Kim Jong Il to Barack Obama

Dear Great Leader President Barack Obama of the United States of America (hope I have all your titles right).

Well done on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

I wanted it, but the Nobel Committee keeps ignoring the nomination every year. I mean I've never attacked any countries, not since my dad died, and besides he IS still the President, so any rescuing I undertake of civilians oppressed in other countries is not entirely up to me.

You'll find the international peace movement recognises that your country not mine has been a grave threat to international peace and security for years. I come from a land of peace, nobody fears crime or war walking our streets, except for the nuclear threat from your country.

Still, I am grateful you haven't threatened the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, haven't interfered with our peaceful possession of nuclear weapons and desire to reunify the country by expelling the South Korean puppet clique, destroying the abomination of Seoul and peacefully negotiating a surrender peace treaty with the United States. All of the people in Korea excluding the traitors and their children and grandchildren in the gulags and the expendable south Korean lackeys of imperialism seek swift reunification and friendship with peace loving peoples of the world.

So in that spirit of peace, I hope you will immediately withdraw US troops from South Korea, just as previous President Jimmy Carter once indicated, but then abdicated on.

To show our glee at your win, my country has celebrated in the traditional way.

In solidarity, Kim Jong Il, Chairman of the National Defense Commission, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, and General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea.

Obama gets unwelcome supporter

Fidel Castro said of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize "I must admit that in this case, in my opinion, it was a positive step" according to the Daily Telegraph.

The best sentiments I've noticed on this, is that Morgan Tsvangirai, who had been mooted for the prize, has been imprisoned, tortured, beaten up repeatedly, lost his wife in an accident, and STILL decided for peace in Zimbabwe, to form a joint government with the murdering gangsters of Zanu-PF.

Apparently that wasn't good enough. Not good enough for an African man in Africa at the front line of essentially civil war and insurrection, in a truly bankrupt economy, to risk himself so much to bring peace and justice to Zimbabwe. He may have been able to do much for Zimbabwe with the US$1 million prize.

Instead, a group of Norwegians worshipped words not deeds. Obama did not need encouragement to pursue he soft approach to international relations, and did not need the money to give to charity.

It is enough now that the Nobel Peace Prize has been discredited umpteen times in the past, next year I can't wait for the latest joke to come from the Nobel committee. Maybe Oscar Wrigley can win the prize for science, because no doubt he has great potential.

Iran or Israel, how are they equals?

I fully agree with the sentiments of Not PC on the simply brilliant speech by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The video is here (in 4 parts)

However, the text is here.

He refutes the ridiculous Holocaust denial claims of the dictator buffoon Ahmadinejad, he describes the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran correctly as follows:

"Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

He points out the wonder of human achievement, the application of free minds to the world:

"The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet."

He describes how Israel withdrew, unilaterally from Gaza, in the hope it would bring the advancement of peace but:

"In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent."

Meanwhile, far too many think Iran can't be pursuing nuclear weapons, or if it is, it is "ok", because Israel has them. Israel has had them for some years, but hasn't threatened to ever use them, except in retaliation for use against Israel. Iran's recent military coup and election rigging is "ok", because after all, it has to be better than the USA, what with George Bush invading Iraq (another "legitimate" state perhaps) and Afghanistan. The very same cover their eyes when told of the execution of political prisoners in Iran, the second highest execution rate in the world after China, and ignore the execution of homosexuals or minors for sex crimes - being consensual sex. The very same people ignore the persecution of those who want to choose to reject Islam, and ignore the systematic oppression of free press and media.

The same who claim to give a damn about freedom of speech, about womens' rights, supporting gay and lesbian rights, but are happy to let Iranians live with none of the above.

It reminds me of the wilful blindness of the old left who wanted to "listen" to the men who rewarded snipers who shot desperate East Germans trying to cross the Berlin Wall, or "understand" what Nicolae Ceausescu's new way for Romania, without Soviet troops, or recognise the advantages that the Soviet Union brought for education, employment and in housing. The same lickspittles and sycophants who regard Western claims of militarism and human rights abuses with disdain, so denying the victims of dictatorial regimes the legitimacy of their experiences.

In which case I say this.

If you think Iran has a legitimate government with rights, then why do you not endorse a similar government for your own country? If it is good enough for Iranians to get political candidates chosen for them by a theocratic council, to have election results gerrymandered by the incumbent, for political protests to be put down by a state security agency that arrests and imprisons, for newspapers, radio and TV to be fully state controlled to prevent messages "unwelcome" to the regime being distributed, and for bloggers and others online to be persecuted and arrested for criticising the regime, then why not for YOUR country?

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to acquire nuclear weapons, then presumably you embrace widespread nuclear proliferation.

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to call for Israel to be erased from the map, then presumably you think so too. So go on, explain how you'd propose that be achieved? Explain how little bloodshed that would entail and how that would promote freedom, human rights and secularism in the Middle East? How would it be compatible with your opposition to the invasion of Iraq?

Yes let's listen to Gaddafi says McCarten

So says former Alliance President Matt McCarten.

Why is this fool given space in a mainstream newspaper when it is best left to some leftwing rag?

He says "Rather than reporting fully on some of his valid commentary, the international press almost universally portrayed Gaddafi as some sort of nutty clown"

Of course, given that anyone who dares make fun of him in Libya will get dispatched to prison at best if not oblivion, we shouldn't laugh should we Matt? I mean, a man who gained power through military coup, and has been directly responsible for funding, arming and training murderers the world over, yes, let's not poke fun at him should we?

He is a nutty clown, and if you can't see it through his mad grand projects, his ridiculous cult of personality with statements like "I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam (leader) of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level" and his prize for human rights, then you're a fool or willfully blind.

"The description of his flowing robes, large rings on his fingers and his insistence in staying in tents was intended to make him look comical rather than the cultural racism it is."

Oh yes, silly me, the fact that OTHER Arab leaders don't get the same media treatment (or stay in tents) wouldn't make that just another cheap "racism" jibe, would it Matt? How fucking DARE people make fun of this murdering tyrant?

"we would have learned some valuable insights, such as Libya and almost all Middle East nations don't support Iran being nuclear armed."

Valuable insights? Really? So he can speak on behalf of "almost all Middle East nations", by what mandate? None Matt, Gaddafi doesn't speak for any other states, just the dictatorship of his own. Besides, it is long known that the Arab world opposes Iranian nuclear weapons, if you didn't know then it speaks volumes about any value in your point of view on the topic.

