Anniversaries

I tend to save anniversaries for another blog but there are two today that are important to the way we see the world and they have to be mentioned.

It is 110 years since the birth of George Orwell, the man who defined much of our modern political thinking (what had been left undefined by Dostoyevsky) and whose ability to grasp political reality despite his left-wing socialist outlook, remains unrivalled. Happy Birthday Eric Blair/George Orwell.

It is 63 years since North Korea invaded South Korea, thus pushing into the open what had been in the shadows: the new world division after 1945 between the West and Communism. The invasion would not have happened if Stalin did not feel reasonably secure because extensive Soviet espionage had given him an ability to rival the United States in the nuclear race; and the war might not have happened if the Soviet Union had not, temporarily, vacated its seat in the UN Security Council, thus allowing that organization to take the one and only sensible decision in its entire history.

Things I missed while trying to have a life

One piece of good news this week-end was the death of the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic  of Korea, Kim Jong-il. Or, at least, it was announced this week-end that he died on Saturday. One can never tell with those People's Organizations or Republics. It's good news because he, truly, was evil. That word is bandied around a good deal but in this case and in the case of the rest of his friends and family, it is entirely accurate.

Of course, the horror of North Korea is not over; if the succession is peaceful the same will continue, if it is not, there will be a nasty civil war that may spill over into South Korea, where there is a distinct nervousness.

The sad news was the death of Vaclav Havel, who, to be fair, was more of a symbol and a talking head to be produced at many well-meaning international congresses, conferences and meetings. Still, he did remind us all of the heroic days of the dissident opposition to Communism.

There are so many obituaries of Havel around that I shall link to three only, one on the Cato site and two on ChicagoBoyz (here and here). Not unexpectedly, I shall try to eschew the sentimentality that surrounded the man and still continues. On the whole, he was more popular in the West than in his own land, despite the outpourings of emotion now, because the West saw the symbol and not the real politician who was far more controversial (as what politician is not).

To start with, he was a Central European intellectual, a form of animal life that is unknown in Britain or anywhere in the Anglosphere (and how lucky they all are). He was a playwright, who, even before 1968 wrote plays that were a somewhat daring departure from the required socialist realism. Neither those plays nor the later dissident ones about Ferdinand Vanek were particularly good. I saw several, so I can attest that abandoning the theatre and going on to the political stage was a very good decision to take.

Havel, I have always felt, would have been very happy with Communism with a Human Face, an impossible notion that was supposedly Alexander Dubcek's aim in 1968. The Soviets rightly decided that, left to itself, it would mean the dissolution of Communism, leaving it with no face at all, and put the Prague Spring down quite brutally but not as badly as some other rebellions. The country was plunged into gloom with most people averting their eyes from the public sphere.

There were a few exceptions, the signatories of  Charter 77, various other dissidents, the rock group Plastic Peoples of the Universe and so on. As these people were deprived of their jobs in universities, research institutes, theatres, schools, and other suchlike institutions, they had to become workers in factories, window cleaners, truck drivers and, sometimes, worse. This is what Havel wrote about in the Vanek plays.

Gradually, his name became synonymous with the low-key stubborn opposition to Communism in Eastern Europe, particularly Czechoslovakia and it was not surprising that during the Velvet Revolution, the demonstrators demanded that he should be in the Castle, that is become President. He was not so much the leader of the Velvet Revolution as its single public face.

Subsequent events proved that a man who made the perfect dissident was not necessarily a good politician. Indeed, many post-Communist societies found that. Havel, despite himself, presided over the inevitable split of the country's two parts, resigned because of it but was re-elected as President of the Czech Republic. There were, inevitably, various problems and a few scandals of political and financial nature. All this will have been detailed in the various obituaries.

In the late nineties we nearly said good-bye to Havel as he was diagnosed, twice, with lung cancer. But he survived and, given the length of time, was, presumably, cured. His wife, Olga, did die of cancer and he swiftly married again to a few raised eyebrows but then there had always been rumours about his private life. Of no real importance to a true Central European intellectual.

After his presidency, Havel travelled, wrote, spoke and, generally, became one of the great members of the international political intelligentsia, slightly left of centre as he would happily admit, very much in favour of various well-meaning transnational organizations. His intellect did not have the hard-edged ruthlessness of his great rival, Vaclav Klaus.

His death brings sadness. He was, in most ways, honourable and courageous; a man who who perceived the evil of Communism and was not afraid to fight it; a symbol of that struggle. Requiescat in pace.

