Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Put God’s house before yours’…

Is there anyone among you who can still remember how splendid the Temple used to be? How does it look to you now? It must seem like nothing at all. [Haggai 2: 3]

 

SERVICE & WITNESS

MOVING home is never easy. There are new areas to discover, new people to meet, perhaps a new job to settle into, and the inevitable decorating and gardening.

The Judean exiles in Babylon have returned home to Jerusalem, courtesy of Persian king Cyrus who, in 538 BC, conquered Babylonia and issued an amnesty to political prisoners. Some accepted the offer, returned in 537, and laid the foundation of the temple which Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed (cf. Ezra 1-4). That was 17 years ago, and the temple is still in ruins.

Today, on Remembrance Sunday, we remember all those who have fought and died in pursuit of liberation and freedom.

Haggai says that God should have been their first thought, not their last. They have built their own houses, but not his. In modern terms, that means service and witness for God should be our first priority. Of course we need balanced diaries with home and work getting their fair share. But when something has to go, generally we should ask: ‘how may I best honour God?’

If we have gifts to use, it is a sin not to use them. Religion is not a hobby horse to be ridden in spare moments; it is a vehicle which will take us further towards God himself.

 

IT IS, perhaps, a terrible put-down to be told that your predecessor was a ‘hard act to follow’. The result of such a remark is either to make you quake at the prospect, or determine to be different for difference’s sake in order to make your own mark.

Solomon’s temple was an impossible act to follow. It had been spectacularly beautiful and richly decorated. The returned exiles couldn’t hope to match it (2: 2). Probably some of the older ones could remember it; most would have heard vivid descriptions from their parents.

Haggai says that it doesn’t matter. The people had done their best with what they had. That pleased God and counted for more than architectural acclaim. When we work for God, we are simply to use our gifts and opportunities to the best of our ability and not compare them with others or with what we think ‘might have been’. Perfectionism can be a sin.

If we try to be better than someone else, we run the great risk of becoming proud. If we aim to do better than others did before us we will create competiveness among organisers, and activities will lose their spiritual vision and impact. We can, of course, improve on mistakes made in the past, but ‘bigger and better’ is not a virtue in itself.

After the encouragement, however, comes a challenge. These people had done well, but were beginning to slip into sin again (2: 14). They had accepted failed harvests as misfortunes and not as God’s warnings that all was not well (2: 15-18).

Yet, God does not threaten them but promises to bless them (2: 19). Instead of the stick, he uses the carrot. Having pointed out the sin, he immediately offers forgiveness.

The natural reaction to that kind of generosity is worship. The proper response to love is love. God makes that same offer to us through Christ, and we should be equally generous to one another. Sometimes love will have a more positive effect on someone than criticism.

 

The Lord bless you, and keep you:

the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you:

the Lord lift his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

 

Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dedication:

• “Love Divine All Loves Excelling”

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

‘Armistice & Aftermath (1918-1939)’…

ARMISTICE

WORLD WAR I – the ‘Great War’ – came to an end at 11.00 on the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. In four and a quarter years of fighting there had been more than 8 million killed, with a further 20 million wounded, and many more permanently maimed. Human life and material resources had been recklessly squandered on an unprecedented scale.

Three empires, Turkish, Russian and Austro-Hungarian, disintegrated. Communism became established in Russia, and the United States finally took her place on the world stage. Such were the changes wrought by war.

Collectively known as the Treaty of Versailles, there were, in fact, five treaties made following the peace. That between the Allies and Austria, the Treaty of Saint Germain (1919), dissolved the Austro-Hungarian Empire and instituted the new Republic of Austria, comprised largely of the German-speaking parts of the former empire. Italy gained the South Tyrol, Trieste, Istria, several islands off the Dalmatian coast and Friuli. The independence of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and of Poland was also recognised.

The Treaty of Trianon (1920) between the Allies and Hungary reduced the size of that country by about a third, Romania receiving Transylvania, for which she had entered the war. Hungarian military strength was restricted to 35,000 men. The Treaty of Neuilly (1919) between the Allies and Bulgaria compelled the latter to cede territory and population to Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania, while the Treaty of Sevres (1920) with Turkey abolished that country’s sovereignty over Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine (Israel), which had been designated a British mandate. Syria became a French mandate. Turkey also lost territory to Greece and Italy. The Dardanelles became a neutral, international zone for shipping.

But it was the Treaty of Versailles between the Allies and Germany that led to the greatest resentment. The dominant Allied leaders were Great Britain’s prime minister, David Lloyd George (1863-1945), Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929), the French premier, Italy’s leader Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (1860-1952) and Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), President of the United States.

Allied discord at once became evident at the Versailles negotiations. Though Lloyd George provided a moderating influence on both Clemenceau, who demanded the harshest treatment of Germany, and Woodrow Wilson, whose idealistic proposals were impracticable, the final treaty was in large measure unsatisfactory.

11 November 2008 marks the 90th anniversary since the Armistice

On 8 January 1918, President Wilson had delivered a speech to Congress in which he outlined his so-called “Fourteen Points”. This speech was intended as an appeal for peace to the general public of the Central Powers. Among the ‘points’ were proposals for the reduction of national armaments; changes in European colonial territories to harmonise with the wishes of the local inhabitants; the preservation of Belgian sovereignty; and the division of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into two separate nations, determined by nationalities.

The final point advocated establishing ‘a general association of nations’. This was to lead to the creation of the League of Nations, an organisation that, in the event, was unable to effect world affairs and which, in 1945, dissolved itself.

The Treaty of Versailles was signed in the Hall of Mirrors between the Allies and Germany in 1919. Germany, the defeated nation, was dubbed the aggressor and instigator of the war and was not consulted as to the treaty’s terms. Alsace and Lorraine were to be restored to France; former Germany colonies were placed under League of Nations mandates, and most of West Prussia was ceded to Poland. And, for a period of almost 15 years, the Saar territory was to be administered by the French and the Rhineland occupied by the Allies.

The treaty further stipulated that the Germany Army could, in future, number no more than 100,000 men and that she was forbidden to build major weapons of aggression, including battleships. But, most ruinous for Germany was the imposition, at French insistence, of reparations: payments to be made in money or in goods, notably coal, steel and ships. The U.S. did not ratify the treaty and waived all claims to reparations.

The devastated German economy made it difficult for the Allies to requisition the amounts due to them, and in 1923, Germany having fallen into default, Belgium and French troops occupied the Ruhr. Almost a decade later, in 1931, the economic situation in the Western world had so degenerated that further German payments were impossible, and that clause of the treaty lapsed of necessity.

Germany, crippled by the treaty’s terms, became disaffected, her people bitterly resentful. The national mood, aggravated by the chaos caused by gross inflation and the fear of Communism, provided fertile ground from which Hitler and his cronies were able to reap a dreadful harvest.

In 1935, Hitler, by then Chancellor of Germany, unilaterally cancelled the military sections of the Treaty of Versailles. In the following year he began the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, while at the same time ordering the building of a new German fleet and the training of an army far larger than permitted. On 14 October 1933, the year he came to power, Hitler had already withdrawn Germany from the League of Nations. The Allies lacked the will to challenge any of these breaches of the treaty.

Thus the Treaty of Versailles resolved nothing, the very harshness of its terms creating those conditions in which a second world war became inevitable. In November 1918, church bells had been rung throughout the victorious countries of Europe; in fact, they merely rang the intermission gong before round two.

Sunday Teachings & Lessons (Sunday, 09 November 2008): ‘Remembrance Day‘

 

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

- Copyright is the currency by which information may be exchanged in certain instances. If you are unsure of your rights relating to digital communications in partial or complete form you should seek independent legal advice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related:

Guardian, 11 November 2008

• George Monbiot: “Lest we forget: the generals chose to kill their sons rather than their policies“

… “On the 90th anniversary of the end of the First World War, it’s salutory to recall who slaughtered whom and for what”

The best in journalism

 

 

 

Military Art/Book Review: ‘The burning moment’ & ‘Somme Mud’…

Artist: Chris Collingwood -- 'The burning moment': The 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers going ‘over the top’ on July 1st 1916.

 

'Somme Mud' is an account taken from the diary and journals penned by Private Lynch after returning as an Australian Infantryman in the Great War. Deeply moving in parts, Lynch's testimony is a sad reminder of the enormous human sacrifice, 90 years ago. Book review undernote.

 

BOOK REVIEW

MORE THAN NINETY YEARS after the Battle of the Somme (ended 18 November 1916) the pain and pointlessness of the human slaughter still echo.

Some military historians still reckon that at least 20,000 Australian soldiers of the Great War (1914-18) are still “missing”, a euphemism for the fact that their bodies either sank in the mud, withered under the strong heat and intensity of the sun or were simply blown to smithereens, without any identification.

Somme Mud, a living testimony of an Australian Infantryman, Private Edward Lynch, seeks to understand how that barbarity happened. The book is an extraordinary memoir of the trenches of the Western Front.