"Unsurprisingly, they want Israel to dismantle their atomic arsenal too." Amazing, who'd have thought?!! Oh and the word is "its" not "their" Matt, there is only one Israel.

"there should be one secular state within the current greater border. This is the most sensible solution for both peoples and needs more air time. Everybody knows the current situation in Israel/Palestine is apartheid, and that it's not sustainable." The current situation isn't sustainable, but isn't Israel not far from being secular as it is? Hamas isn't secular Matt.

"Gaddafi also supports the establishment of a Kashmir state to resolve conflict between India and Pakistan. He even argued the Taleban had a right to form a state too. This is also worthy of further discussion." Oh wonderful, Matt is keen on telling Kashimiris to live together but separate from the two big countries either side of them, and he thinks it's worth discussing putting some people under the joyless tyranny of the Taliban.

Isn't he so nice, drawing lines, creating states? However Matt loves the state doesn't he?

"His best contribution was his expose of the hypocrisy of the United Nations. The UN Charter claims all its nation members are equal. Yet it's run by a Security Council with five nations (US, Britain, France, Russia and China) who can veto any decision." Expose? Yes nobody ever thought of that before. Matt, it might pay for you to read some books on international relations before thinking Gaddafi teaches you things everyone else has heard of.

Matt goes on about the tired old story that the UN Security Council should be restructured to include a bunch of other states, including the veto, then he finds something new, for him...

"his most blistering accusation is that the Security Council is the cause of many wars. Sixty-five wars have occurred since the UN was founded and a permanent member on almost every occasion used its veto to prevent the rest of the world stopping it."

65 wars? Well Gaddafi said so, he MUST be right. What superficial nonsense. The Cold War veto use is well known, but more recently it has primarily been Russia and China to wield vetoes. Not that Matt would want to point that out, see he really likes how Gaddafi lays into the Western World. That's why he mentions about Gaddafi blaming Bush and Blair for killing innocent people, without noting at all how Gaddafi knows about killing innocent people.

Libya is a sad country, it is awash with oil wealth that is wasted on profligate projects, the military, enriching Gaddafi and his stooges, and not much else. Libya is quite third world for most of its inhabitants, and nobody dare utter a word of criticism. You see Libya imprisons and executes political prisoners, it doesn't have the slightest notion of a free press or media.

Read the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information report on Libya

and ask yourself if Matt McCarten might think less about being offended about Gaddafi being called a clown, if he might search out other sages for ideas on international relations, and might give at least a sentence to his articles to give a damn about the people who live under Gaddafi's rule. The man who has supported Idi Amin deserves no respect.

This apologetic naive article shows Matt at best as a shallow badly informed fool, who worst of all has just written a nice piece of propaganda for Gaddafi's sycophantic media.

Can Matt get any worse? Is Kim Jong Il just misunderstood Matt because he's "ronery"?

Greens and the Khmer Rouge Part 1

Frogblog has posted about the evidence given by Rob Hamill at the trial of Duch, who operated the Tuol Sleng torture and murder prison in Cambodia. A chance, of course, to reflect simply upon the horrors of the Khmer rouge era. Estimates of numbers executed and starved to death by this regime range from 1.2 to 2.2 million people, between a quarter and a third of the population.

The easy target is to throw stones at Keith Locke. It is fairly well known that in his naïve youth he cheered on the Khmer Rouge victory in Phnom Penh as a liberation. Of course he was not the only one, the Lon Nol military dictatorship that had been overthrown was corrupt and brutal. Nobody missed it at the time, it was hoped things could only get better. Few paid any attention to stories coming out of Khmer Rouge occupied territory of the Maoist autarchy imposed on the local population, although images from the early 1970s showed the uniformity and order that they had imposed (ironically published approvingly by a Chinese state propaganda pictorial magazine).

However, my concern is not Keith Locke. He was young and naïve, better to forgive that and his statements about nuclear power only being safe under socialism, and cheering on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, than to dwell a quarter of a century or more later. My concern is also not Sue Bradford, who was cheerleading on Maoist China in the early 1970s, the Khmer Rouge’s chief source of funds, arms and ideology. Imagine if a senior National MP had cheered on Pinochet, Franco or Salazar in his youth and how that would be treated by the Greens, but I digress.

It is this statement

“For us in the West what we have to get our heads around is that the Khmer Rouge learnt their ideology in Paris and were able to seize power because Richard Nixon personally ordered a secret bombing campaign that killed half a million. And that US foreign policy, in particular their determination to never forgive anyone that drives them off, allowed the Khmer Rouge to occupy Cambodia’s UN seat until 1993 rather than the government installed by the Vietnamese invasion that ended their rule.”

This statement evades certain facts, and would make you think that it is all the fault of the West and the US that the Khmer Rouge came to power. This is, at best, a side effect of failed policies, and there are others who can carry far more blame.

Yes the Khmer Rouge learnt their ideology in Paris, at the Sorbonne, along with many other Marxists. Radical Maoism was de riguer among many academics, vile as it always has been. However, the Khmer Rouge was active before the US bombings. Why did the US bomb Cambodia in the first place? Because it was being used by the North Vietnamese as a bypass route to infiltrate South Vietnam. “Neutral” Cambodia was a staging ground for invasions of South Vietnam. The US response was to use bombing and then invasion to close the borders, and buy time. The bombing killed between 100,000 and 600,000 (half a million is a high estimate), and certainly gave the Khmer Rouge propaganda to attract illiterate peasants to fight for them. The US backed the overthrow of Prince Norodom Sihanouk (a very slimy long time friend of Kim Il Sung) and supported a corrupt and brutal strongman called Lon Nol. His antics also helped fuel support for the Khmer Rouge. However he achieved the primary goal, securing the borders of Cambodia and wiping out North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia.

The Khmer Rouge was backed solidly by Mao, China supplying explicit financial and material support. The USSR was more interested in Vietnam. So it was China that enabled the Khmer Rouge to fight against Lon Nol. However, it was Lon Nol himself who was so corrupt, incompetent and cruel that caused many Cambodians to join the fight against him. Note that Prince Sihanouk himself backed the Khmer Rouge as well – the “neutral” Prince backing radical Maoists so he could continue to enjoy the trappings of power. The US did not back the Khmer Rouge, it unfortunately backed its hopelessly incompetent and immoral opponents.