ADDENDUM: It has been pointed out to me that there is a serious gap in my description of Havel's activity after he was President. He, unlike most of the Europeans he was associating with, opposed the bloody and oppressive Cuban regime without any caveats. Of course, he understood it better.

A real danger

I switch on my computer, look at the news and this is what I find: the threat of another Korean War. What goes around comes around, especially for my generation. I wonder if this threat will make some people take their heads out of their fundamenta.

Another Yvonne Ridley in the making?

Claudia Rosett writes that the two journalists, sent by Al Gore to get stories about North Korea and subsequently rescued by former President Clinton, may well be getting rather juicy advances for their "story", which is unlikely to be entirely truthful.

There is an interesting discussion that follows if one ignores the resident trolls. Pajamas Media has about half a dozen that turn up on every thread. I hope it makes their lives worthwhile.

This is not the first time journalists go into oppressive countries, get caught, imprisoned and are rescued. Remember Yvonne Ridley, captured by the Taliban, then released, who has become a Muslim convert and a member of the Respect Party? Nobody ever found out what happened to her guides who had taken her into Afghanistan.

In the same way, Ms Rosett is right to point out that the girls may well have had information on them when they were captured that could well have led to the arrest and deportation of North Korean refugees. Various organixations in the field are worried about that. And what happened to the Chinese who helped the two hackettes? I don't suppose former President Clinton will rush to their rescue if they are in trouble.

What of their book, articles and probable lecture tour? I have no real objection to them making money out of what seems to have been a stunt that went temporarily wrong for them but I agree with Ms Rosett: they are unlikely to tell the truth even if they know it. There is much to be said for the testimony of witnesses. It's just I do not think Ms Laura Ling and Ms Euna Lee are exactly witnesses in the old sense of the word. Not in the way Whittaker Chambers or Margarete Buber-Neumann meant it. The money they will get is the least of it. I do think, however, that it would be a graceful gesture on their part and some indication of good will if they contributed some of what they will receive (earning, I suspect, does not come into it as the book is unlikely to sell well for any length of time) towards one of the organizations that are trying to help North Korean refugees and to disseminate genuine information about that unhappy country.

Really, some people are just so suspicious

Amidst the rejoicing over the two American journalists' return to their home country and the reminder that Madam Secretary of State was involved as well as her husband (while the Obamas were celebrating his birthday with the tackiest cake ever) cautious notes are beginning to sound.

Example one is an article in the Wall Street Journal by Gordon Chang, who has written about North Korea and nuclear power before. Mr Chang reminds us of several things. One is that

Kim Kye Gwan, North Korea’s chief nuclear negotiator, was on hand at the airport in Pyongyang to greet Mr. Clinton as he arrived—a clear sign Pyongyang, at least, is linking the two issues.

This is not necessarily a good thing. As Mr Chang points out, previous errors by presidents (one of them being Clinton) have allowed Kim to strengthen his power even more and develop his nuclear arsenal. Will history repeat itself?

There is something else we must not forget:

And now there may be one more reason for the regime to continue its alarming conduct. If Mr. Clinton is conducting any nuclear discussions he would be rewarding Pyongyang for jailing the two reporters and making them bargaining chips.

This matters because Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee were not Pyongyang’s only hostages. In March, North Korea detained Yu Song-jin, a South Korean manager working in the Kaesong industrial zone, for criticizing Kim’s paradise. Last week, a North Korean patrol boat seized a South Korean fishing vessel that accidentally strayed into the North’s waters, and Pyongyang is now keeping the
four-member crew for no good reason. North Korea may be holding 100 or more Japanese abductees and at least 1,000 South Koreans, some of them prisoners from the Korean War and others kidnapped since then. More broadly, Kim uses all his 23 million people as hostages.

Now two American journalists will come home safely. Good. But let’s hope the U.S. didn’t secure their release at the cost of further negotiations that will only give Kim more time to perfect his nuclear arsenal and develop his ballistic missiles.

Some people are just sourpusses. Why can't they emote like everyone else?

Just to make things worse, the editorial in the WSJ harps on the problems as well, after congratulating President Clinton and the two journalists who had apparently gone in there while working for one of Al Gore's enterprises.