Edward Lynch left Australia on 22nd August 1916 as a young man of 18 volunteering to serve on the Western Front. He returned to his homeland in 1919, lived through three of the most turbulent years of modern history.

For even those people who may have previous military experience, I suspect the way that the narrative is written will take a bit of getting used to; it does take a little time before the general theme of the book settles down. This is perhaps due to the fact that it wasn’t written or edited by a professional story teller – the original text was penned by Lynch, on returning from the Great War, where he fought with extreme bravery and courage on the front line and acted frequently as a ‘runner’ for his Commanding Officer.

On his return to Australia in 1919, he wrote it all down in a number of school type exercise books as a method of making sense and coming to terms with the enormity of the experience he had suffered. Lynch served in the Great War from late 1916 to the end of the conflict; his entries reflect that period.

The initial idea was to publish the story, but due to circumstances at the time this never happened. After his death the volumes resurfaced when Edward’s grandson Mike Lynch passed the volumes to the editor Will Davies.

Essentially, though, the book presented is written as a diary and describes the daily life of a soldier on the front line. Once the story gets moving, the events that unfurl are described in such graphic and brilliantly described detail, that one is easily taken to the horrors of war and environs to which the writer wishes to take his reader.

Edward Lynch gets wounded a couple of times mainly through shrapnel, describes in clear and unambiguous language the deaths of others around him, and writes not only of the horrors and tragedy of an unforgiving war, but also on the fine detail of the hand-to-hand trench bayonette fighting which led to numerous and tragic losses on both sides.

Private Lynch’s testimonies surpasses those WWI books that seek only to analyse the battles; Lynch had the foresight to write down what he and others actually experienced: a duty perhaps for all of us to read in not forgetting the respect that such soldiers are owed.

Whilst full of harrowing if not frightening moments, the message conveys the real sense of comradeship and frequently described dark humour of those serving under conditions none of us can ever know today. Striking, is the constant prospect of being sniped, shelled, gassed, or just drowned in flooded shell holes. The most chilling description outside the numerous incidents of shellfire is the vivid images of the Somme battlefield in the freezing winter of 1916-17. Casualties lie still and frozen, reflective postures of brutal trench combat.

 

FRITZ is the term that Edward Lynch uses as the official enemy; the French mud, however, is a far more malevolent character. Edward wrote:

… We live in a world of Somme Mud.

… We sleep in it, work in it, fight in it, wade in it and many of us die in it. We see it, feel it, eat it and curse it, but we can’t escape it, not even by dying.

To read Somme Mud is a gut-churning battle and journey. The opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan pales into insignificance when reading through the vernacular provided by Lynch: offering a prayer of thanks when finally reaching the final chapter would, in my view, be apt. As men fight and die in their millions just to win a few square miles of this mud, Lynch emancipates his true to account feelings in describing a world in which feet rot in sodden boots, where there are chronic infestations of body lice and weariness so great that it even becomes possible to fall asleep in heavy snow. It is a place where, “dead men and dead horses lie in all manner of grotesque, mud-encased attitudes”.

 

AS the 45^th Battalion AIF moves ever closer to German lines, suicidal charging of enemy trenches is a common theme that is ordered again and again. Soldiers are cold, the bodies of dead Germans are used to build parapets upon which riflemen snipe at their enemy, and there’s an ever present operating theatre with a bucket of arms and legs.

The acrid, throat-scorching shell fumes; feeling the agony of burning shrapnel on human flesh; and, the ecstasy of desperately needing a mug of rum in the face of death, are regular daily occurrences to which Edward Lynch sketches.

Yet, just as William Golding’s Lord of the Flies epitomises how various groups can form in society, Somme Mud is an unequivocal study of mans brutal inhumanity to man. It is also a tortured and astonishing tale of what one man will do for another in the heat of battle.

 

WAIT on whilst the dead men are buried. A shallow frequent grave often marked by a rifle stuck up in the mud is all that can be done. It gives some satisfaction to do that, although it is too frequently acknowledged that men so buried will be thrown up and reburied by shellfire time after time until the fighting shifts on from here. Some day they may have real graves and committed to their maker in a more acceptable manner.

Technically, the book is very accurate. The story can be followed on maps, trench maps and panoramas, giving a much wider understanding of small actions that took place during this dark period. Somme Mud doesn’t draw any conclusions as to the rights and wrongs of the conflict, it praises and castigates Officers, men and the enemy as the situation demands.

The descriptions of actions are well placed, making the account and book highly authentic. The firing of the mines on the Messines Ridge, the forward advance by tanks and the start of the air re-supply are interspersed with the inevitabilities of war – food contaminated with gas, Janker’s for going AWOL and the cleaning of artillery trace chain harnesses.

… We spent a whole day cleaning trace chains and polishing each link with spit sand and blasphemy.

 

SOMME MUD is a singular and powerfully written memoir that spans the period 1914-1918. Edward Lynch (who later became Major Lynch) deserves a place amongst the revered author’s and writers of the Great War.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

 

Essay: ‘History of the D-Day landings’…

65th ANNIVERSARY

A CONTROVERSIAL PLAN

THE ALLIED LANDINGS in Normandy on 6 June 1944 were among the most desperate undertakings in the history of war. Amphibious operations against an enemy in a strong defensive position will almost always lead to heavy casualties. Simply looking at the history and trait of military operations, in whatever theatre of conflict men have fought, prior too, and after WWII, will clearly indicate the high risks involved when amphibious craft is used against a well embedded enemy.

In November 1943, for instance, the United States Marine Corps’ capture of the tiny atoll of Tarawa in the central Pacific had cost more than 3,000 casualties. American censors banned a public screening of the US Navy film of this event, arguing that its shocking images of a lagoon red with soldiers’ blood would undermine the morale of US forces and the Home Front.

The British and Canadians had suffered their own disaster, too, at Dieppe on 18 August 1942. More than two thirds of a 6,000-man raiding force had been left behind on the shingle beach, dead, wounded and prisoners.

 

ON THE EVE of D-Day the Allied leadership was in a state of fixated anxiety. Just after midnight on 6 June, a restless Winston Churchill, haunted by memories of the disastrous Allied landings at Gallipoli 29 years earlier, bade his wife goodnight with the words:

… Do you realise that by the time you wake up in the morning twenty thousand men may have been killed?

The same night, the chief of the imperial general staff, General Alan Brooke, confided to his journal and diary that:

… It may well be the most ghastly disaster of the whole war. I wish to God it were safely over.

At about 22.00 the supreme allied commander, General Dwight Eisenhower, had made an impromptu visit to paratroopers of the 101st Airborne at Greenham Common airfield near Newbury. His driver, Kay Summersby, recorded that the general, overwhelmed by emotion, climbed back into the car with his shoulders sagged.

Eisenhower had already written a letter accepting full responsibility if D-Day turned out to be a disaster. Churchill had assured him that they would go together. The Allied high command anticipated that a successful landing would cost 10,000 dead and perhaps 30,000 wounded, but were steeling themselves for much heavier casualties.

 

 CHOOSING NORMANDY

THE BRITISH had never liked the idea of a direct assault on the coast of north-west Europe. They much preferred an indirect strategy – operations in the Mediterranean and the Balkans.

Since the late summer of 1942 the Germans had been constructing the “Atlantic Wall”, a formidable complex of defences running from the Franco-Spanish border to Denmark. It was the largest construction project in European history, involving at any one time more than 100,000 workers.

Under the direction of General Erwin Rommel, all beaches on which a landing was considered possible had been festooned with belts of obstacles and minefields, and covered by machine-gun and mortar emplacements.

Further back, bunkers of enormous strength at Merville, Longues and Pointe du Hoc on the Normandy coast enabled large-calibre German guns to bombard a landing force. In order to frustrate an airborne attack, German engineers flooded low-lying areas and strung wires across fields to deter glider landings. The first man reported to have been killed on D-Day was a glider-pilot whose glider had crashed and broke-up off Normandy.

The Americans had come to Europe to finish the war as quickly as possible, and this meant taking the shortest, most direct route to Germany. However, the disaster at Dieppe and their own experiences in the Pacific had qualified their optimism. Thus the D-Day landings were to be the most highly planned operations in military history.

In spring 1943, Lieutenant General Frederick Morgan was appointed chief of staff supreme allied commander (COSSAC). He took charge of planning until the appointment of Eisenhower as supreme allied commander at the end 1943. Aided by Lord Louis Mountbatten, the head of Combined Operations, they chose Normandy; although further from Germany than the Pas de Calais, Normandy’s long sandy beaches were sheltered from the prevailing south-west winds by the Cotentin Peninsula, and the two large ports, Cherbourg and Le Havre, could be captured from the landward side.

  

BUILD-UP & BLUFF

MEANWHILE Operation Bolero, codename for the American build-up in Britain, transformed southern England into an armed camp. By early June 1944 more than two million Americans had arrived, along with a quarter-of-a-million Canadians.