So the US was guilty of foolishness in Cambodia, because its goal in Vietnam propelled victims of its actions (and its friend’s actions) to support the Khmer Rouge. However, to say Nixon enabled the Khmer Rouge to seize power is evading two key points:

1. Had the Khmer Rouge not had Chinese support, it may well have failed to takeover, avoiding the massive loss of life its regime caused.
2. The US from 1970 to 1975 armed, funded and backed the Lon Nol military regime, which whilst bad, fought the Khmer Rouge. Had Lon Nol remained in power, it would have been corrupt, and far from free, but would not have been as murderous. A similar analogy is Korea, where South Korean dictatorships and military regimes ran the country from 1953 through to 1988, but which was far less deadly than North Korea for its people.

The truth is that China provided succour to the Khmer Rouge, the US lamely fought against it, but the biggest supporters of the Khmer Rouge were often Western academics.

The Greens skirt over the Khmer Rouge years. The years when umpteen Western academics embraced the Khmer Rouge, including the fool Malcolm Caldwell who decided to go visit them, and got murdered as a result. The years when leftwing pinup Noam Chomsky declared stories of mass murder and starvation from Democratic Kampuchea as CIA propaganda (the man has slithered in evasion of this statement ever since). This thesis talks of the "Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia" being "Democratic Kampuchea symbolized their wildest hopes and dreams. From the classroom to the politburo, the new Kampuchea was, to these scholars, theory becoming reality" says Sophal Ear.

You see the Khmer Rouge represented the idealistic vision of so many on the left. More on that in Part 2.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia for various reasons, including a border incident, concern over the Khmer Rouge treatment of ethnic Vietnamese (Vietnam knew only too well what was going on there), Soviet support for Vietnamese expansionism (as Vietnam was not backed by China – as was seen in a brief border war between the two in 1979).

You may find it odd that a party that opposed the US overthrowing the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, overthrowing the Taliban dictatorship and includes many who opposed the US kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, so warmly receives (or at least glosses over) Vietnam invading Cambodia.

Let me be clear, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was moral, purely because it ended the Khmer Rouge horror, even though nobody could dare claim that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was free or respected individual rights, it fell short of the mass executions of the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge had been brutal to Vietnamese on both sides of the border. However, overthrowing the Khmer Rouge does not fit well with Green Party rhetoric against imperialism and war, particularly since the government installed by Hanoi was little more than an extension of its own.

The Greens claim the US allowed the Khmer Rouge to occupy the UN seat of Cambodia rather than the Vietnamese installed regime because of a fit of pique at losing the Vietnam War. This is an element of truth evading several facts and with the wrong motive.

The seat at the UN was held by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, shared by the Khmer Rouge, FUNCINPEC and the KPNLF, the latter two being royalist and anti-communist. This was maintained because China and the US both vetoed Soviet and Vietnamese requests for the seat to be taken up by the Hanoi led government. Of course when the Cold War ended, all of this fell away. Vietnam had withdrawn from Cambodia, and the pro-Vietnamese government engaged in a coalition with FUNCINPEC and the KPNLF, whilst the Khmer Rouge tried to continue fighting.

So why the history lesson? Well it is understandable to write about Rob Hamill testifying at Duch’s trial. It is a tragic NZ element to one of the most vile events of the 20th century. Indeed so vile it demonstrates that what is worse than war is government turning on its own people. However, the Greens couldn’t use the occasion to simply deplore the Khmer Rouge, deplore Maoism and condemn totalitarianism and communism. No. It was used to blame the United States, by selective use of the facts and evading the fundamental blame for the Khmer Rouge – Marxist scholars, Chinese Maoists and the embrace of the ideology that individuals only exist for the greater good.

The Greens implicitly endorse the Vietnamese invasion and conquest of Cambodia, because it overthrew a murderous tyranny, but don’t support the US doing the same in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, why would the Greens selectively report history to bash the US? Why not bash China for providing the greater succuour to the Khmer Rouge? Why not bash communism generally? Why ignore the US backing of the Khmer Rouge's opponents over sustained periods? Why not slam the apologists of the regime from leftwing academia (which included your own)? Why not criticise Norodom Sihanouk for letting Cambodia be a vehicle for Vietnamese communist insurgency (attracting US attention), and then being a vehicle for the Khmer Rouge to have legitimacy?

Or better yet, why not shut the hell up about a party and government that represented an idealised vision of a society without any capitalism (money was abolished), without carbon based energy, where everyone was equal, there were no possessions, where peasantry had been raised to the highest level, where everyone was meant to get what they needed, and nobody was rich. Then ask yourself, before the consequences of this vision were obvious, would you too have supported it?

Helen Clark and UNDP sycophancy

If there is one thing that keeps me in the UK and which frustrates and angers me the most about the idea of returning to New Zealand (or even to Australia), it is how journalism almost does not exist in the mainstream media. At least with the Times, the Observer, the Telegraph, FT or even (cough) the Guardian, there are journalists – people not afraid to research a topic and ask hard questions, to be a devil’s advocate for the opposing point of view. Sadly, it appears that metaphorically sticking your tongue up the arse of your subject is de rigueur among New Zealand reporters

The most recent example is the sycophancy dressed as journalism being trotted out by Tracy Watkins in the Dominion Post, who has written two articles profiling how Helen Clark is getting on leading the UN Development Programme. Watkins could just as well have been working for the Labour Party to produce such inane twaddle. The first article would be better seen in the NZ Woman's Weekly or the like. I do love how the talk of scandals was brushed to one side though, "disgruntled staff" you see. Because, presumably, you only listen to disgruntled staff when they work for the private sector, not the altruistic people loving United Nations.

You can of course read the latest instalment here, which goes on about five crisis that have ravaged the world in the past year (food, financial, fuel, swine flu and climate change), though you might ask some hard questions about how many of these are real and how many still exist (food and fuel disappeared as financial came).

Watkins could have asked what have been the achievements of the UNDP, how many countries it has weaned off of aid since it was formed in 1965? The answer of course is none.

Watkins could have talked to critics of aid, especially UN based aid operations. Funnily enough she didn’t.

Watkins could have asked how much of the NZ$5 billion budget of the UNDP goes on administration, how much the average UNDP employee receives in income (tax free) and the UNDP’s travel budget? In other words she could have discussed why UN employees are some of the best paid (and least hard working) “public sector” workers in the world.

So the article is essentially an interview with Clark. Nice for Watkins to get her jaunt to New York of course, but that could have been done over the phone. Watkins could instead have used her trip to meet with different groups who have differing views of the UNDP or the UN, but that might have upset Clark – and you can’t do that can you?

She finishes with a so-called “factbox”, which says precious little.

