHS. This time it’s serious. Somebody gave Gordon’s independent-minded fellow Jocks a pass to give Abdulbasset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the Lockerbie bombing, a get out of gaol free card on the spurious pretext that he had less than three months to live.

Let’s leave aside the mountain of evidence that al Megrahi and Libya probably didn’t do it. He was threatening to appeal, a process which would have certainly opened the UK and US to wide and embarrassing scrutiny of their highly circumstantial fingering of Libya, then THE axis of the axis of evil, now everybody’s best friend and a bulwark against terror. Blame switched from Syria, the HQ of the PFLP- GQ terrorist cell allegedly paid by Iran to carry out the bombing as revenge for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 six months earlier (1988) by the USS Vincennes, killing 290 civilians, when Syria joined the Bush 1 and Thatcher ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in the first Gulf War. Let’s ignore Scottish due process which dictates that a terminally ill prisoner should be released on compassionate grounds to die in dignity. Let’s ignore the oft-repeated fact that post-devolution, Scotland makes its own decisions in law. Let’s try and pretend that Britain isn’t the 51st US state, even if the antics of the past few years have understandably left the opposite impression.

Let’s try and focus on the facts. Last Friday UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband furiously demanded that BBC news presenter John Humphrys retract the ’slur’ that the FCO had anything to do with it. Today’s Sunday Times revealed that Ivan Lewis, UK Foreign Minister responsible for Libya, ‘is said to have written to the Scottish government, encouraging officials to send home’ al-Megrahi. Ten days ago ‘Lord’ Peter Mandelson, Business Secretary and de facto ruler of Great Britain, admitted discussing the subject a couple of weeks ago with Colonel Gaddafi’s son Saif at the Rothschild villa in Corfu. Today, after a mysterious prostate operation (in sympathy with al Megrahi or the result of some other sort of probe?) Mandelson broke his own uncharacteristic silence to declare it ‘offensive to claim’ that this meeting was connected to the release of the Libyan or to trade deals, despite the fact that Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi had emphatically declared the opposite. Colonel Gaddafi, meanwhile, has effusively thanked just about everybody in the UK:

Sarkozy is pissed off because he thought he was welcoming Michael Jackson to the G20 Summit. All Gaddafi had to offer was unlimited supplies of oil, gas and cash, though he performed a passable moonwalk.

“To my friends in Scotland, the Scottish National Party, and Scottish prime minister, and the foreign secretary, I praise their courage for having proved their independence in decision making despite the unacceptable and unreasonable measures that they faced. Nevertheless they took this courageously right and humanitarian decision.” And I say to my friend Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, his Government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish Government to take this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles.” (Reuters).

Barack Obama came slowly out of the traps to declare the decision ‘highly objectionable.’ Despite the fact that the release of al Megrahi was ‘on the agenda at every meeting between Blair and Libyan officials’ it was highly OK for St Tony to broker a return of Libya to the international coalition of the hypocrites in 2004 when we realised we were running out of oil and there was rather a lot of it there, not to mention a strongman capable of bullying the bejasus out of many of the the other whackjobs in Africa, especially Sudan, and Mahgreb Middle East. Despite the fact that we knew more than a week before it happened that this release was on the cards, FBI Head, Robert Mueller, sent a hissy letter expressing outrage and astonishment to Kenny MacAskill, Scottish Justice Minister, clearly intended for public consumption (printed in full in The Times). Various neocons (and David Cameron) have postured their horror at the release of this convicted terrorist and outrage at his hero’s welcome in Tripoli as though this was a bolt from the blue.

Exclusive: what they found when they operated on Mandy's prostate - a banana AND a Miliband.

Those are the facts. Here’s some outrageous speculation. Gordon Brown desperately needs sovereign funds. Mandelson told him that this was a small step to take and that nobody would bother once the dust had settled, and anyway, his new friend (and UK homeowner) Gaddafi jr had assured him the return of al Megrahi would pass off quietly. Scotland, an oil and gas economy, was promised lucrative oil supply contracts and plentiful exports of Dundee rock, Irn Bru, tartan and sporrans. The US agreed to turn a blind eye on the condition that Gaddafi refrained from dancing the Highland Fling. Besides, it’s a big bonus if al Megrahi dies without making an appeal – the dirty secrets surrounding massive CIA manipulation of witnesses and evidence, including the possibility that Pan Am Flight 103 was carrying US secret service contraband die with him. Mandelson wins either way: if Brown is discomfited and if the Scottish National Party is put in the hole, his task of bullying the Labour Party is strengthened (Labour desperately needs seats in Scotland in the upcoming General Election). The inconvenient truth is that Colonel Gaddafi is a loony and his son appears to be a blowhard, so the whole yellow ribbon homecoming was unfortunate, but you can’t win them all. Champagne all round at Chateau Rothschild, Corfu branch. Another dinner guest has provided immense entertainment value on the international stage.