Despite massive amounts of equipment, including thousands of aircraft, tanks and guns, many American divisions were poorly trained. Some British veteran formations, survivors of action in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, were unenthusiastic about a frontal assault on Hitler’s Fortress Europe.

The planners did all they could to ensure a successful assault. By the spring of 1944 all the divisions taking part in the initial seaborne landing had participated in extensive amphibious exercises, usually off the coast of Scotland. During one exercise, though, off Slapton Sands in Devon, German E Boats sank three landing craft, drowning more than 700 American personnel.

The British created 79th Armoured Division, a formation of specialised armoured assault vehicles, including Duplex drive (DD) ’swimming’ tanks, mine-clearing (Flail) tanks, tanks with enormous Petard mortars which could drop explosive charges next to bunkers, cracking the concrete, and tanks with flame-throwers (Crocodiles), which would then pump liquid fire through the cracks, effectively cooking the defenders.

All the British and Canadian assault divisions had units of the 79th Division attached to them. The British offered the Americans the equipment as well, but the US High Command turned down everything except the DD tanks.

Secrecy was absolutely crucial. To mislead the Germans, the British devised ingenious deception plans, notably Operation Fortitude. They deliberately transmitted and broadcast all the radio traffic generated by US forces in south-west England, and British and Canadian forces in south central England, from radio stations in Kent. Vast, fake army camps appeared around Maidstone and Canterbury, with thousands of partly concealed dummy tanks and aircraft.

One of the Allies’ most flamboyant generals, George Patton, toured the area. German agents ‘turned’ by MI5 leaked the news that the Allies’ most powerful assault formation, US 3rd Army, was destined to assault the Pas de Calais.

The deception worked. The Germans concentrated their most powerful formation, 15th Army, in the Pas de Calais. Normandy was held by the smaller, but still formidable 7th Army. Had 15th Army had turned up on D-Day, the landings would probably have ended in disaster.

 

EXPLOITING THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY

A SUCCESFUL OPERATION required air superiority and tactical and operational surprise. The planners had to persuade the “Bomber Barons” of the RAF and USAAF to divert resources from what they regarded as the main effort – the strategic bombing of Germany. It took many months of table-thumping argument to win their support.

From March 1944, north-western France became the focal point for air activity, the largest sustained air offensive of the war, codenamed the Transportation Plan. By the first week in June, French rail and road communications had been seriously degraded and the Luftwaffe in France reduced to about 800 operational machines. But the cost had been enormous. Two thousand Allied aircraft were lost and 12,000 airmen killed.

On the 6 June, Allied planning paid off, but they also had luck. Eisenhower’s exploitation of a small window in a period of very bad weather caught the Germans completely off guard. Rommel thought an invasion so unlikely he left for Germany on the morning of 5 June to celebrate his wife’s 50th birthday.

Key officers in many formations also took advantage of the bad weather to attend a war game in Rouen, while the commander of 21st Panzer Division, the only armoured formation within striking distance of the invasion beaches, went to visit his mistress in Paris.

German communications had been severely weakened by bombing. Allied paratroopers and the French Resistance made them worse by cutting telephone lines. At the strategic level, neither Rommel, nor von Rundstedt, could move powerful armoured reserves without Hitler’s express approval. Thus the German response in the first hours was spasmodic and uncoordinated.

 

D-DAY

IN THE EARLY HOURS of 6 June RAF bombers dropped aluminium foil of the Pas de Calais to simulate the radar profile of a great invasion fleet. Meanwhile more than 7,000 vessels, the largest naval task force ever assembled, moved to the Normandy coast.

Shortly after midnight the British 6th and American 101st and 82nd Airborne divisions began landing. On the eastern flank, British glider-borne troops seized the vital ‘Pegasus’ Bridge across the Orne River, while others attacked and temporarily disabled a German battery at Merville, the guns of which covered Sword Beach. Subsequent drops allowed 6th Airborne Division to form a defensive crust protecting the eastern flank of the beachhead.

Shortly after midnight, three airborne divisions - the US 82nd and 101st and the British 6th, numbering over 23,000 men - take off to secure the flanks of the beaches. En route are myriad naval vessels and landing craft. On their way to France they rendezvous in the Channel at 'Piccadilly Circus'. Thoughout the night positions on the invasion beaches are bombed, although many miss their target.

The American airborne landings went less well. Cloud cover and heavy flak over the Cotentin Peninsula broke up the formations, causing the Americans to be dropped over an area of 1,000 square miles. But this in itself caused the Germans immense confusion. The divisional reserve for the Omaha beach defences, for example, went racing south at 03.00 to attack paratroopers they couldn’t locate. By the time they returned to the beach, the Americans were well ashore.

Shortly after 05.00 naval gunfire opened up on German defences along 50 miles of Normandy coast. Chief amongst these was Pointe du Hoc, the guns of which could hit both Utah and Omaha beaches. The task of silencing the battery, already bombed and shelled, was carried out by a Ranger battalion, who scaled the 100-foot vertical cliffs, and discovered the guns camouflaged in fields about a mile inland. It was up to the bravery of men carrying the thermite explosive charges to ensure that these guns remained silent on D-Day.

 

FIRST TO LAND was the US 4th Division on Utah beach. It came ashore about 1,000 yards south of its intended landing place, luckily avoiding heavy defences, and consequently suffered few of the expected casualties.

But the situation was very different only a few miles further east on Omaha beach. Here the first elements of the US 29th Division and the 1st Division ran into stiff opposition. Without armour support – most of the DD ’swimming’ tanks had foundered in the heavy swell – the infantry was cut down by heavy German fire.

Very soon an immense traffic jam of landing craft and amphibious vehicles built up about 1,000 yards offshore. By 09.00 the beach was packed with thousands of dead and wounded men, while hundreds of bodies floated in the blood-red surf.

The American operational commander, General Omar Bradley, radioed Eisenhower for permission to evacuate the beachhead, but the signal got lost in radio traffic. By the time it reached Eisenhower, naval gunfire support and the sheer guts of some exceptional officers and men had pushed the Germans from the bluffs.

 

BEACHHEAD SECURED

ON Gold, Juno and Sword beaches, British and Canadian troops were supported by the specialised assault vehicles of 79th Armoured Division. On all three, German strongpoints initially inflicted heavy casualties, but a combination of Petard mortar and Crocodile tank soon smashed the defences.

On Gold and Juno, British and Canadian forces pushed inland rapidly. On Sword, British 3rd Division was held up three miles short of Caen by a network of German defensive positions along a ridge. Finally, late that afternoon, the 21st Panzer Division launched a counterattack. Some units managed to reach the coast, though they were too weak to hold their positions.

The world learned the invasion was underway from German state radio, which announced landings in Normandy on its 07.00 news service, and promised the invaders would be swiftly annihilated.

A special BBC news bulletin came two-and-a-half hours later. John Snagge announced that D-Day had come and all was going according to plan. At 12.00 Churchill repeated this news in a statement to the House of Commons. Despite Eisenhower’s worries about the situation on Omaha beach, by mid-afternoon it was clear that even on Omaha the battle was running in the Allies’ favour.

When Churchill again addressed the House of Commons at 18.00 it was to announce an astounding success. To secure a lodgement on the coast of France, the Allies had taken 10,000 casualties, 3,000 of whom were dead – mostly airborne troops or those who had landed at Omaha Beach.

Losses were far lighter than anticipated, a tribute to years of planning and preparation, a bold command decision, and a lot of tremendously good luck and fortune.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

 

References:

1. The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan (Wordsworth Editions, 1999)
2. Battlefront: D-Day Public Record Office (1999)
3. Overlord; D-Day and the Battle for Normandy 1944 by Max Hastings (Pan, 1999)
4. D-Day and the Invasion of Normandy by Anthony Kemp (Harry N Abrams, 1994)
5. Ten Days to D-Day: Countdown to the Liberation of Europe by David Stafford (Little and Brown, 2003)

 

Supplementary:

1.

Lancaster Bomber – Re-enactment to mark the 65th anniversary of the Dambusters raid over the Derwent Dam.

Notes:

It was one of the most stirring images of the Second World War – a Lancaster bomber coming in terrifyingly low over a huge dam.

Instead of Germany’s Ruhr Valley (below), it was Derbyshire but no less poignant. This was the exact spot the famous bombers had painstakingly prepared for their mission in 1943.

In dummy run after dummy run, the elite RAF crews planned their method of attack on the similar German targets.

 2.

Aftermath: The wrecked Mohne Dam with the massive breach caused by the Dambusters 617 Squadron

Led by Wing Commander Guy Gibson, the pilot and his comrades manned 19 Lancasters from 617 Squadron for the raid.

Thanks to Barnes Wallis’s extraordinary bouncing bomb, two dams were destroyed but eight British aircraft and 53 men were lost.