It talks about New Zealand’s aid, ignoring aid raised through private charities and distributed through such charities, like World Vision (who I do NOT endorse). For example, talk about the aid given by the US ignores that around 80% again is given and distributed privately. In short, aid doesn’t have to involve force.

So what could Watkins have done? Well maybe she could have looked at the long list of scandals involving the UNDP and asked Clark what she’d be doing about it on her NZ$500,000 tax free salary. Scandals? You mean the New Zealand MSM hasn’t been doing its job to find out what the UNDP is about? You betcha! Watch this space.

What Obama could say

President Obama thinks saying anything will backfire, than Iranians would rather the USA just keep quiet and see what happens.

He's wrong. While I understand the initial hesitancy, the fear that a country where thousands can be rallied for anti-USA rallies, it shows a surprising reluctance to openly embrace and project the principle that the USA should be able to expound globally.

Freedom.

So he's just an idea as a speech for Obama:

The United States and Iran have many differences, but today I want to talk not of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the people of Iran who want what we in the United States take for granted.

Freedom.

Clearly many Iranians are concerned about the conditions of the recent general election, concerns that I and many others share across the world. Free, fair and open elections are one way that people can hold governments to account and select governments, but in and of themselves they are not enough. A majority must never be allowed to vote for tyranny over a minority. You see, whatever the outcome of the election, the flame burning in the hearts and minds of many Iranians is freedom, and it is one they are risking their lives for.

Freedom to live your life as you see fit, to not be harassed by the state for your beliefs, what you wear, what books you want to read or for criticising the state. Freedom to be a human being, to think, express your thoughts, to own your life and live it, while respecting the same in others.

It is this simple basic and fundamental idea that drove millions of people across eastern Europe twenty years ago to unshackle themselves from governments that treated their people as subjects to plan, push around and run over in the pursuit of their own narrow vision. In far too many countries, government still do treat citizens as their property and a means to their own ends, rather than ends in themselves.

Iranians, like East Germans, Poles, Romanians, Indonesians, South Africans, Ukrainians, Cubans, Iraqis, Georgians and millions of others worldwide, share the desire for this basic fundamental right – to be free people. Free to be Muslims, Christians, atheists, entrepreneurs, teachers, journalists, scientists, parents or whatsoever they wish, as long as it does not harm anyone else.

It is this vision that I believe is shared by most people across the world, a common bond of humanity, for people to be themselves, not what some politician or preacher wants them to be.

So today, I say to those people in Iran who are bravely standing up, where the state is suppressing freedom of assembly or freedom of speech, that the United States supports you, and all peoples of the world that wish to break the shackles of authoritarianism from their wrists, minds, hearts and dreams.

Not because we want to control you, or make you one of us, but because we know what freedom means – our ancestors fought for freedom in this great country over 200 years ago. We know how precious it is, understand the sacrifices of those who fought for it before, as we value it as much as you do. It should be beyond debates over religion or politics.

For freedom is not simply an American value, it is a human one. The Iranian authorities clearly have the power to do great violence to those protesting for freedom, I urge them not to do so, for history tells us that the more that freedom is suppressed, the more the desire for it builds, and the harder it is for those who fall.

So while the Iranian government seeks to crudely shut down speech, debate, protest and thoughts, the means for communicating freely will remain open, with the internet, with satellite television and shortwave radio broadcasts all providing access to uncensored and open news and debate. The Iranian people will find their own way to freedom, and no violence should be done to them as they do so. History is littered with tyrants who wanted things their way – enough is enough. Let the Iranian people be.

Obama to Muslims: We share common principles

There was some criticism of President Obama choosing Egypt rather than Indonesia for his speech to the Muslim world. Indonesia has a thriving (and recently formed) open fairly liberal democracy with a free press – notwithstanding decades of US support for the Suharto autocracy. It is a far more welcoming example of a country with a high Muslim population than Egypt. Egypt by contrast is a dictatorship, admittedly with much more personal freedom than many countries in the Middle East, it is still dominated by one man, who does not tolerate much questioning of his rule.

So going to Egypt to talk to the Muslim world was perhaps a mistake. However, it is the largest Arab state, the third biggest recipient of US aid, and the first Arab state to make peace with Israel – albeit that relations remain frosty.

So what did he say? His speech in full is here, but overall I found it disappointing, with some flashes of inspiration.

There is some which is positive, reaffirming the alliance with Israel, damning those who would deny the Holocaust, criticising Israel’s continued construction of settlements on the West Bank. He talked openly about the rights Muslims have in the USA, and how their rights to freedom of worship are protected. This was a positive message, one not made often enough in the censored world of much media in the autocracies than control most of the Muslim world.

He made it clear that the USA will “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.” A critical point, but there are sadly more than enough of all faiths who believe in killing innocent men, women and children, and faiths who believe no one is innocent – Islamists who happily seek to murder any in the name of jihad or those Christians who think everyone is a sinner.

He clearly tried to reach out to moderate Islam by claiming “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” Yet surely without Islam, Al Qaeda would not exist, Hamas would not exist, in fact terrorism would be confined to far more localised actions and not united by a religion that can be used to justify waging war on non-believers. Afghanistan would be far safer if it was full of objectivists, for example! If the US is to promote peace it can do no better than to promote respect for individual rights, and to let Islam wither.

However, while Obama sought a new beginning, talking of ending a “cycle of suspicion and discord”, some of the language he uses is a cause for concern.

He wants to “fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”, which begs some obvious questions:
1. What is a negative stereotype, compared to a negative fact – i.e. when Islamic regimes employ violence against their own citizens for matters that should be free will, such as apostasy, criticising Islam, homosexuality? Who decides what is a stereotype and what isn't?
2. How does this fit in with the fundamental right of free speech in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? Can nobody poke fun at Islam anymore? What of negative stereotypes of atheists or those of other religions?

Obama suggested that there needed to be mutual respect. Indeed there does, between individuals, and by governments of individuals. However, will Muslim states even allow people to promote other religions, eliminate apostasy as a crime and allow the promotion of atheism?

The mutual respect he calls for is based on “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings”. Whoa hold on a minute. “America” as a political/philosophical concept is embodied in one document – the Constitution of the United States. “Islam” is embodied in the Koran, how DO they overlap?

What of those common principles? Well you can say the USA was founded to achieve justice, but the philosophical basis underpinning justice is what is important - justice in the concept of fundamental freedoms, not submission to a deity. Something that Obama carefully sidestepped away from.