Yet Mr. Clinton’s visit is a message unto itself. It will bolster Kim’s bid to dissolve the six-party negotiations in favor of the direct talks with the U.S. he has long sought. It will also dismay some in South Korea and Japan, which have their own hostages in North Korea and will wonder why Mr. Clinton couldn’t obtain their release as well.

If it turns out that if a new nuclear negotiation really was begun during Mr. Clinton’s visit, it will also send the signal to North Korea that the worse its behavior, the more it stands to gain from the U.S. And it will mean that Kim’s price will be even higher to spring the next American hostages.

Still, if it promotes Madam Secretary of State's career it will all be worthwhile. I trust my readers agree.

The Hill and Bill show is back

Well it might be back. Hard to tell what Bill Clinton's visit to Kim Jong-il was all about. According to the official Korean Central News Agency, former President Clinton took a verbal message of some kind from President Obama. According to the White House that is bunkum.

Associated Press, on the other hand, sees Machiavellian manoeuvres on the part of the Hill and Bill partnership. It is worth noting that no matter what the personal relationship between those two might be the political partnership remains unbreakable. I was going to say that the only marriage of that kind I can think of in recent history is that of Duff and Lady Diana Cooper but that is not an accurate parallel as Lady Diana never showed any open political ambition but was content to manipulate events or try to do so behind the scenes like Evelyn Waugh's Mrs Julia Stitch. (Keep up there at the back.)

Then we get the next piece of news. It appears that Bill Clinton travelled to North Korea not just to dine with the Dear Leader (not Obama, the other one) but to secure the release of the two American journalists who have been sentenced for espionage in true Communist style.

According to this the trip was arranged by the Administration with former Vice-President and Chief Global Warmist Al Gore the designated legate. The North Koreans, showing an acumen one hardly expected, refused to host Mr Gore. So, off went Mr Clinton and, seemingly, came back with the goods.

What are we to make of it? Is this another attempt on the part of the Obama Administration to shore up that plummeting popularity without which the man is nothing or, rather, he is seen to be a power-mad socialist who is desperate to take control of many parts of American life as Day by Day has so graphically expressed?

Or are we witnessing the first stirrings of the HillandBillbeast? After all, Madam Secretary of State's performance so far has been far from stellar and this may well push her into the limelight.

Another question that needs to be asked rather urgently is what has Kim Jong-il been given in return for the two journalists?

Dangerous times

By and large I do not agree that the world is more dangerous now than it has ever been, any more than I accept that the relationship between the West and its various enemies, such as militant Islam is now worse than ever in history. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries spring to mind.

As far as powerful and determined totalitarian states are concerned, the twentieth century was far worse for all concerned. However, what we are grappling with at this moment is a complete lack of leadership in the West. Not weak leadership, not poor leadership but no leadership.

In Britain we have a Prime Minister who is completely uninterested in foreign matters and a Foreign Secretary who is incapable of saying anything; the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition seems not to understand that there is more to the world than the odd skiing resort. I have no time now to go into another set of vituperations about the Shadow Foreign Secretary, whose one idea of policy is let us detach ourselves from the United States. Everything else is covered in mist.

We can discard the EU and most of its member states. The ones that do try to speak up for freedom and democracy (not Britain) are shouted down (by Britain among others).

That leaves the United States. President Bush was mocked for his speeches in which he exalted freedom and democracy. Well, now we have President Obama and the less said about his speeches on foreign affairs the better.

Both in Cairo and in Moscow he has produced the sort of vapid, unhistorical bilge that we have come to expect from the man who cheerfully spoke of 57 states, people speaking Austrian and mentioned twice that his uncle helped to liberate Auschwitz.

Claudia Rossett analyzes the Moscow speech and gives it very low marks. (Barack's Teleprompter is also unimpressed by the Big Guy's memory failure about his first meeting with Michelle.)

President Obama seems to treat his official visits as family holidays, refusing to spend more time than is absolutely necessary with his hosts, in order to have romantic dinners with Michelle in Paris or chill out with his family in Moscow. That is not funny. Why is he dragging his daughters round these trips? If he thinks they are too young to be left with the various nannies and their grandmother in the White House he should have waited till they were older before pounding so hard after the presidency. Neither the Russian negotiators nor the Russian people are likely to be impressed by behaviour that reminds them all of their own leaders at their worst.

His behaviour over Honduras and the support he has given automatically to President Zelaya who is best friends with Hugo Chavez and was working towards undermining the Honduran constitution and democratic structure is chilling.