 

Battle of Britain/Art: ‘Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh (Lord) Dowding’…

Flight Lieutenant Tony Cooper of No.64 Squadron in his Supermarine Spitfire Mk.Vb (BL370) and his wingman patrol the D-Day beaches, June 1944. (Artist: Geoff Nutkins)

 

SIR HUGH (LORD) DOWDING (1882-1970)

From the desk of MD

FOR A FEW DAYS in 1940, Goering hurled the Luftwaffe incessantly against the south-east of England, in an attempt to soften it up for the inevitable invasion which Germany thought would follow. That the invasion never came was principally because the Royal Air Force, despite the handicap of inferior numbers, was able to win the battle for air supremacy.

Churchill immortalised the Hurricane and Spitfire pilots of the RAF – some of them still teenagers – in a famous phrase after the Battle: ‘Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.’ ‘The few’ were indeed one of the main causes of victory, but two Scotsmen played a critical role in their success. The first was Robert Watson Watt, born in Brechin, who is credited with having invented the radar. The radar became a crucial weapon in the RAF’s armoury in winning the battle of the skies during World War II. But the man who encouraged him to bring his ideas to fruition, fought for the building programmes for Spitfires to replace the old biplanes still in use in the thirties, and who took charge of Fighter Command during this vital period, was another Scotsman – Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding.

 

DOWDING’S role in the Battle of Britain was crucial, in preparation before it and for the strategy during it. Yet despite the victory, within three months a group of colleagues conspired to oust him from his post, leading to the serious neglect of his importance in the years after the war. Dowding’s father taught at Fettes College (Edinburgh), and went to establish a boys’ prep school in Moffat (Dumfries & Galloway) where he was born in 1882. After education at Winchester on a scholarship he joined the Army and signed up for flying lessons on credit, which he gambled would be refunded if the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) accepted him. They did, and when his father demanded he stop ‘this ridiculous flying’ the RFC replied they could not accept his resignation, since the 1914 war had just begun.

‘Stuffy’ Dowding soon rose through the ranks to command his own squadron, and by the end of the war in 1918 was a brigadier-general. On commanding 16 Squadron in 1915, Dowding’s own pilots dubbed him ‘the Starched Shirt’ because of his reserve and aloofness. In Dowding’s memoirs, though, many airmen concede that Dowding was also “efficient, strict and calm”.

During war service he encountered three men whose lives were later to affect his own: Keith Park, the fighter ace, who became a close friend; Trafford Leigh-Mallory, who was anything but a friend of Park’s; and William Sholto-Douglas, another ace pilot, whom Dowding was ordered to put on trial by court martial. Dowding refused since he believed him innocent, but in a twist of fate, it was Sholto-Douglas who was to play a leading part in Dowding’s downfall in 1940. All four men remained in the RAF and Dowding rose to be commander-in-chief of Fighter Command. Ironically, he was due to retire when the Second World War began in 1939, thrusting him once more into the forefront of the action.

Dowding was dour, diffident and dogmatic, but he knew more than anyone about aerial warfare. When Churchill ordered more Hurricanes to be sent to France in the days before the withdrawal at Dunkirk, he refused, since it would have left home defences vulnerable. He built up night fighters and resisted the demands that ‘Big Wings’ be made part of Fighter Command strategy. These were founded on the idea of safety in numbers and involved bringing together planes from as many airfields as possible to fly missions together. Advocates of the strategy, such as fighter ace Douglas Bader, claimed they gave greater firepower while Dowding argued they were cumbersome to assemble and manoeuvre, and left no reserve defences. When he chose to give Park command of the front-line sector in the south-east of England and left Leigh-Mallory with the Midlands, the smouldering feud between the two men began to heat up.

Despite his regard for his pilots (whom he called ‘my Fighter Boys’ and whom others referred as ‘Dowding’s Chicks’), he never visited airfields, so rendering himself open to the charge of callousness; after the war he defended himself on the grounds that it was his concern and admiration which led him not to interfere. Given his uncharismatic presence, it may have been better that his efficiency and calm remained at a distance.

Nevertheless, his admiration for his pilots was reciprocated. They were sickened to learn on 25 November 1940 that Dowding had been ordered in a short telephone call to leave his desk. He yielded with a curt ‘Good morning’ to Sholto-Douglas, who had supplanted him in a coup in which Leigh-Mallory and Bader played a part, and in the face of whose machinations Churchill had acquiesced. The exhausted Dowding departed to organise support in the United States before retiring from the RAF in 1942.

After that, Dowding was more communicative with his ‘Chicks’, but in an extraordinary way – by means of a spiritualist medium with whom he was friendly. Belatedly ennobled as Lord Dowding of Bentley Priory before his death in 1970, he was proclaimed at his memorial service an ‘Architect of Deliverance’. A generation later we can see the truth of that description, perhaps more clearly than was possible in 1940.

 

Related:

• (Series) Scots from the Past: ‘Robert Watson Watt’…
• Guardian Editorial: ‘Bomber Command’…

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Afghanistan: ‘Security on the ground essential’…

SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN

From the desk of MD

PUBLIC opposition to Britain continuing its campaign in Afghanistan is growing. According to an interview that Eddie Mair of Radio-4 had with Lord Paddy Ashdown, that opposition is now 75% and growing.

Gordon Brown now insists that Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, must get his act together otherwise the Western mission in Afghanistan will fail. This is the first time the Prime Minister has used such language openly.

Simply withdrawing at this stage is not a viable option, as much as everyone would like for our troops to return home. Karzai has a number of things he must now do if he is to secure the Western protection he seeks. One of those things is a need for constitutional reform and for Mr. Karzai to appoint competent ministers to his government. Another, is a willingness to engage with moderate elements of the Taliban if a political settlement is ever to be found.

The security on the ground has to remain in tack. It is the basis by which warring factions can come together in seeking a new and better way forward. Despite Afghanistan’s history, most conflicts that have seemed intractable around the world have always required a security presence to prevent further bloodshed. That same principle has to hold true in Afghanistan, too.

• MarkDowe SkyNews Community 

Related:

• The ‘Saturday Essay‘ 07 Nov 2009 viz. “Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai & political reform”
• ‘Political settlement’ in Afghanistan remains key

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Ralph McTell: ‘Streets of London’…

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘A conquering hero’…

If my people … humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. [2 Chronicles 7: 14]

 

CHRONICLES

Teaching from Scotland

BY COMPARING the way people in different ages use the same word, we can trace changes in culture. In 1000 BC, heroes are brave warriors who risk their lives to secure David’s kingship. Less than 300 years later, the same society’s heroes were those who could hold their drink (Isaiah 5: 22).

The twentieth century saw the same process compressed into less time when wartime heroes such as the physically legless RAF airman Douglas Bader gave way to sports and screen anti-heroes who became emotionally legless devotees of wine, women and narcotics.

In our more passive and indulgent age, we may have difficulty in identifying with the battle heroes of Chronicles. Today’s role models may be the unsung heroes of the emergency services, or an intrepid conservationist.

Teachings for Sunday, 01 November 2009, are given from the Old Testament Books of Chronicles.

To appreciate Chronicles we must enter the mindset of a different era. David was the Lord’s anointed, and he (and the Lord) were worth dying for. These are the heroes who inspired Jewish readers in different walks of life. They lifted spirits and gave vision. The author may want to show that people from all the Israelite tribes were loyal to David and prepared to die for him. This would have been important in later years as people looked back over the tragic story of the individual kingdom. In fact, he plays down the role of Judah and Benjamin, which later formed the nation of Judah and took on the story of God’s people.

David’s apparently disdainful waste of the water brought to him at great risk by ‘The Three’ was actually an act of worship and thanksgiving. (Water was poured out ‘before the Lord’ in several rituals.) David, at this stage, was giving God all the glory and regarded anything done for himself as an act of service to the God who had chosen him.

The Lord taught us to pray together, saying:

THE LORD’S PRAYER

OUR Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

 

Amen.

[St Matthew 6:9-13]

 

Dedication:

“Eternal Father strong to save”

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Surname Traceability: ‘Dowe’…

DOWE

RECORDED as Dow, Dowe, Dove, Dew and possibly others, this is a Scottish (and sometimes Irish) surname. The surname is a ’sept’ of the clan Buchanan, the most ancient and historic clan of Scotland.

It is of pre 10th century Gaelic origins, of which it has several as shown. It can be a developed form of David, or derive from the ancient word “dubh”, meaning dark or black. This word was originally used as a personal name, by itself or as a shortened form of a longer double-stemmed name, and later as a nickname or byname for a swarthy man, or perhaps for someone of “dark” temperament.

Early examples of the surname recordings include Brokynus Duff in the year 1341, when he was a juror in Aberdeen, and Ede Douw who held lands in the city of Edinburgh in 1362. John Dowe was juror on an inquest in Berwick in 1370, and John Dove, given as being the landlord of the Whitefoord Arms, Mauchline, in the 18th century, and whom had been mentioned by Robert Burns in poetry written when Burns tendered the land as a tenant farmer in Mauchline, Ayrshire. He was known as Johnie Doo or Johnie Pidgeon! The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Duncan Duff. This was dated 1275, in the “Charters of the Priory of Beauly”, during the reign of King Alexander III of Scotland, 1249 – 1286.

Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to “develop” often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights reserved

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Ministry of Defence: ‘Afghanistan RAF Nimrod Crash 2006′

SACRIFICING SAFETY

From the desk of MD

IN 2006, 14 British service personnel died, after an RAF Nimrod MR2 crashed in Afghanistan. Yesterday, Wednesday, 28 October, the Ministry of Defence was accused of sacrificing safety in order to minimise costs. Charles Haddon-Cave, QC, found the loss of the Nimrod in September 2006 had occurred because of a “systemic breach of the military covenant”.

In a devastating report Mr. Haddon-Cave said financial cuts within the MoD – in the wake of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review – had resulted in a “cascade” of organisational changes which had led to, “a dilution of the airworthiness regime and culture within the MoD”.

The report described a safety review of the ageing Nimrod MR2, carried out by the MoD in conjunction with BAE Systems and QinetiQ, as a “lamentable job” which clearly failed to identify “key dangers”.

… Its production is a story of incompetence, complacency and cynicism. The best opportunity to prevent the accident to XV230 was tragically lost.

Concluding, Mr. Haddon-Cave wrote:

… In my view, XV230 was lost because of a systemic breach of the military covenant brought about by significant failures on the part of all those involved.

… This must not be allowed to happen again. 

 

IN a long awaited report the Queen’s Bench Barrister condemned openly the change of organisational culture within the MoD between 1998 and 2006, the period when financial targets came to distract from the more pressing point of air safety. Quoting a former senior RAF officer, who told his inquiry:

… There was no doubt that the culture of the time had switched.

… In the days of the RAF chief engineer in the 1990s, you had to be on top of airworthiness.

… (But) By 2004 you had to be on top of your budget if you wanted to get ahead.

 

BOB AINSWORTH, the Defence Secretary, told the House of Commons, yesterday, that he accepted the review’s findings and would be publishing the MoD’s detailed response before the Christmas Parliamentary break.

He said:

… I am sorry for the mistakes that have been made, and that lives have been lost as a result of our failure.

Mr. Ainsworth informed Parliament that two officers still serving with the RAF, one of whom has since been promoted, and both of whom were severely criticised in the report, had been moved to other posts where they had no responsibility for safety or airworthiness.

The RAF would now consider what further action they should face in the light of the report’s findings.

AN RAF BOARD OF INQUIRY had previously concluded that the crash had occurred shortly after AAR (air-to-air refuelling) when fuel leaked onto one of the aircraft’s hot air pipes.

Mr. Hadden-Cave, in his report, was highly critical of both the culture within the MoD – which had produced a military airworthiness system that was “not fit for purpose” – and of the “safety case” that was carried out on the Nimrod MR2 between the years 2001-2005.

Pointedly, he said that the Ministry of Defence had suffered a period of “deep organisational trauma” in the wake of the 1998 strategic defence review:

… Financial pressures and cuts drove a cascade of of multifarious organisational changes which led to a dilution of the airworthiness regime and culture within the MoD, and distraction from safety and airworthiness issues as the top priority …There was a shift in culture and priorities in the MoD towards ‘business’ and financial targets, at the expense of functional values such as safety and airworthiness.

 

SINGLING OUT BAE Systems for criticism on elements of safety and care, Mr. Haddon-Cave said the company bore “substantial responsibility” for its failure. The first two phases were “poorly planned, poorly managed and poorly executed … work was rushed and corners were cut”, raising again question marks about the “prevailing ethical culture” at BAE Systems.

RAF Nimrod MR2. The type that crashed in Afghanistan in 2006 that cost the lives of 14 British service personnel.

The author of the report also laid bare the defence firm QinetiQ which, he said, bore a “share of responsibility” and said that it had been “fundamentally lax and compliant” in carrying out its role and duties as an independent adviser to the MoD’s Nimrod Integration Project Team (IPT). Highlighting the fact that project management within the IPT had been delegated to a relatively junior person who was “without adequate oversight or supervision”.

Mr. Haddon-Cave said that the IPT had been “sloppy and complacent” and had assessed fire risks to the Nimrod MR2 that were “manifestly inadequate, flawed and on an unrealistic basis.”

Among the senior official criticised in the report were General Sir Sam Cowan, Chief of Defence Logistics from 1999 to 2002, and his successor, Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger.

Mr. Haddon-Cave said three individuals at the MoD – the IPT leader Air Commodore George Barber, the head of Air Vehicle Wing Commander Michael Eagles, and safety manager Frank Walsh – shared responsibility for the failure of the IPT.

He named three senior BAE managers – Chris Lowe, Richard Oldfield, and Eric Prince – who he said bore “primary responsibility” for the company’s failings in relation to the safety case.

He also criticised two named managers at QinetiQ – Martin Mahy and Colin Blagrove.

QUOTING other serious accidents, Mr. Haddon-Cave said many of the organisational causes for the loss of XV230 were echoed through other major accident cases, such as the loss of the Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia, the Zeebrugge ferry disaster and the King’s Cross fire.

BAE Systems said in a statement that it would support the MoD in implementing the review’s recommendations:

… The circumstances surrounding the tragic loss of this aircraft and its crew whilst on active duty are such that the cause of the accident will never finally be determined.

… Following receipt of the report today, the company will consider and assess how best to support the MoD in the implementation of the recommendations for improving processes to further enhance the operational safety of aircraft in military use.

QinetiQ said it had cooperated “fully and frankly” with the review.

© Mark Dowe 2008-2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Social Reforms: ‘Robert Owen’…

1809

From the desk of MD

BY THE AGE of 19, Robert Owen was already the manager of a cotton mill, employing some 500 people. With his intelligence, energy and administrative ability, he made his mill the best of its kind in the country. In this factory, Owen used the first imports of American sea-island cotton ever to be used in Britain. He is deemed to be the first cotton-spinner in England, and made big improvements to the quality of spun cotton. He became a partner in the Chorlton Twist Company in Manchester, and persuaded his partners to buy the infamous New Lanark Mills and manufacturing village at New Lanark in Scotland.

It was at New Lanark that Owen set about creating a model community for the 2000 people who worked in the mills, with better housing, improved working conditions and better education. Among the inhabitants were 500 children brought in as cheap labour from the various poorhouses and charities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. There was little provision for the children’s education; the housing conditions were appalling; the sanitation poor; and, there was a high rate of crime and vice associated with very low morale amongst the employees generally.

 

ROBERT OWEN set about improving every aspect of these people’s lives, training them to higher standards of order and cleanliness and improving their homes. He built an Institute for the Formation of Character and a school, which incorporated the world’s first day nursery and playground. The school offered evening classes for those at work during the day. He also built a village store that offered goods at little more than cost price; this was the birthplace of the co-operative movement.

Although his social reforms were successful, they were expensive, and his partners complained about the effect they were having on profits. In 1813, Owen formed and constituted New Lanark into a new company with collaborators who included Jeremy Bentham and the Quaker William Allen. This time Owen forestalled criticism by guaranteeing his partners a 5% return for their capital; Owen was in return to have more freedom of action on the philanthropic side of the firm. In his book, A View of Society, he expounded his ideas of educational philanthropy, arguing that character is formed by social environment.  The great secret in the development of a person’s character is to place him or her under the right influences from the earliest years; this was why he was prepared to invest so much care and attention in schooling and schools. From an early age he left all religious belief behind, becoming a thorough-going humanist and socialist and evolving his own creed and doctrines. After New Lanark, Owen went on to create more co-operative ‘Owenite’ communities, including New Harmony in Indiana and Orbiston near Glasgow between the years 1825-28, and Ralahine in Ireland (1831-33). However, these were all deemed failures.

 

IN 1815, Owen launched a single-handed campaign to make factory-owners and managers adopt more humane practices. He drafted a bill directed at all textile factories, banning the employment of children under 10, banning night work for young people under 18, limiting working hours to 10 hours a day for all under 18, and providing for workplace inspection. There were many who sympathised with Owen’s bill; it was introduced in Parliament, but it was Owen who was left disappointed by the way Parliament amended it to a point where it became unrecognisable. He was a man before his time, by at least a couple of decades, but a very necessary man as he was at the spearhead of nineteenth century social reform in Britain. 

 

IN 1817, he put forward a report to the House of Commons committee on the Poor Law, outlining his socialist co-operative scheme. His detailed and comprehensive plans for dealing with poverty in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars were initially given a warm reception in the press and supported by many influential people. Owen could count the Duke of Kent, Queen Victoria’s father, among his many friends and supporters. At a large public meeting in London, though, Owen declared his avowed hostility to all organised forms of religion. This lost him at a stroke the support of the establishment. He himself thought the radicals, to whom he might have looked for support, were wrong-headed. Owen threw away his chance of getting large-scale government support for his idea of comprehensive reform through whole communities. Instead, he was left to work for social reform in a piecemeal fashion, finding supporters who would help set up small communities as they arose.