The United States is based on the premise that government does not exist for God, or the rulers, but as an instrument of the people. That government exists to protect their rights, and explicitly guarantees rights of free speech, assembly, association, religion, bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to jury trial etc. etc. The fundamental underpinnings of government that protects individual rights, and has a superstructure of separation of powers, liberal democracy and government to serve the people.

Islam, the very word, has its roots in the Arabic word Aslama, meaning to “submit”. Islam demands individual submission, the USA demands the state be submissive to the rights of the individual. How different could you be?

Yes, it is possible to distil elements of Islam that would be seen compatible with individual rights, it is easy to acknowledge that in the USA Muslims are free to live their personal lives compatible with Islam, as long as they respect others to do the same. However, beyond that Islam and secular individualism ARE in competition, it is quite naive to suggest that a secular government protecting individual rights (the idea of the USA) can be compatible with an Islamic government demanding submission to Islamic law.

Obama may have been better to suggest that the values expounded by the USA are universal, apply to all individuals, and that they allow Muslims to practice their religion, and promote it, as long as they respect others to do the same. Indeed, relatively secular Egypt is in some respects a partial example. One can be Christian or atheist in Egypt relatively easily, although the law still has some elements of Sharia, and by no means is one free to criticise the government openly.

On Iran he simply wanted it to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but also talked about the abolition of nuclear weapons. Without context to that, it is a meaningless concept – and for me that context is one where all countries relate to each other more like western countries do, where the idea of military action of any kind between each other is inconceivable.

He appeared supported democracy in a more optimistic way than I would have expected “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” The freedom to live as you choose is the closest he has got to yet on individual rights, which is more than democracy – something that should be welcomed.

As is his belief that “we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.” Although what respect means is obviously a bit unclear, and sadly his further statements don’t help “No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.” Respecting the rights of minorities is NOT respecting the rights of individuals, and a spirit of compromise when it comes to individual rights is hardly tolerable. Besides, every dictatorship in recent history has talked of the interests of the people. Russia would meet this standard, and even China may claim power through consent and happily claim the rest to be true.

His words on faiths bringing people together are relatively benign, and he encouraged women having rights, which in Egypt they do have more than most states in the Middle East.

Overall, his message was clearly intended to be one of goodwill, but it falls far short of promoting the idea that Islam should only exist within a framework of individual rights. He is badly mistaken to claim overlaps between the USA and Islam, but more disturbingly to want to fight negative stereotypes about Islam – he is effectively endorsing laws to harass Danish cartoon makers, for example. His view of democracy gave enormous room to move to allow for continued repression of individual rights, as he talked only of rights for minorities – which of course can be defined by governments themselves. So the verdict? Not hopeless, but maybe 4 out of 10. Clear messages on Israel, against Holocaust denial, against terrorism and alluding to freedom are welcome, along with clarity on what rights Muslims have in the USA, but he did not have the courage to explain what the USA is about – nor did he expound democracy as being besides the point if fundamental individual rights are not respected.

Is it that Obama does not understand what the US is about, or does he simply lack the courage to explain it?

Obama's nuclear plan naive and premature

I can foresee a world without nuclear weapons. It will be a world with no terrorist organisations, and one where all countries operate as closely as those in Western Europe, when war is inconceivable. Considering recent history, it is worth remembering that Germany today is a very close ally of France, the UK and the USA - for those past a certain age, this is a difficult concept to grasp (it was for Margaret Thatcher for example).

However, Barack Obama's declaration that he will convene an international summit to look at the elimination of nuclear weapons is hopefully just posturing, because the global environment to abolish nuclear weapons is far from benign.

Start with Russia, which has a government that is anything but transparent, and which could not be trusted to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons any better than the old Soviet Union. As long as Russia remains an aggressive mini-power that seeks to exercise power outside its borders rather like the USSR did, then it would be wholly wrong to remove the nuclear deterrence. It would be a brave politician who predicts an economically beleagured Russia could not threaten its neighbours again.

Then there is China. You think it would abolish nuclear weapons? Not with Russia having them of course, nor India. China also is far from having a government that could be trusted to verify abolishing its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea's existing nuclear capability, and Iran's planned capability both do not bode well. It would also be madness to remove the nuclear deterrent from the Korean peninsula, nor to remove the ability to deter Iran. Finally, will India or Pakistan blink first? While Pakistan remains an unstable state, that risks falling to Islamism, you must wonder why India would remove its arsenal?

I need not state why Israel would never abolish its nuclear option either, given the existential threat it faces from Iran and others.

John Key and Phil Goff have parroted support for it. Sadly neither noted that nuclear weapons kept the peace in the Cold War between those countries that held them. New Zealand included of course.

As long as there remain state enemies of open transparent liberal capitalist societies, nuclear weapons should be held by the Western allies. The alternative are those who execute political opponents, censor opposition and wish to command control over the West having a monopoly on nuclear weapons. That is utterly unthinkable.

Obamaphile kiwis can go suck on...

This.

Yes the Obama administration has ceased discussions on a Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand. Of course the Green Party will be delighted, but the other parties in Parliament (with the possible exception of the Maori Party) should be disappointed.

There was little NZ media coverage when Obama supported a US$40 billion boost in agricultural subsidies back in May 2008, opposed by John McCain.

So he is playing to form, a form that too much of the fawning media ignored, because of the significance of his race. Now you're seeing that he is hardly a friend of the NZ economy, as he does not come from a background interested in free trade.

The negotiations were about a multilateral open trade deal that would include Chile, Singapore, Brunei, and hopefully reports that it is a suspension mean it is a temporary cessation.

My advice to John Key after the election that Tim Groser ought to be heading to Washington as soon as he can after the Obama inauguration can only be re-emphased.

Clint Heine expresses his disgust too.

UPDATE: The Standard ignores the Labour party (as Phil Goff was hopeful it could still proceed) and isn't disappointed at all, showing continued economic illiteracy. Apparently the Standard thinks you should be taxed for wanting to buy something that isn't Noo Zilnd made. How damned ignorant does someone living in an export dependent country have to be to oppose free trade?

Obama's second rate gift to Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown's trip to visit Barack Obama was of no great significance, but what has got the UK media talking is the disparity between the thought and imagination put into Gordon Brown's gifts to Barack Obama and his family, and what Obama gave in return.

Gifts from Gordon Brown to Barack Obama:
- an ornamental desk pen holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slavery Naval vessel HMS Gannet;
- framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to symbolise Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans;
- first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.

