|
![permanent link to this entry]() Stardate 20020622.0201
(discuss)
(Captain's log): The end of
two overtimes, and Spain and Korea are about to go to penalty kicks.
The Korean team has played a superb game. There were a couple of
questionable calls against Spain by the refs, but they have no cause
for anger with the Koreans, and no matter who wins the shootout I
fully expect the teams to be affable with each other afterwards.
I have to say that I think Korea's goalie looks better, so I
think Korea will win this.
Update: And they did. I've changed my mind. I think Korea will
beat Germany and will meet Brazil in the final. The Korean team is
stunning, and it has amazing defense. Spain is obviously
disappointed, but no-one disgraced themselves in this game. Both
teams played superbly, and they largely played a clean game, too. In
the middle it was starting to get a bit physical, but the ref handed
out a couple of well-chosen yellow cards and both teams got a grip.
Spain will go home, but Spain has nothing to feel ashamed of. These
teams were extremely evenly matched; both teams were good at
controlling the ball and both teams created numerous scoring
opportunities. Both goalies were kept busy. This was soccer at its
finest; this game could have gone either way at any moment.
 Stardate 20020621.1909 (discuss)
(On
Screen): Having had Irish voters turn down the Treaty of
Nice once already (much to everyone's embarrassment except the
voters of Ireland), Bertie Ahern is hoping that he can wring some
concessions out of the EU that will make the treaty more palatable
so that he may be able to convince Irish voters to approve it when
he submits it to them again for a vote.
I consider the willingness to submit it again to be contemptible.
It amounts to saying, "Wrong answer. We don't care what you think;
we want you to say 'yes'. If you say 'no' then we'll keep asking
until you say 'yes.'" The point of an election is not to get a
rubber stamp, it is to find out what the voters really think and
for the government to obey them afterwards. Irish voters turned
down the Treaty of Nice. There's no good reason to ask again.
But they're going to, and what Ahern is hoping is that he can get
an "unequivocal guarantee of Irish neutrality". Which is to say that
Ireland will be immune to any requirement to contribute in any way
to any military capabilities that the EU eventually develops.
I have a great deal of respect for the Irish and for Ireland.
They're good people; they're working hard; and they're embarrassing
hell out of the rest of Europe by showing that American-style
government policies with respect to business can work just as well
in Europe as they do in North America (much to the disgruntlement of
French socialists). But Irish neutrality has always left a sour
taste in my mouth.
Ireland finally won its independence from the UK in 1922 after
literally centuries of conflict, and set out to create its own
government after centuries of foreign rule by the English.
During World War II, Ireland remained neutral in the war. It was
one of only three major European nations to formally do so.
Switzerland was neutral, but that was due to a centuries-old
tradition. Sweden stayed "neutral" but effectively was within the
Nazi sphere; its neutrality was the best deal it could get to
prevent Nazi occupation.
But Ireland was never in peril, because it was effectively
defended by the UK. Ireland stayed neutral not because they feared
the Nazis but because they hated the British.
Had Seelöwe (the cross-channel invasion of the UK)
actually been successfully carried out, Ireland would almost
certainly have been conquered as well. The Battle of Britain made
Seelöwe impossible. Still, the UK was in desperate straits
because of the Battle of the Atlantic. Without the ability to move
cargo from the US and Canada to the UK, it might have had to
capitulate. The best defense against the U-boats was air patrols,
because submarines of that era had to spend most of their time
surfaced. If they could be found by aircraft, they could often be
attacked before they could dive with air-dropped bombs or depth
charges and by strafing.
So during the critical phases of the Battle of the Atlantic, long
range bombers were stationed in Nova Scotia, Iceland and Scotland
which flew patrols over most of the northern Atlantic through which
the convoys traveled. Problem was that the bombers being used at
that time didn't really have enough range, and there was a gap in
the middle that they couldn't reach. That's where the U-boats did
most of their hunting, and that's where the Battle of the Atlantic
was primarily fought. By the time longer-range bombers became
available, the Battle of the Atlantic had pretty much already been
won, but it was a very close thing. Most people don't realize that
the Battle of the Atlantic was a much closer affair than the Battle
of Britain, and the UK almost lost it. Had that happened, Ireland
would also have suffered.
There didn't need to be a gap. If there had been airbases in
western Ireland, the bombers of the day could have patrolled the
entire northern Atlantic. Churchill went to the Irish government at
the height of the battle and pleaded with them to allow bases to be
built.