 

OWEN DECLARED in his Report to the County of Lanark that what was needed was not a reform but a transformation of the social order. This had a great appeal to the young and for the next ten years there was mounting pressure for Owen’s doctrine to be accepted as the aspiration of the ordinary working class people of Britain. When Owen returned to England from New Harmony in 1829 he found himself hailed as a leader.

Robert Owen worked towards the empowerment of workers, emphasising that labour is the source of all wealth. Various labouring groups formed craft-oriented unions, such as the National Operative Builders Union. Owen himself organised the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union in 1833, and vast swathes of workers made application to join. Both the employers and other members of the British establishment became alarmed and adopted counter-measures to stop the trade union movement becoming any stronger. It was to be another two generations before socialism again directly influenced trade unionism.

 

OWEN’S benevolent, practical and philanthropic ideas did not amount to a new philosophy, but their application to whole communities was entirely new. The New Lanark experiment was a model to those socialist activists who believed and subscribed to social engineering. His work in the 1820s and 1830s to achieve social transformation through the trade union movement was heroic, albeit premature, and a model to later political activists. He prepared the way for the Rochdale Pioneers Co-operative Society founded in 1844, which in turn gave birth to the worldwide Consumers’ Co-operative Movement. In a sense, Robert Owen prepared the way and defined uniquely what was meant by a socialist revolution.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

The U.S. Dollar: ‘Why the currency is falling’…

AMERICAN DOLLAR 

From the desk of MD

IN EARLY MARCH an index of the value of the U.S. dollar against six other major currencies touched 89.11, its highest point this year. Since, then, however, its value has been on a steady downward drift. Just last week, on Tuesday, October 20^th, the dollar index had slipped to 75.24, its lowest point in more than a year.

The dollar’s current worth hardly signals or constitutes a collapse, nor is its present value necessarily any cause for concern. American exporters, whose goods have now become more competitive abroad, might be happy with their weaker currency. Domestic producers, for instance, may be cheered that rival, imported goods are more expensive. European tourists, too, may be heartened that more can be bought with their euros during weekend shopping excursions to America. However, the continued depreciation of the dollar does come against a backdrop of worrying murmurs from the likes of China and Russia, both of whom hold much of their reserves in dollars, about the need to shift their reserves away from dollar dependency. Brazil’s imposition of a 2% levy on portfolio inflows is also an ominous sign that other countries are becoming nervous about their currencies rise against the dollar.

Worries about the dollar are hardly a novelty. Well before the credit-crunch some were anxious that a collapse in the currency and a jump in Treasury bond yields, as foreigners balked at funding America’s current-account deficit, would precipitate an economic crisis. Instead, sub-prime mortgages and over-leveraged financial institutions plunged the world into its worst recession since the Great Depression.

The recession, which reduced America’s imports as consumers tightened their belts, has improved its trade imbalance, shrinking its current-account deficit. But, ironically, this has been accompanied by a systemic and ongoing weakness for the dollar.

 

THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION for the currency’s decline is based on risk-aversion. On days when risky assets fall, the value of the dollar tends to go up; when risky assets rise, the dollar falls. Since March, the dollar has fallen steadily, a period that has seen stockmarkets enjoy a phenomenal rally. Domestic American investors may be driving the relationship, repatriating funds in 2008 when they were nervous about the state of financial markets and sending the money abroad again this summer because of a perception that the global economy was recovering.

Yet, although risk-aversion may be a factor, describing the dollar as a “safe haven” seems suspect. Certainly, the weakness of American fundamentals has revived the longstanding bearish case against the currency. Some commentators, for instance, cite the US budget deficit, expected to be 13.5% of GDP this year. There is little sign that the Obama administration has any plan to reduce it, and health-care reform may add to it.

Nonetheless, if foreign investors are so concerned, why is the dollar’s decline not accompanied by a sharp rise in bond yields? One reason may be that the Federal Reserve has been buying so much of the year’s debt issuance, as part of its quantitative easing (QE) programme. That has helped to keep yields down.

The simple dynamics of supply and demand may be at work. Last year the market was short of dollars because investors needed the American currency to meet their liquidity needs. This year, though, QE is creating a surplus of dollars (and pounds) and is, hitherto, driving both currencies down.

The use of QE also creates a problem for central banks as they contemplate their exit strategies. An early abandonment of the approach could cause bond yields to rise sharply, unless there is a dramatic and fortuitous improvement in the fiscal position. But, continuing QE could cause further currency weakness, too.

 

IT IS HARD to see what the US Treasury and Federal Reserve could do to bolster their currency even if they wanted to. Low yields offer little support to the dollar. The Fed seems highly unlikely to raise interest rates from their near-zero levels over the next 12-months or so, making government securities an unattractive investment, meantime.

To think of a parallel in history is, also, hard. A country heavily in debt to foreigners, with a government deficit it is making little headway at controlling, is creating vast amounts of additional currency. Why, on this basis is it allowed to get away with very low interest rates? Eventually, such arrangements must surely break down, bringing a new currency system into being, just as the Bretton Woods accord (World Bank and IMF) emerged in the 1940s.

The absence of a credible alternative to the dollar means that, despite its depreciating value, its status as the world’s reserve currency is not seriously under threat. However, what isn’t inconceivable is that the system could change in other ways. A world where currencies traded within bands, for instance, or where foreign creditors insist on America issuing some debt in other currencies, is two distinct and real possibilities as the world adjusts to a declining dollar.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘God’s wrath’…

BOOK OF ROMANS

… I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes… just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ [Romans 1:16,17]

 

UNDERSTANDING GOD’S ‘WRATH’

Teaching from Scotland

THE DEVASTATING CATALOGUE of human perversity written upon in Romans 1:18-32 poses the question of whether God has lost his rag. Paul says three times: ‘God gave them over…’ (vv 24, 26, 28). It is his way of describing the start of God’s ‘wrath’ (v 18).

Parents cannot watch their children defy them wilfully or adopt potentially harmful behaviour patterns. And, God cannot sit by and watch people sin without any sort of reaction.

God could stamp out the bad behaviour by destroying its perpetrators at once. Or he could make long-term provision for justice to be done, for just deserts to be received, and opportunity for offenders to see their errors and to return to him like the prodigal son of Luke 15. He chose the latter, much to the dismay of victims of injustice and much to the relief of repentant prodigals.

Teachings for Sunday, 25 October 2009, are given from the New Testament Book of Romans 1:18-32

Meanwhile, God’s ‘wrath’ is not a red-faced temper tantrum. He expresses his displeasure simply by leaving us to stew in our own juices. Having given us freedom, he allows us to reap the bitter fruits of misusing it. As C. S. Lewis one wrote, “They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved.”

Sensual pleasure is subject to the law of diminishing returns: it doesn’t satisfy unless it is repeated with greater intensity. Fulfilment and pleasure are as fleeting as the wind. The wind of God’s ‘wrath’ blows away our hopes and dreams. God made us to relate to himself, in whom alone lasting pleasure is to be found.

Amen.

 

BE OF GOOD CHEER

The nineteenth-century preacher Robert Murray McCheyne died young, (1813-1843), but had made a significant impact in his seven years of ministry in Scotland. Here he writes to his church about suffering:

“God has called you to suffer, and you go, like Abraham, not knowing whither you go … Still, be of good cheer, suffer with Christ! God marks your every step … He that loves you with an infinite, unchanging love, is leading you by his spirit and providence. He knows every stone, every thorn in your path.”

 

Dedication:

• “The King of Love My Shepherd is”

 

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

Climate Change: ‘British lessons’…

POLICIES

From the desk of MD

THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE on Climate Change, due to be held in December, is focusing the world’s attention on international negotiations. International agreements are helpful but only in so far as they encourage individual countries to control their own emissions. What matters more, though, is the successful implementation of domestic policies which those countries put in place.

The report by Britain’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is an important one. It shows how weak policy can be strengthened. In particular, it describes that when the market is left to its own devices, it will fail to deliver. Consumers, for example, are not buying enough energy-efficient appliances or doing enough to insulate their homes; carmakers are failing to get their emissions down; and power companies still prefer utilising the burning of fossil fuels to greener alternatives. With such behavioural patterns brought into context, a bracing dose of re-regulation was prescribed: the CCC suggests compulsory emissions caps for cars, feed-in tariffs to help green-power producers and a state-enforced minimum carbon price to encourage nuclear and “clean” coal power stations through the provision and use of carbon sequestration facilities.