Barack Obama's gift to Gordon Brown:

- A 25 DVD set of classic American films including ET, Psycho and Lawrence of Arabia (barely American at all of course). The Daily Mail has the whole list.

Gifts to Malia and Sasha Obama:

- a TopShop dress for each of the daughters and matching necklace;
- Six books by British childrens' authors as yet unpublished in the USA;

Gifts to Fraser and John Brown:

- Two models of the Presidential helicopter Marine One, apparently identical to ones available on Amazon.com at US$15 each.


As Iain Martin in the Daily Telegraph says "Oh, give me strength. We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic. Even Gordon Brown will have seen those films too often already." Anyone could have compiled that gift given half an hour on Amazon.com or in a major music/DVD shop.

One suggestion is that the DVDs may even be for Region 1 NTSC format for the US, not playable on a standard DVD player in the UK, I wouldn't be surprised.

On the gift to the Browns' children, the Times suggests it was a last minute purchase "having an aide pop to the White House gift shop for a piece of merchandising does not imply a great deal of thought" and more telling that the one official photo showing Sarah Brown and Michelle Obama meeting is hardly flattering, and may indicate how frosty the exchange was.

Of course if Bush had done it, we'd (rightfully) never hear the end of it (such as when Bush gave Brown a jacket)

It's a minor gaffe, but one helluva insult to the United Kingdom and Gordon Brown. Maybe it's because the new US Administration has aides who are thoughtless and unimaginative, but for Obama to accept a series of thoughtful generous gifts from the UK taxpayer and to give something as common and meaningless as a DVD pack is in astonishingly bad taste.

An unpopular view of Bush

As President Bush passes his final days before his term ends, the sighs of relief from all too many are heard, and the flippant throwing of the "worst President ever" title is tossed about.

You see it's all too cool and de riguer to slam Bush as a bad President. Who do you know who thinks otherwise? After all, he's an evangelical Christian, the aftermath of the war against the Saddam Hussein regime was a disaster, Hurricane Katrina was mishandled, the US started using torture against terrorism suspects and the economy is in freefall.

There is an alternative view, one I don't entirely support. It says history will be kinder to Bush given:
- No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11;
- The overthrow of the Taliban regime helped liberate Afghanistan from one of the worst theocratic tyrannies in modern history;
- Saddam Hussein was a brutal warmongering genocidal dictator whose removal has given the chance for Iraq to develop as a peaceful, moderate ally of the Western world;
- The recipe for the current economic recession was baked well before Bush.

Andrew Roberts helps dismiss a wide range of Bush myths in today's Daily Telegraph.

While I don't excuse waterboarding, the failure to control the growth in government, the absurd lack of planning after overthrowing Saddam and the willingness of the Federal government to engage on grand scale surveillance of communications in the US, the truth is not as simple as the leftwing Bush bashers make it out to be.

Almost none of them point a finger at Bill Clinton for his years of appeasement of Iraq, the vaccilation between limp wristed passivity and bumbling airstrikes in the Balkans, the disaster that was intervention in Somalia, the laughable appeasement of North Korea that saw it develop nuclear weapons while being paid to not do so, the neglect of Iran, the failure to respond to Islamist terrorist attacks on several sites, the neglect of Russia as it bumbled from near bankruptcy as a free friendly power to a next generation wealthy corrupt authoritarian bully.

Even moreso, what would the world have been like had Al Gore won in 2000? Would the recession not be happening? Would we be happy that Saddam Hussein continued to sabre rattle and defy international sanctions? Would Islamists feel they had a soft touch as President? Would the Taliban still control Kabul? or would it not matter because a lot more people would have hybrid cars?

Hitchens on Obama - prepare for disillusionment

Christopher Hitchens, who supported Obama in the US election (predominantly because the McCain/Palin campaign so infuriated him that he could not support it - despite supporting Bush in 2004) has written in Slate about the delusion of so many that everything will be better now merely because Obama has been elected:

"Those who think that they have just voted to legalize Utopia (and I hardly exaggerate when I say this; have you been reading the moist and trusting comments of our commentariat?) are preparing for a disillusionment that I very much doubt they will blame on themselves. The national Treasury is an echoing, empty vault; our Russian and Iranian enemies are acting even more wolfishly even as they sense a repudiation of Bush-Cheney; the lines of jobless and evicted are going to lengthen, and I don't think a diet of hope is going to cover it."

His concern is that the threats to the Western world aren't going to go away, and that it is time for some sobriety. He worries that Obama's victory emboldens our enemies and that his supporters don't understand that more than a belief that he can make it better will make it so:

"many Obama voters appear to believe that the mere charm and aspect of their new president will act as an emollient influence on these unwelcome facts and these hostile forces. I can't make myself perform this act of faith, and I won't put up with any innuendo about my inability to do so."

Indeed - it is time for those Obama supporters who did so out of thought not blind following of a superstar to recognise the same. The USA, and the entire Western world deserves to be led by substance. The idea that he will be tested by those who wish to observe weakness in the USA remains a concern. Don't forget, Bush remains President for now.

North Korea congratulates Key and Mecully

From NK News:

Congratulations to PM of New Zealand
Pyongyang, November 23 (KCNA) -- Kim Yong Il, premier of the DPRK Cabinet, on Nov. 21 sent a congratulatory message to John Philip Key upon his assumption of office as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Expressing the belief that the relations between the two countries developing on good terms recently would grow stronger thanks to their joint efforts, the message wished him success in his responsible work.

Congratulations to New Zealand FM
Pyongyang, November 23 (KCNA) -- Pak Ui Chun, DPRK minister of Foreign Affairs, on Nov. 21 sent a congratulatory message to Murray Mecully on his appointment as New Zealand foreign minister.

Expressing the belief that the relations between the two countries would further expand and develop in the interests of the peoples of the two countries in the future, the message wished the foreign minister success in the performance of his new job.

and you might expect this....

Congratulations to New Zealand Environment Minister

Pyongyang, November 23 (KCNA) -- Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, sent a congratulatory message to Nick Smith on his appointment as New Zealand Minister for the Environment.

The Dear Leader expressed the belief that both countries could learn a lot from each other, and said that Dr Smith could learn much from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) treatment of private property rights, which were designed to suit the interests of the nation and the people. The General Secretary invited Dr Smith to visit the DPRK and learn how a low carbon economy can exist in the 21st century, with the lowest aviation footprint of any country, lowest private car ownership and minimal waste of electricity (with unnecessary lights turned off at night). He earnestly believed that the sagacious wisdom of Dr Smith would be valued in the DPRK, and looked forward to meeting him and sharing views on regulating land for environmental purposes. He wished the minister success in his responsible work.