John J Kelly

While resisting the temptation to say ‘we told you so’ (Thus passim) – it is glaringly evident that, as predicted, the Afghan elections were neither free nor fair. Except that by an extraordinary contortion of logic and semantics, the EU monitors have declared that they were ‘generally fair but not free.’ Well, thanks for putting our minds at ease, General Philippe Morillon. Some of us mistakenly thought that the objective was to hold elections that would give the Afghan people an equal opportunity to democratically determine who should run their country. How could they do this if the elections were ‘fair’ but not free? Does the EU definition of ‘fair’, include violent intimidation, wholesale ballot-rigging, bribery and corruption on a epic scale, resulting in the deaths of 14 members of the security forces and ‘at least 9 Afghan civilians’ on election day alone? General Morillon, who served in Bosnia, that other great EU success story, clearly has a more expedient definition of freedom and fairness than the rest of us. Relief that the Taliban did not fulfil their bloodthirsty promises of wholesale carnage has translated into declarations that the elections were some sort of success is the equivalent of saying that there is no need for an investigation when an aircraft crashes if only a few passengers are killed, since it was obeying the laws of flight. Interestingly, we have heard next to nothing from the United Nations observers so far. They are probably still recovering from celebratory drinks at the bar of the Serena hotel, whence they probably observed the election in the first place – or am I being a tad harsh?

The Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan put 7000 monitors in the field and confirmed the BBC reports of widespread ballot box stuffing, fraud, bribery and corruption. Today a spokesman tantalisingly stated that it could hardly be deemed free and fair when ‘two candidates’ had extensively employed these tactics. Which two? Let’s hazard a wild guess. Hamid Karzai’s running mate is Muhammad Qasim Fahim, a Tajik warlord with less than democratic credentials, while his other Tajik ’supporters’ include ex-General Abdul Rashid Dostum (Thus passim) and a crew of narco warlords, allegedly marshalled by his brother and ‘campaign manager’ Walid.  There are plenty of ’suspects’ to be the ‘other’ overtly corrupt candidate, but since third place contender  Ashraf Ghani (Thus passim) is campaigning on the anti-corruption/anti warlord ticket, likewise fourth place Ramazan Bashardost, they are unlikely candidates. Theconfident demeanours of both Karzai and his leading challenger, Abdullah Abdullah (both declared themselves early victors) suggests  an inside track on the result. Now indeed, Abdullah himself is now saying that the polls were rigged. Another triumphant use of $250 million by the UN, I don’t think.

The election will probably go to a second round, since neither warlord will secure more than 50% of a turnout well below 50% of the population in the first place (free,fair?). Extreme factions of the Taliban did just enough tactical murdering and muttering to drastically reduce the turnout in the Pashtun South, but apathy did the rest. Many ethnic Pashtuns were sufficiently disillusioned with Karzai to sit on their hands rather than get them inky and liable to to chopped off – although the UN ‘incredible’ indelible ink turned out to be as wishy-washy as their election arrangements, thus allowing for multiple voting in areas outside the South where, for example, Abdullah’s faction held sway.

Despite avowals on the part of the two main challengers that they will encourage their supporters to refrain from violence during the runoff, it is entirely possible, and consistent with insurgency tactics, that the Taliban see this whole process as a bear trap which will expose the chimaera of democracy.  They will continue to apply sufficient pressure – a few spectaculars added to the regular intimidation outside the mosques, not dissimilar, in fact, to IRA tactics in Northern Ireland – to discredit the election process (not that they need to try too hard, given the provenance of the protagonists).

We need a hard, impartial look at the evidence of corruption, fraud, bribery, intimidation and the contacts and affilations of the ‘leading’ candidates. It’s ultimately up to the Afghani people as to whether they want these guys to govern them, but if we expect US, British and Canadian soldiers to continue to fight and die in the name of ‘democracy’ then we need to know what form it is taking.  The EU and UNAMA couldn’t monitor an episode of American Idol, never mind an election, so it’s no use asking for their opinion. But it’s pretty obvious that whatever this was, the election was neither free nor fair. Thus, no good will come of it. Mark my words.

John J Kelly

“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.” – Cree Saying.

This quote, possibly the biggest cliché in the environmental literature, inspired Jared Diamond’s seminal work “Collapse“. But humans seem to succumb to boredom fairly quickly, so the real crisis, which is after all about something as mundane as food, has slipped off of the radar. The global meltdown of the banks, a grand Greek drama of the folly of the gods if ever there was one, has captured our attention. Have the problems with food thus disappeared? I think not. They are here to stay and getting stronger.

The problems we saw with the huge price rise in 2008 are still around, bio-fuels, huge agri-businesses exploiting market power, and so on. It is a myth that this was driven by increased demand from China and India, downwards pressure on wages in developing countries has actually reduced per capita food intake in the poor majority of these countries. Adding speculation in food markets yields a lovely recipe for population control (Thus Passim). Over the past two years, evidence has grown of the impact of Climate Change on agriculture. An FAO report by Cline in 2007 put agricultural yield losses by 2080 at between 5 and 20% globally. This hid a regional picture where India could lose 30-40% of its yield. As if this was not enough, he pointed out the glaringly obvious problem with equilibrium models, which mean even greater declines in food production.