The bulk of the British ideas are good, with strong persuasive arguments in the Committee’s report as to why the initiatives in Britain should be adopted. However, there are elements which require public and political examination in pursuit of an alternative approach. No-doubt we can all agree that Britain’s headline figures in dealing with Climate Change is fairly impressive. Our greenhouse-gas emissions have fallen by 15% since 1990 – comfortably inside the targets set under the Kyoto protocol – compared with the 2% drop in the EU as a whole and a 14% rise in America. Critically, however, most of the decline in Britain is attributed not as the result of a big policy effort but of the “dash for gas” – i.e. the move away from coal-fired power stations that followed the end of coal mining. The decline has, now, almost stopped. Emissions are falling by less than a percentage point each year, and the government has admitted that it will “fail” to meet a self-imposed target of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions on 1990 levels by next year, even though the recession has cut economic activity. Policy, in other words, is not driving emissions reductions.

Cutting carbon is politically sensitive because it incurs additional pressure on energy prices. Yet, whilst the government set up the CCC with the notion of making changes, the committee should be deemed independent enough in criticising the weakness of existing policy whilst promoting ideas and initiatives that might strengthen it.

EFFECTIVELY, there are three sorts of policies now in place that help to reduce carbon emissions – carbon pricing, regulations to encourage efficient use of energy and subsidies for renewable energy. None of these are having much effect in Britain. The carbon price, set by the European Emissions-Trading Scheme (ETS), is actually too low to make a difference – not just because of the economic impact of the recession, but also because governments across the EU have resisted, sometimes strenuously, the European Commission’s attempts to impose tighter emissions limits.

…International agreements are helpful but only in so far as they encourage individual countries to control their own emissions. What matters more, though, is the successful implementation of domestic policies which those countries put in place.

It is correct to assert that Britain has become more energy efficient, year by year. Those increases have been incrementally marginal and there is plenty of scope for further improvements. Attempts, for example, to encourage renewable energy have had so little effect that its contribution to Britain’s aggregate electricity supply increased from 1% in 1995 to only 1.3% in 2005.

The CCC has a plentiful supply of ideas in how policy might be strengthened. The best of them is to simply raise the carbon price. However, that is difficult because the ETS sphere is controlled by the European Commission. Levering argument against those countries that want looser emission caps, such as Italy and the most of Eastern Europe, could, though, make inroads. If not, Britain could perfectly well introduce a carbon tax on top of the EU scheme, as France has done.

Another excellent initiative is for the government to audit the housing stock and to inform householders how to cut their emissions and their utility bills. Buildings are known to waste a huge amount of energy, and since the market has done a rather poor job of making them more efficient, some direct government action may now be necessary.

Feed-in tariffs, another idea tabled by the committee, falls short on grounds of efficiency. Such tariffs, hefty subsidies in favour of renewable energy, are far less effective than a carbon price and distort the market. Anecdotally, one needs to look no further than Spain’s solar feed-in tariff, which signalled an industrial boom and bust, something which should be guarded against given the slow recovery of domestic economies or the possibility that another economic downturn might occur in the future.

GOVERNMENTS do regard subsidies as being politically easier to handle, rather than taxing carbon. But, that is short-termist, generally quite typical of British attitudes within government and industry. In the long-term, “bad” policy will raise the costs of “decarbonising” the world economy, increasing the danger of a taxpayers’ revolt. Would that not amount to the biggest political difficulty of all?

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

(Re-live) Kelly Clarkson: ‘Because of you’…

 

From MD’s Video Juke Box:

• (By Request) Kelly Clarkson: ‘Already Gone’

Sunday Teaching & Lessons: ‘Preparing the way’…

BOOK OF ISAIAH

A voice cries out, “Prepare in the wilderness a road for the LORD! Clear the way in the desert for our God! … Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind will see it. The LORD himself has promised this.” [Isaiah 40: 3-5]

 

PREPARATION

Teaching from Scotland

PICTURE two remote towns in a hilly area, with only a footpath between them: laying aside any conservation concerns, imagine, too, the earth-movers carving a swathe through the hillside.

In ancient times there were only footpaths or sheep tracks outside the towns. The main caravan routes were only trodden-down earth. If a king or army wanted to get somewhere quickly, a battalion of engineers was sent ahead to clear the path of obstacles, bridge the worst ravines with rubble, lessen the steepest gradients, and tread down the path to reduce the risks of tripping.

Teachings for Sunday, 18 October 2009, are given from the Old Testament Book of Isaiah.

The context of this prophecy is the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon. They faced a 900-mile trek on foot. They could not build roads, but they still had to prepare for such an arduous journey. It provided the Prophet with a timeless image.

It was applied in the New Testament to the ministry of John the Baptist (Matthew 3: 1-3). It can be further applied to any Christian’s witness. There are, for instance, always boulders of prejudice and stumbling blocks of ignorance to clear away; there will always be rifts in relationships to bridge; and, steep uphill paths we must travel on our journey to win people’s confidence and respect.

Preparatory work is boring, as anyone who has wallpapered or painted a room will know. Stripping off the old layers is hard and cumbersome, but essential work. If we want people to meet God, we have to prepare them to recognise and welcome him.

 

ASK AND YOU WILL RECEIVE

… Jesus taught that those who seek God will find answers and direction. He also assured his followers that faithful prayer will be answered.

‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.’

Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.

Gospel Truth: — [Matthew 7: 7-8, 21:22]

 

The Lord taught us to pray together, saying:

 THE LORD’S PRAYER

OUR Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.

 

Amen.

[St Matthew 6:9-13]

 

The writer was formerly commissioned as a Boys Brigade Officer by the Reverend Robert Lynn, St. Leonard’s Parish Church, Ayr.

The Boys Brigade is a commissioned body and authority whose aim is to “advance the Kingdom of Christ”.

The Boys’ Brigade was founded in Glasgow on 4th October 1883 by Sir William Alexander Smith.

 

Afghanistan: ‘Policy, Politics and Generals’…

POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN?

From the desk of MD

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA is pondering one of the hardest decisions of his presidency: whether to deploy additional soldiers to Afghanistan as part of an ongoing “surge” and as requested by his General there, Stanley McChrystal. Embroiled within the question of whether to send up to 40,000 troops lies the crucial question of whether to change strategy against the Taliban insurgency.

European leaders, too, are coming under increasing pressure to do more in Afghanistan. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, may well decide to send more troop reinforcements if America’s policy transpires to follow the former policy of pursuing surging troop numbers. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, may be willing to do so too, with her re-election and freshly looking new government now safely formed. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has yet to make good on previous pledges made that his country will dispatch more soldiers to the war zone.

 

BARACK OBAMA is not only President of the United States; he is also Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. In that capacity, the decision that he makes, whilst being the most difficult of his presidency, will determine how effective he proves to be as a leader of the Western world. Will he accede to the demand of General McChrystal, Commander of US and Allied forces in Afghanistan, for a further 40,000 troops to bolster the NATO forces fighting the Taliban? Or, will he prolong the extraordinary public debate within his Administration as he searches for an elusive consensus?

---

Focus:

• CBS News, 13/10: “Obama Okayed 13,000 More Afghan Troops”
• New York Times, 14/10: “Britain to Send 500 More Soldiers to Afghanistan“
• Reuters, 14/10: “Obama holds new round of talks on Afghan strategy“

---

It is understandable, to a certain degree, that Mr. Obama has remained determined in taking his time to assess any new strategy in a war that seems far more retractable than anyone had realised. He insists that he will not be rushed, or swayed by the rising opposition in Congress, or even by the rapid deterioration in public support for a conflict that has claimed almost 800 American lives. Crucially, though, the longer he waits, the lower morale will become among the troops. Pointedly, Senator John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, has told Mr. Obama that his process of review should not be a “leisurely process” – a charge that has clearly stung and reverberated around the world.

 

DECISIONS are, now, much needed if, for anything, to avoid the charge of dithering. It is perhaps apt in remembering, too, that any War should not be run by Generals. The Commander-in-Chief is elected to decide how best to safeguard security. He should tell his commanders what the strategy in Afghanistan is; the task of military commanders, however senior, is to lay-out the military options, to warn the President of imminent and forecast dangers and to implement any decision that has been made at governmental level.

• ‘The Saturday Essay’, viz. General Sir Richard Dannatt

General Sir Richard Dannatt, who retired as Head of the British Army, last week, described General McChrystal as “very capable”, testament to his shrewdness as a military commander as well as being a candid analyst. There is no-doubt that he enjoys the trust and confidence of his troops, as well as having gained the respect of the allies and coalition forces, which also fall under his command. But his earlier announcement that the present strategy is not working, coupled with his public lobbying, is beginning to conflict directly with the reigns of power in Washington. Such disparity bolsters the resurgent Taliban’s belief that NATO is on the run.

 

THERE ARE TWO ISSUES, here, brought into sharp focus: how best to prosecute the war against the Taliban, and who ultimately takes that decision. In pursuit of the former, it shouldn’t be overlooked that the defeat of Islamist militancy is becoming ever more essential to Western security. The tactical question, though, of how to secure it is, still, secondary to the essential constitutional principles of democratic government. President Truman was vilified when he dismissed General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination in the Korean War. Yet, the decision was right. Truman confirmed, “Civilian governments” take “policy decisions”. The parallels in Afghanistan couldn’t be closer.