It was only 20 years after independence, and Churchill understood
Irish suspicion about English intentions. So he said to them, I
understand that you don't want British forces stationed on your
soil. That's completely understandable, under the circumstances. I
recognize that you are suspicious of us.
But surely you trust the Americans. While you may think that we
want to reconquer you, surely you don't think the Americans have any
interest in doing so. So let the Americans build bases in
Ireland, and base American planes there. After the war, the
Americans will go home and leave you be.
I think that was a reasonable request, and the fact is that it
really was in Ireland's best interests. But the Irish government
refused, and as a result hundreds of cargo ships were sunk in the
Atlantic, taking down thousands of brave British and Canadian
and American merchant mariners who wouldn't have had to die
if American planes had been based in Ireland.
I've always considered that to be the low point, the least
reputable thing that the Irish government has ever done since
independence.
And I'm less than impressed with modern Irish neutrality. It
amounts to free-riding on European defense expenditure. Europe
overall is free-riding on American defense expenditure, but even
within the lackluster military spending in Europe, Ireland is trying
for a free ride with this policy. The fate of Ireland is irrevocably
intertwined with the fate of the rest of Europe, but Ireland refuses
to make a commitment to the common defense. I think this is
thoroughly dishonorable.
Update 20020622: Teemu
Lehtonen comments. He also has an
excellent commentary on the wider implications of the Treaty of
Nice and why it's contentious.
Stardate 20020621.1850 (discuss)
(On
Screen): Now that the Palestinian Authority has ceased to
be important, suddenly it is trying to be reasonable. This report
says that the Palestinians have finally give up the "Right of
Return", the biggest stumbling block to any peace deal with
Israel.
It's a shame they didn't do this about six months ago; then it
might have made a difference. In fact, it's a shame they're not
doing it now. The reporter is seeing something that isn't there, and
hoping that there's more to this than there actually is.
The Palestinians are not giving up the right-of-return.
Partly that's because the Palestinian Authority doesn't actually
speak for the Palestinians anymore. (No single voice speaks for the
Palestinians anymore.) What they actually said is that instead of
the right-of-return being non-negotiable, now they're willing to
talk about it.
The Taliban spent four years "talking about" giving up bin Laden
with the US, but no progress was ever made. A willingness to talk
doesn't indicate a willingness to make concessions.
We (the Palestinian Authority) have agreed to the Arab peace
proposal, which is based on the Saudi initiative, which calls for
a just solution of the refugee problem agreed to on the basis of
Resolution 194 of the General Assembly," he said.
However, the Palestinian officials who asked not to be
identified said they have retreated from the demand for right of
return for refugees who fled or were removed from land that became
Israel in 1948. Instead, they said, they are calling for a "just
and agreed" solution to that problem.
The UN General Assembly has never been known for being
particularly impartial when it comes to issues involving Israel, and
General Assembly resolutions are not binding. (Nothing from the UN
is binding, but that's for another time.) Nonetheless, Resolution
194 is a piece of work. Arab commitment to it has been exemplary
since it was passed in 1948. For instance:
7. Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth -
religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and
free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights
and historical practice; that arrangements to this end should be
under effective United Nations supervision; that the United
Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth
regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for
a permanent international regime for the territory of Jerusalem,
should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that
territory; that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of
Palestine the Commission should call upon the political
authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal
guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to
them; and that these undertakings should be presented to the
General Assembly for approval;
Like, say, the Wailing Wall? Which Jews were forbidden to visit
until Israel captured that area in 1967? Oh, goodie.
Here's the part of that resolution which is important to this
discussion:
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes
and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do
so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should
be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for
loss of or damage to property which, under principles of
international law or in equity, should be made good by the
Governments or authorities responsible;
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the
repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation
of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain
close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for
Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs
and agencies of the United Nations;
In 1948, that may have made sense. (It's arguable.) But 52 years
have passed; it doesn't make any sense any longer.
"Just and agreed" is double-talk; what it means is that the
Palestinians haven't actually given up anything. The most likely
demand they'd make is that individual Palestinians be permitted to
choose either to return to the territory in Israel, or that they be
able to demand payment from Israel for the property they lost. (With
interest, no doubt.)
After 20 months of nail-bombs, Israel's citizens will be in no
mood to accept any Palestinians into Israel, and equally in no mood
to pay the Palestinians billions of dollars. The result will be
deadlock: they'll talk, but no agreement will result.
This is nothing more than a carefully calculated attempt to play
to the audience (i.e. Europe). It sounds reasonable if you have a
soft heart (or a soft head) but there's nothing really to this
offer. They aren't actually making any concessions.
|
