Lavengro in Spain

A family photo

This is the photo of the meeting on Libya held yesterday in London. The British Foreign Minister William Hague is in the centre of the front row with his Spanish counterpart Trinidad Jiménez looking over his left shoulder. But who is the man in the Roman collar at the top right of the picture?

¿Qué quiere el PP?

Me parece el momento adecuado para publicar de nuevo este mensaje del 11 de junio de 2006, añadiendo que:

El PP quiere que no se negocie con el movimiento de liberación nacional (Aznar dixit) , aunque lo hicieran ellos mismos.

*****

El PP quiere que ETA desaparezca. Y tiene razón.

El PP quiere que no se pague un precio político. Y tiene razón.

El PP quiere que se cumplan las penas integrales. Y tiene razón.

El PP quiere que ETA entregue sus armas. Y tiene razón.

El PP quiere que Batasuna condene la violencia. Y tiene razón.

Pero el PP quiere que no se produzca nada de esto hasta que vuelvan ellos a la Moncloa. Y en este caso se equivoca.

‘Media give false impression of demo’ – Independent

In its leader about the demonstration in London the Independent says (my emphasis):

Pictures of injured police and masked youths smashing windows and cash-points … could not but taint the day of protest as a whole. It is no wonder that trade-union leaders moved quickly yesterday to insist that the actions of a few hundred people should not be allowed to detract from the main message of the official protest. But this is, to an extent, what happened; the force of the pictures made that inevitable.

That may very well be true but it leaves a big question mark hanging in the air: Where did such forceful pictures come from and how did people come to see them? The answer of course is that they were published in the media. So the Independent is clearly admitting that people inevitably have an inaccurate, distorted impression of what happened on Saturday because they believed what they saw in the media. These pictures for example are from the Independent itself:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is really saddening, but not at all surprising, is that the Independent seems utterly unaware of the irony of what it is saying.

Moody’s blues

The ratings agency Moody’s has taken it into its head to reduce the rating of 30 Spanish banks and savings banks. Three have been reduced to Ba1, which is junk bond status. One is the Banco Pastor. Since Moody’s announcement its share price has risen by 1.5%. Well, that isn’t surprising. The markets are increasingly less inclined to pay blind obedience to the opinions of Moody’s and the others. Moody’s says that there is an increasing probability that the State will bail out certain savings banks, so it reduces the rating of CatalunyaCaixa and Novacaixagalicia, which have been told that they will receive such aid. Moody’s also ignores the FROB fund set up to general applause by the Spanish government with the specific intention of guaranteeing banks. It also ignores the fact that some banks have merged and can thus help each other. Moody’s gives separate ratings to three savings banks that are now one bank called Bankia. The other day Spain sold 3-month bonds with a yield of below 1%. On 10 March Moody’s lowered Spain’s rating. Since then the Spanish risk premium has fallen from 226 to 192 points.

So it’s obviously time to bring this out again, by Forges, El País 2 May 2010.

Source El País

See also Not in the Moody’s

Power, logic and truthfulness

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the Fukushima disaster is that if you want to build a nuclear power station on a coastal site that is at risk of tsunamis, you have to make sure that your generators are properly protected and supplied. Even George Monbiot can see that.

As I have mentioned before, the Green lobby is not immune to what one might delicately refer to as manipulation of information.

 

Libya

So, just as in 1991 with the first Gulf War, a bunch of squabbling Arabs are causing problems for the rest of us. And just as in 1991 it will be the NATO countries that have to sort things out while the Arabs themselves sit on their backsides singing Onward Christian Soldiers. What about the Arab League? What about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan? They’ve all got air forces, and organising an air-exclusion zone would seem an excellent opportunity for Turkey to exercise leadership in order to get its neo-Ottoman foreign policy off the ground. Literally.

And what will come of it all for the west? The possibilities are:

1. Gaddafi is defeated.

a. Libya ends up with a nice, cuddly, democratic, pro-western government with polite parties fighting democratic elections and ceding power to each other when they lose. The chances of this happening are approximately a zillion to one against* but if it were to come about there would be widespread moaning from the Arabs and from bien-pensant westerners racked with post-colonial guilt about occupation of Arab countries. ‘It’s all about stealing the Libyans’ oil,’ would be the cry.

b. Libya ends up with the rebels turning into an appallingly repressive and stinkingly corrupt pro-western government that hangs on to power at all costs. The chances of this happening are approximately half a zillion to one in favour and if it comes about there will be widespread moaning from the Arabs and from bien-pensant westerners racked with post-colonial guilt about occupation of Arab countries. ‘It’s all about stealing the Libyans’ oil,’ will be the cry, along with revulsion at the West supporting a disgusting government that it had foolishly lumbered itself with.

c. Libya ends up with the rebels turning into, or being taken over by, an appallingly repressive and stinkingly corrupt anti-western Islamist government that hangs on to power at all costs. The chances of this happening are also approximately half a zillion to one in favour and if it comes about it will delight bien-pensant westerners racked with post-colonial guilt about occupation of Arab countries (see Gaza). And there will still be room for cries of ‘It’s all about stealing the Libyans’ oil,’ because the Islamists will have to sell it to someone.

2. Gaddafi is not defeated.

a. Gaddafi takes Benghazi and regains control of the country – not an impossible scenario by any means. There is much egg on western faces. NATO and the UN are left looking stupid. There is widespread moaning from the Arabs and from bien-pensant westerners racked with post-colonial guilt about how the perfidious West has betrayed an Arab country, as if it is possible to betray someone with whom you have no particular bonds of loyalty.

b. Gaddafi fails to take Benghazi but keeps Tripoli. This the real nightmare scenario. The Western powers become stuck in an alliance with one side in a thoroughly nasty civil war with no prospect of a happy outcome even if they eventually win (see 1. above). It would lead to widespread moaning from the Arabs and from bien-pensant westerners racked with post-colonial guilt about how the perfidious West has not only betrayed an Arab country but is waging a war of occupation to gain control of Libya’s oil.

What the hell are we getting ourselves into? And what for? Libya is not, at least not yet, posing a strategic threat to the West so why on earth should we risk getting involved on one side of a civil war that is being fought along tribal lines?

*Democracy requires the existence of a strong middle class, something that Libya does not have. This requirement is, incidentally, the reason why aristocrats and socialists alike despise the middle class.