English is a fool but hardly a warrior

So the tape of what Bill English said about Obama is Labour's latest ploy.

English was concerned Obama might reduce the role of the US and be unwilling to take decisive military action when needed. A fair point, although I think Obama will be less unwilling than many would have thought, given his more recent statements on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So what does Phil Goff say? "The reality is that underneath it all National leaders are the same unreconstructed Cold War warriors they have always been"

Hold on, what does that mean? That National leaders have always been willing to fight on the side of the free world against Soviet (now Russian) tyranny? Heaven forbid - how awful! What Cold War?

Does it mean Labour has always been more ambivalent about the Cold War, after all Russia - USA - both the same right?

Clark said "If there's a war going, they want to be a part of it".

Unlike Labour's "independent foreign policy" which in the 1980s was a great big finger in the face of Western allies, which took New Zealand out of the Western alliance and made it "neutral" - a vile unforgivable position against the tyranny of the USSR and its satellites. Clark quite happily distanced NZ from ANZUS and the Western alliance.

National isn't abandoning the irrational anti-nuclear policy, National didn't argue that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was moral and correct, National has virtually no foreign policy difference from Labour. Bill English was foolish to talk indiscreetly about his views on Barack Obama, but he is no warrior - the National Party will make no substantive change in foreign policy. It didn't in 1990 and wont in 2008.

Malaysia on the brink of a quiet revolution

Malaysia has been dominated by one party for all of its years since independence. UMNO has led a coalition of Malays, Chinese and Indians to govern Malaysia somewhat autocratically since 1958. Now, Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, formerly Deputy Prime Minister, who had been convicted on trumped up charges of sodomy 10 years ago (and facing new charges), believes he has the numbers in parliament to bring down the government according to the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Anwar claims 30 government MPs are ready to cross the floor, but fears that the government will crack down on opposition. It already sent 50 MPs on a trip to Taiwan to reduce the risk of MPs defecting!

If it happens, it will challenge the explicitly racist nature of the Malay led government. Malays have long dominated the government, instituting quotas for jobs and higher education to try to advance their position economically, compared to the far more successful Chinese. Malaysia's ethnic tensions may re-emerge, but what is most important is to have a peaceful handover of power in Malaysia from UNMO. Malaysia needs this to be a modern liberal democracy and so the state can be accountable, and be purged of corruption. It has had many years of successful economic growth, and I wish Malaysia well (having visited twice). Its people will be best served if they are to be free.

Ukraine seeks to be shielded by the West

Following on from Russia's continued uninvited military presence in Georgia, the Ukrainian government has come forth seeking to be part of the US proposed missile defence system. There can be little doubt that Ukraine has been strongly motivated by Russia, which has a base on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine, and which has always regarded Ukraine as being "its own".

The Times reports "Ukraine is insisting the Russian military must leave Sebastopol when the lease on the base expires in 2017. The Russian navy has made it clear it may refuse to do so."

Ukraine must, of course, ensure that Russians in Ukraine enjoy the full free rights as citizens, so that claims of racism or bigotry can be avoided. To date there has been no hint that Ukraine treats Russian citizens as lesser than Ukrainians. However, Russia must also defend Ukraine's right to adopt whatever foreign policy it wishes, as long as it does not threaten Russia. Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko was nearly murdered by his Russian backed opponent - so there is little doubt that Ukraine's government fears the dead hand of the fascist bear next door.

In recent history only the mad Mao TseTung and Adolf Hitler sought to take on Russia for territorial aggrandisement. The notion that Russia's neighbours threaten it is more a fantasy dreamt up by Russian nationalists and the military than from reality. Westernised Europe would rather get on with its own affairs, as would China. It is only because the Russian military retains much Cold War era capability that it still commands strength in an economy that has until recently been incapable of sustaining it.

The Times reports Dmitri Medvedev warning it will crush anyone who moves against Russian citizens. A fair point of view in and of itself, but Russia's neighbours rightfully fear imperialism from Moscow, they have after all lived under it for between fifty and eighty years.

McCarten aligns with paramilitaries and fascists

Former genius Alliance President Matt McCarten (who presided over the demise of the party from power) has sadly shown himself to be a predictable vapid cheerleader against the US government and the Georgian government in his latest article in the NZ Herald.

McCarten's thesis is rather convulated:
- Georgia starting the bombing and killing in South Ossetia (true);
- Georgia was killing Russian peacekeepers (well if you call the Russian Army, uninvited by Georgia and uninvited by the UN, peacekeepers - but Matt seems to think the UN isn't important on this one);
- Ossetians are a different culture and language, and didn't want to be in Georgia (true, but South Ossetia contained Georgians too, who Matt ignores);
- A peace agreement was reached giving South Ossetia autonomy with Russian peacekeepers (false, Georgia surrendered against strong Russian backing of South Ossetian paramilitaries, but agreed to cease fighting with a coalition of Georgian and Russian peacekeepers. Georgia retained control of some parts of South Ossetia).
- There was a wider agreement that countries bordering Russia wouldn't join NATO or allow foreign military bases on their soil (false, Ukraine already had one it is Russian)
- "American political consultants" (you know, the devil incarnate) were creating and managing "anti-Russian" parties, like the one led by Mikheil Saakashvili. Somehow this is sinister
- Saakashvili's party swept to power which is when "the real mischief began" according to Matt. Matt ignores that this happened following massive public protests against rigged elections, following many years of corrupt government that had strong military backing. He conveniently ignores that - far better that a corrupt pro-Russian government rigs elections and arrests political opponents, than a popular uprising forces its resignation;
- The US backed the new, far less corrupt, far more savoury government and provided military backing. (Shocking really, I mean Russia supporting Belarus isn't on Matt's radar) It also supported Georgian membership of NATO, surely a sinister move if ever there was one - if you support Russia.
- Georgia supported the war in Iraq. No doubt sinister as well, except when maybe you consider that Georgia is rather close to Iraq. It borders the predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan, so perhaps Georgia would have an interest in Iraq being stable and democratic - but then Matt would have preferred Saddam Hussein had stayed in power, so we know where he lies on that point.
- Georgia "provocatively" allowed "the West" to build a pipeline through Georgia between Turkey and the oil fields in the Caspian Sea. Funnily enough these oil fields are Azeri and Turkmen oil fields. Maybe Matt thinks Russia should have a monopoly on oil pipelines from its neighbours? Why does he support Russian oil companies over Western ones?
- The West allowed Kosovo to be granted independence, upsetting the Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Russia, admittedly after some years of Serbian suppression of a wide range of civil rights in Kosovo. Given Georgia did nothing of the sort in South Ossetia you might wonder why Matt thinks this justifies Russian intervention;
- Georgia's intervention in South Ossetia is "suppressing its independence movement" and to end South-Ossetia's "semi autonomy". Again, the contortions this takes by McCarten are incredible. For starters, the intervention followed some months of an internationally backed plan to grant South Ossetia full autonomy under the Georgian government. A plan opposed by Russia of course, Matt's new "victims". Some South Ossetian politicians engaged on this, others wanted to protect their arms and drug smuggling financed regime.