The lack of reasonable response to North Korea and Iran is frightening and the lukewarm support for the brave and persistent opponents of Ahmadinejad makes one long for the days of almost any other president of recent decades. The question is, what motivates Obama in all this? Does he genuinely not know or understand what is going on or does he really prefer dictators wherever they happen to be?

Caroline Glick, not my favourite columnist, is, for once, quite restrained. Like many others, she compares Obama's behaviour with that of President Reagan when the Communist world began to shake. Not surprisingly, she finds the Messiah somewhat wanting in ability, understanding and clarity.

The models for overthrowing the regimes in Teheran and Pyongyang are not new. Modified versions were successfully implemented just twenty-odd years ago. The model for Iran is Poland circa 1981. The model for North Korea is East Germany in 1989.

Unfortunately, whereas in the 1980s the leaders of the Free World were committed to winning the Cold War against the Soviet Union by securing the freedom of those who lived under Communism's jackboot, today, led by Obama, the Free World behaves as though the Berlin Wall fell of its own devices. The will of free men and women risking everything to oppose tyranny had nothing to do with it, we are told. If we care about peace, we should appease the likes of Ahmadinejad and Kim, not bring them down.

Of course, there were many who thought at the time that we should be appeasing Soviet leaders instead of supporting their opponents. They are, unfortunately, have not gone away and in President Obama as well as Secretary of State Clinton they have acquired politicians who will listen to them, being themselves natural appeasers.

As my American friends say, it's going to be a long four years. The last six months feel very long.

News from the Axis of Evil

In Iran both incumbent President Ahmadinejad and his rival, former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, both hard-liners on just about every subject, have also both claimed a decisive victory after an election with a high turn-out.

In a news conference held before the balloting was completed, former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed a decisive victory. But minutes later, the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) announced that Ahmadinejad had won reelection.

"In line with the information we have received, I am the winner of this election by a substantial margin," Mousavi, 67, declared. An aide said the moderate candidate had won 65 percent of the vote.

However, IRNA said, "Dr. Ahmadinejad, by getting a majority of the votes, has become the definite winner of the 10th presidential election."

Official results are expected to be released early on Saturday.

President Obama described the campaign as exciting. Most other people prefer the words bitter and nasty. That, in itself, means nothing. The question is will the losing side accept defeat and if not, what will it do.

Meanwhile, the UN has announced severe sanctions against North Korea in the wake of all those nuclear tests. One can't help feeling excited: we haven't had any UN sanctions for a little while. Not that North Korea or, for that matter, China will pay any attention but it is good to be back in UN sanction-land, which is full of the usual prevarication:

The Security Council's action marked a significant escalation in the United Nations' effort to coerce North Korea into halting a barrage of ballistic missile tests and to prod it back into six-nation talks aimed at denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. The 15-nation council is now set to begin negotiations over imposition of an asset freeze or travel ban on additional individuals and
state companies linked to North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program.

But the authority of the council's move was mitigated by its unwillingness to use force to ensure compliance, or to impose a comprehensive economic blockade that would severely curtail a boom in North Korean trade, particularly with China. "This is not a trade embargo," Britain's deputy U.N. ambassador, Philip Parham, said shortly before the vote.

In a sign of its reluctance to cut off Pyongyang, Beijing insisted that today's resolution include an exemption from an arms embargo that allows China to sell Pyongyang small arms and light weapons, including the signature AK-47 used by North Korea's giant military, according to council diplomats.

Good to have a British diplomat, a representative of that Rolls-Royce civil service, explaining the truth. Not a trade embargo, eh? Not an arms embargo, either. So what is it?

It looks like the next leader of the Democratic Republic of North Korea will be Kim Jong Il's youngest son, the 26 year old Kim Jon Un. He has been named Brilliant Comrade by the North Korean media.

UPDATE: Ahmadinejad is declared to be the winner by the Interior Ministry on 62.2 per cent of the vote. His opponent is disputing the results and attacking the conduct of the election. Clashes between supporters of the two have been reported.

From the other member of the Axis of Evil we hear that Pyongyang's response to those UN sanctions is a wow

to "weaponize" all the plutonium it could extract from used fuel rods at its partially disabled Yongbyon nuclear plant.

It also pledged to start enriching uranium to make more nuclear weapons. For the past seven years, North Korea has adamantly denied U.S. intelligence reports that it even had a uranium-enrichment program.

At least now we know for sure. Another huge success for the UN and transnational politics.