Airstrip One

Zim Watch

The police are still harrasing Tsvangarai. They've also arrested two other key MDC workers (including one with the glorious name of Welshman Ncube). The US has denounced this all.

The MDC have had two rallies banned, while the MDC have called for the international observers to close down the "war veterans". There's another allegation of a murder of an MDC activist.

On the video plot, the journalist behind the original documentary is standing by his story. There has been some commentary on this from the excellent Natalie Solent. She points to an interview with the set up artist, as if this exonerates Tsvangarai. I don't think it does. Tsvangarai did discuss a coup, and unless the full video shows that there was a 180 degree difference between that and the edited highlights - then he's done something wrong. He was set up, but this seems to have been embellished rather than invented. I do hope I'm wrong. Mrs Solent is an English Catholic with a good sense of history, so I'd say that this was more Guy Fawkes than Titus Oates.

Namabia claims that the violence is "exagerated".

Harare is in desperate economic straights, and food shortages are becoming critical and debt analysts slam the government.

My improvement on antiwar.com, Christopher Montgomery's latest tour de force really should be read. I know it's rather unsporting to take out the best piece wholesale, but here goes. On the threats that the Star Wars shield is meant to prevent:

How do we, nutso loser state accomplish this quite dazzlingly incomprehensible goal (for one minute would an advocate of NMD set forth why the nuts would want to do this, what they would actually gain from it, other than actualization of their echt or ur-nuttiness? You know I'm beginning to suspect that this 'nutty' explanation is all a bit fishy . . .) given: we're oh so very poor, and, well, nutty? Do our nutty scientists invent atomic weaponry, and then inter-continental ballistic missile technology to boot? Doubtless, for otherwise NMD would be a pretty daft expenditure by the hated Yanquis. Heaven knows how Congress would account for the money spent if we developed non-atomic weapons of mass destruction, which might, who knows, be easier to manufacture and deploy. Still, we're a nation of irrational fruitloops, we're not going to go down that route. It's nukes or nothing. Though . . . and here it comes, super simple point, so easily understood it's Condolezzable: whilst we might well build ourselves a nice little atomic bomb, and we might very well look up New York on a map, why on earth should we deliver it by means of an ICBM? Being nuts and all, why don't we just put it on a yacht, or on the back of a lorry driven up from Mexico (thank goodness for NAFTA), or any way other than the one which possibly, just concievably might be prey to NMD? Only one thing can explain our attraction to ICBMs – we're . . . well we're not quite right in the head, are we?

The rest of the essay is almost as good, but I did like the extract above.

Now I will dissent, apart from the fact that I like Ms Rice (although Mark Steyns assertion that she's drop dead gorgeous is pretty odd). If I were American I would actually be for the Missile Shield, and for good isolationist reasons:

1) It would mean that the homeland could be defended whilst having to worry even less what other countries think. This would mean that the interventionists' assertion that America has to care about what other countries are up to would sound even more hollow.

2) The development of the missile shield will take away military resources from conventional military endeavours, like foreign garrisons.

3) It is worth avoiding millions of innocent deaths if at all possible.

OK the last of these is not an isolationist case, but it is still valid.

It is also perfectly plausible to support nuclear deployments in the 1980s and the missile defence shield today. It is simply wanting to have the highest level of weapons technology.

However, not being American, I'll look at this from the perspective of blighty. The deployment of NMD should be resisted. It is conceivable that there could be concessions that would outweigh the increased risk incumbent on siting of functional parts of the machine without its protection. American support for breaking up the EU, the substitution of British troops for Americans in every non-European theatre, the immediate disbanding of NORAID. That's just a start. But no American regime would pay that price. We are not that valuable in their plans. However we are giving away our assets for free.

The technological rush that we should be engaging in is not to prevent missiles launching, but rebuilding our own nuclear deterrent. It is an open secret that British missiles rely on American positioning technology. Compared to Star Wars that should be a cinch.

Eh?

I'm getting increasing attention from Google recently, but I get a far lower proportion of silly hits than anyone else does, but how does one explain the German version of google showing me up for White House Dinner?

The Mital Affair & the National Interest.

Obviously the excuses offered by the government for this flagrant bit of back-scratching are not to be taken seriously. Nonetheless, they are instructive of the kind of conception of the national interest New Labour imagines people can be persuaded to believe in. Unsurprisingly, it is impossibly broad. Lubricating a deal in Romania on behalf of a foreign tycoon is held to be in Britain's interests on the grounds that Britain is a trading nation keen to do trade in Eastern Europe, a nation that will benefit more from that trade the more prosperous Eastern Europe becomes. Leaving aside the obvious point that there was another deal on the table that might have benefited Romania just as much as the Mital one, even leaving aside the respects in which Mital is acting in a way directly opposed to British interests, there are objections of principle to be made here. Insofar as international free trade is important to Britain, we are more likely to benefit from it when other countries' prosperity is increased in the usual way - i.e., through the operations of the market. Governments are notoriously bad at picking winners even in their own countries, let alone thousands of miles away. And insofar as international free trade is not quite as important to Britain as some would have us believe (80% or whatever it is of our trade is domestic), our government's time would be better spent on fostering the conditions in which domestic trade can flourish. But most importantly, the Mital principle implies that (ceteris paribus) anything that benefits another country benefits Britain. Why then distinguish between foreign & domestic affairs at all? Because the Mital principle is a nonsense. Success in one country does not automatically breed success in every other: very often that success is purchased at the expense of somebody else's. Or was the Mital deal also in the interests of the French?

Afghan Capers

It seems that the Brits and Americans are training different armies, and neither has much connection with the central government. Meanwhile the government break their promise to only be in Afghanistan for three months. The Turks are rather sensibly having second thoughts. Meanwhile Afghanistan is being taken off the list of drug growing countries. Its because the Taliban suppressed opium poppy cultivation, while the new guys...