So having decided that the corrupt, undemocratic Georgian government before Saakashvili was "good", Saakashvili because he was US educated and backed was "bad", that Georgia choosing to allow an oil pipeline linking Turkey to Azerbaijan and other countries around the Caspian Sea justifiably "provoked Russia", that Georgia was trying to destroy the brave Ossetian people's independence - when it was actually seeking to grant legal full autonomy, and, to be fair, correctly identifying Georgia started this conflict - McCarten sees all that is going on as a grand conspiracy of the evil US privately owned mass media!!

He says "Most of the global news networks are owned and based in the US, and therefore tend to set the news agenda worldwide." This is of course rubbish, since when was Reuters, the BBC, ITN, NHK, AFP owned and based in the US. The US is important, but his vision of some grand conspiracy of privately owned news agencies is nonsense. However if he went to Russia he might find it different, but Matt is curiously silent about freedom of the press in Russia. He thinks the likes of the main US TV networks, and newspapers "become a mouthpiece for their government's policy". How utterly absurd! Since when has the US news media as a whole been favourable towards Bush?

McCarten has shown himself at best to be ignorant, about the only fact he has stated is that Georgia started the war. However he is silent on Russia's occupation of Gori, well beyond South Ossetia, its apparent bombing of a railway bridge at Kaspi also well outside South Ossetia, reports of South Ossetian paramilitaries looting Georgian homes, torching them and abducting young women after driving others out, and of course silent on Russian sabre rattling against Poland.

McCarten is just a rather vapid anti-American socialist, rubbing his hands with glee that Russia can take on any country that supports the USA. He claims to care about Ossetian independence, but ignores Georgian attempts to grant autonomy, and is naturally silent about Russia's suppression of Chechnya's independence. He prefers to align himself to the quasi-fascist militaristic Russian state, that has little free press, that does have mass media that echos the government, that runs elections that are far from free and fair, and which threatens nuclear attacks on... Poland.

Why does the mainstream media give this obvious idiot such time?

Who deters Russia?

The UN? Hardly, given the Security Council gives Russia a veto - like the USSR had throughout the Cold War. It is blatantly powerless.

The so-called "peace movement"? Yes, they may get upset at Russia, but really some will be glad there is a powerful challenge to the US as the only superpower. The "peace movement" is only interested in surrender of fighting, it would have surrendered East Asia to Japan, continental Europe to Nazi Germany, South Korea to North Korea, just as it surrendered South Vietnam to North Vietnam.

There is only one option - the USA, bolstered by NATO. NATO's rejection of Georgia and Ukraine's membership bids recently was done partly out of fear of "upsetting Russia". There are other reasons to withhold, but still progress membership. Georgia is paying the price for it.

It isn't quite a new Cold War, but Russia is flexing itself. If it gets away with effectively annexing parts of Georgia, it may try again against Ukraine, it almost certainly will claim more of the Arctic, and may treat Belarus more as an extension of itself - particularly if Lukashenko can be deposed.

The only way to deter this effectively is for states which are friendly to the values of freedom, liberal democracy and open transparent government to be aligned with NATO - and for NATO's implicit nuclear umbrella to be extended to them.

This wont impress the left, many of whom miss the USSR - but it is in all our interests once and for all to contain Russia's ambitions. Russia is today a fascist state, with a governing party that faces no real challenge, a media either owned by the state or those compliant with the state, and a leadership aggressive, militaristic and with little hesitation to spill blood. If it wants to be treated as a civilised country it needs to treat its neighbours with respect, even if most of its citizens are comfortable with being pushed around by the bullies who run it.

Georgia: a simple lesson

After the collapse of the brutal Tsarist empire, Georgia proclaimed independence, with a more moderate leftwing government led by the Mensheviks, until the murderous Red Army invaded and absorbed Georgia into the USSR in 1921.

The USSR ceded some of Georgia to Turkey, with nearly a third of the entire territory of Georgia moved into Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republics. From then it was under the tyranny of Moscow, until 1991.

On independence, Georgia went through a coup deposing Zviad Gamsakhurdia as President, replacing him in due course with former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who was President for eight years. While he ruled a corrupt state, he allowed freedom and civil society to flourish, leading the way for the Rose revolution in 2003

After independence, in 1991, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia became flashpoints for nationalist movements based on Russians seeking to join the Russian Federation. In both provinces, Georgia lost control and many tens of thousands of Georgians forced to flee in the bigoted tribalism that ensued.

Ossetians and Abkhazians have terrorised and murdered Georgians, and vice versa. Nationalists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have spread the same sort of vile bigoted tribalism as is still seen in the Balkans, claiming Georgia will inflict genocide on them - which is nonsense. Georgians in those territories equally claim the locals will do the same to them.

Georgia has now poured gallons of petrol on the embers of those who say "genocide", by attacking South Ossetia. Now Russia is claiming "genocide" and helping the knuckle dragging nationalists terrorise Georgians.

Georgia is not in the right - it is willing to force people within its "territory" to submit to its rule, and as a result it has inspired Russia to be the bullying bear we all knew it to be. Russia could now invade and conquer Georgia, although it is too clever to be that blunt. However it will effectively annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia and know the world will do nothing. Don't be surprised if you hear stories of Georgians fleeing both regions, and massacres - don't be surprised if these too are exaggerated, but essentially true in substance if not scale.

It vindicates NATO not admitting Georgia, but it also raises the spectre of what happens when NATO does not expand. I believe it was a mistake to reject Georgia and Ukraine, rather than to specify preconditions for membership. It was a mistake bent on not frightening Russia - a country that only one as distant from reality as Adolf Hitler, would dare attempt to conquer.

Now Russia has flexed its muscles it may look elsewhere - the second Cold War has not begun, but the winds from the east look mightily chilly to those closest to the bear.