These models assume systems tending to a steady state, and are used in both agro-economics and climate modeling. They mask extreme events and chaotic systems that refuse to settle down. Extreme weather is a fact of life in India, whose climate is driven by the dynamic monsoon weather system. No-one quite knows how this system will respond to changes in climate, but what we do know is that around 40% of India’s population depend directly on the rain. They live in terror of extreme weather, and this year, with a major drought from failure of the monsoon, India is importing food again. This just after India signed an accord to turn land over to fuel production to help keep American engines going.

Finally, there is sea-level rise to consider, something also not included in Cline’s report. For instance Egypt is facing the loss of much of its prime agricultural lands along the Nile Delta. So worry about the banks that hold in your money all you like, the food problem is not going away.

Fuck yeah – if it’s fucking hearts and fucking minds you want to fucking win over, walk this way with the fucking US Marines. We’ll capture those fucking hearts and minds or tear the bastards out and shove them up their sorry goddam asses. By John J Kelly.

Last night, BBC Newsnight aired a warning that the programme contained ‘extremely strong and violent language’ – which immediately got my full attention – referring to a filmed report of US marines patrolling Helmand, Afghanistan’s most troubled province, demonstrating the ‘new’ counter insurgency strategy of ‘building trust and relationships with the local population.’ The Brits had tried this tactic, we were told, but although they got to know the territory, they hadn’t got enough ‘combat power’ and ‘capability’ to do what had to be done. The implication was that they were ill-equipped (surely not?) and a tad wussy and incompetent.

The marines found and searched an almost-deserted village, the natives having sensibly fled in advance of the hearts and minds brigade. Only a young boy remained, with four old men, including a ’sinister man in black’ (Johnny Cash?). ”Why is he shaking? What’s he afraid of?” a 19 year old military genius asks, as camouflaged, helmeted goons, bristling with weaponry, jostle the kid at gunpoint after ransacking his house, finding a rifle – which turned out to be a BB gun (air rifle) and ‘urging’ him to reveal the whereabouts of his friends and family. ”Last time we searched this house they wanted nothing to do with us. Ask them why?” Lance-Corporal Bunch demanded of the interpretor. You didn’t need a PhD to answer that question, but the marines decided that the old men standing nearby were intimidating the boy (possibly they were, but telling him ‘you’re fucked, kid’ and threatening to ‘wax this guy’s ass,’ might have had some bearing on his situation). I bet that village can hardly wait for the next patrol to pass by.

In contrast to their base commander and to various gurning politicians, the marines on patrol, some (literally) sick with fear, were respectful of the Taliban’s abilities and skeptical that they would ultimately  ’defeat’ them. The most likely outcome would be to ‘chase their asses into Pakistan’. Later in the sequence, a soldier observes: ”(The) Iraq war was different from this. Here . . this is like some Vietnam shit. No-one even mentions 9/11 here.” He is entitled to be dazed and confused. The ‘War on Terror’ formed the pretext to invade Afghanistan, whose (elected) Taliban government had provided a safe haven for Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora as the US turned its attention to Iraq, having ‘defeated’ the Taliban in 2001 (another hubristic Mission Accomplished). Cleverer people than this kid can’t make sense of the tactics or strategy, but the difference is that they, like me, are sitting comfortably outside the firing line. Yesterday almost 200 people died in car bombs in (post-surge) Baghdad, confirming that the ’surge’ was a chimaera (Thus passim) But hell, they’ve got democracy . . . .

Don't worry about getting elected, Hamid, I didn't and neither did George Bush. Afghanistan is a true democracy now.

Later in the programme we heard that democracy’s beacon, President Karzai’s last act prior to the election had been to confirm a ‘Status Law‘ enshrining the rights of Afghan men to rape or starve their wife if she withholds sexual favours, despite specific condemnation from towering world figures such as Gordon Brown. Douglas Alexander, the ludicrous Blairite UK Development Minister, brushing aside this minor setback, urged us to ‘celebrate’ the fact that no-one knows who will win the election.’ Bollocks. We do, and so does he. Alexander refused to condemn the principle of endorsing and funding – under the pretext of democracy – a government which passes medieval laws and has promised to include internationally-condemned war criminals such as Dostum (see previous post) in their next regime. In short, he is an example of the prevarication, hypocrisy and expedient madness of  bad compromises which have placed the US, UK and the so-called ‘international community’ in the hole into which they are digging themselves deeper by the day.

Thus we were given evidence of how and why the US stands no chance of ‘winning’ and how the election will be spun as a victory regardless of the outcome. The Newsnight bulletin, and the preceding reporting leading up to today’s election, has been enlightening and relatively objective, helped by the absence of posturing hounyhymn jackass, Jeremy Paxman. File under ‘you couldn’t make it up’ – and watch the sequence yourself.