Such principles also extend to the UK too. Sir Richard, so often outspoken during his tenure in office, stated in 2006 that British troops should leave Iraq “some time soon” – a remark that led to Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat Leader, to term a “clear constitutional breach”.

General Dannatt has continued to test the convention of not questioning government policy, and now out of office, has been appointed as defence adviser to the Conservative Party. He looks set to be given a ministerial appointment should the Conservatives win the next General Election, due to be held before June 2010. Richard Dannatt is an admirable general, fired by commendable intentions. But, his own timing, done immediately on leaving office, will not have helped his own cause: his leap from the Army to Senior Tory ranks was hasty and will have unnecessarily stoked concerns about the politicisation of the Armed Forces. Those who continue to lead men, particularly in Afghanistan, require stability of leadership; that should stem directly from the arena of politics and elected politicians. It is the duty of Generals to implement governmental policy to the best of their ability and not seen to be openly questioning the authority of their masters.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

(Re-live firing) Mosul, Iraq: ‘U.S. Helicopter Gunship’…

IRAQ

– Helicopter gunship firing hellfire missles at taliban in Iraq.

 

Protected: BAE Systems and the Serious Fraud Office…

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Eddi Reader: ‘Dainty Davie’…

President Barack Obama: ‘Nobel Peace Prize’…

OPINION: BARACK OBAMA

VERY many congratulations to President Barack Obama who, today, has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The award has come as a surprise to many given that Mr. Obama has been in presidential office for just 8-months. However, the president’s “extraordinary efforts” in building a rich international climate and his efforts to reduce nuclear arms, in a world of tension and conflict, and the efforts which the Obama administration is continuing to make in redressing the serious issue of climate change and global warming, makes this award hugely deserving for a popular leader who understands and respects cultural and societal diversity.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

U.N. Sets Date for Iran Inspection

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

THE head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog on Sunday, 04 October, described a ‘’shifting of gears” in the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program and said inspectors would visit the country’s new uranium processing site on Oct. 25.

Mohamed ElBaradei spoke in Tehran following talks with Iranian officials over the recently revealed facility that has caused consternation around to world over the extent and purpose of Iran’s nuclear program.

”I see that we are at a critical moment, I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and cooperation,” said Elbaradei as he announced the new inspection date.

”I hope and trust Iran will be helpful with our inspectors so it is possible for us to be able to assess our verification of the facility as early as possible,” he added, while sitting next to Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s nuclear program.

The revelation that Iran has been building a new nuclear plant near the holy city of Qom has heightened the concern of the U.S. and many of its allies, which suspect Tehran is using a civilian nuclear program as a cover for developing a weapons-making capability.

Iran denies such an aim, saying it only wants to generate energy.

Obama and the leaders of France and Britain accused Iran of keeping the construction hidden from the world for years. The U.S. president said last month that Iran’s actions ”raised grave doubts” about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.

ElBaradei admitted that the International Atomic Energy Agency has ”concerns about Iran’s future intentions,” but that added that ”the agency has no concrete proof of an ongoing weapons program in Iran,” he added.

”We need transparency on the part of Iran and we need cooperation on the part of the international community,” he said.

Iran agreed to allow U.N. inspectors into the facility at a landmark meeting with six world powers near Geneva on Thursday that put nuclear talks back on track and included the highest-level bilateral contact with the U.S. in three decades.

Iranian officials argue that under IAEA safeguard rules, a member nation is required to inform the U.N. agency about the existence of a nuclear facility six months before introducing nuclear material into the machines. Iran says the new facility won’t be operational for 18 months, and so it has not violated any IAEA requirements.

The IAEA has said that Iran is obliged under the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to notify the organisation when it begins to design a new nuclear facility.

Suspicion that Iran’s newly revealed nuclear site was meant for military purposes was heightened by its location, at least partly inside a mountain and next to a military base.

ElBaradei also discussed a plan to allow Russia to take some of Iran’s processed uranium and enrich it to higher levels to fuel a research reactor in Tehran.

He said that there would be a meeting Oct. 19 in Vienna with Iran, the U.S., France and Russia to discuss the details of that agreement.

 

Source/attribution:

New York Times/Associated Press (04 October 2009)

Afghanistan: ‘America’s commitment may be waning’…

TURNING POINT?

From the desk of MD

PRESIDENT OBAMA has committed America to the long haul in Afghanistan. Heavy losses and continual dissent, though, is forcing him to reconsider the strategy and possibly even turning it on its head. Of concern to Mr. Obama is the fact that public support for the war has dropped sharply since his presidential inauguration in January.

Six months after declaring a new commitment to the war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama is under growing pressure to make what would amount to a U-turn in US policy and scale back America’s commitment to a protracted conflict that many experts, and a majority of the public, now fear may be unwinnable.

• Afghanistan: ‘Political settlement remains key’…
• Intelligence Briefing: ‘A strategy against the Taliban’

Deep divisions have surfaced within Mr. Obama’s higher echelon of advisers, thrown into the light of day by the recent leaked report of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and allied forces in Afghanistan. General McChrystal has warned that the war might be lost within a year if a further boost in troop strength and a major change to strategy is not forthcoming to combat the manifesting spread of the Taliban insurgency.

General McChrystal’s bleak assessment and outlook, coupled with Washington’s frustration with President Hamid Karzai, the Afghan leader, and the corrupt-ridden election over which he presided, has reignited a rift between Vice-President Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, over how the war should be waged.

 

BEHIND the debate lurks the shade of Vietnam. In a devastating 66-page memorandum delivered by General McChrystal, concerns were expressed relating to future tactics that the Pentagon and White House said might endanger US troops on the front lines in Afghanistan. Some commentators, such as Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, have compared the document to the secret history of the Vietnam War that caused a sensation when it was obtained by the New York Times in 1971. The so-called “Pentagon Papers” came out eight years too late, according to Mr. Woodward.

The stakes are, undoubtedly, huge. If Washington is perceived as opposing a further boost to troop manning levels, or potentially leaning towards a reduction, then other countries in the coalition, where the eight-year long war is as equally unpopular, might rush for the exits. So high are the stakes that President Obama barely even mentioned Afghanistan in his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, last week.

 

AFGHANISTAN, seen hitherto as a “war of necessity” was entered into in an attempt to curb any repeat of the 9/11 attacks, directed from Afghanistan by Al-Qaeda and sheltered by the Taliban.

Underlining Mr. Obama’s reinvigorated commitment when he came to office was an authorised increase in US strength in Afghanistan to 68,000 by the end of the year. It was then that he named General Stanley McChrystal, formerly in charge of American Special Forces, as his new commander on the ground. Later, recommendations of a further boost by up to 40,000 confronts Mr. Obama with a dilemma akin to that facing his predecessor over Iraq three years ago: to implement a surge, or not. Troubling for the President, now, is that views differ sharply within his administration.

Strategically, whilst the line is a fine one the choice is between the subtleties of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. The rhetoric and sentiments of General McChrystal would seem to lean towards the latter in preventing the Taliban from returning to power. Such a view is also shared by Mrs. Clinton.  In recent days she had scathing words for those who argued that Al-Qaeda was no longer a factor in Afghanistan:  

… If Afghanistan is taken over, again, by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast Al-Qaeda would be back.

Conversely, Mr. Biden wants a narrower focus of attention on Al-Qaeda itself – both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Notably, security forces have scored some important recent successes against terrorist operatives and its splintered allies. Under this approach, the US would require fewer forces on the ground.

Under the Biden approach, the effort would not be so much protecting the general population from the Taliban or in operating a “hearts and minds” policy to win over civilian support, but would concentrate more specifically on targeted air strikes against Al-Qaeda. This approach would rely heavily on unmanned drones (UAVs), even greater use of missile attacks and increased mobility for the Special Forces. There is also credible thinking to suggest that under such an approach the training of Afghan government forces would be speeded up.

Still, further, a third faction has emerged within Washington that advocates a compromise. This would involve scaling back the requested troop increase, or even by starting to reverse it, while at the same time trying to ensure that the country does not collapse into the abyss.

Mr. Obama and his team, including his special advisers, are continuing to study the report. The Pentagon has indicated that it will be “weeks” before a decision is made but, President Obama, once so trenchant on the subject, says that all options are now on the table. Mr. Obama, in an interview with CNN, said:

… The first question is, are we doing the right thing?

 

AS IT IS, public support for the conflict is dropping sharply, with measured divisions now emerging. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 59 per cent of those surveyed were now “less confident” that the US could achieve a successful end to the war. Over half opposed an increase in American forces, while almost 35% wanted an immediate pullout.

Such pessimism is also visible on Capitol Hill. Earlier, last month, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, gave stark warning that neither Capitol Hill nor ordinary voters are in any mood for sending more soldiers to a war that has already claimed the lives of 900 Americans. Michigan’s Carl Levin, chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, declared in August that the US should send no more troops before a “surge” in Afghan security forces. Training Afghan forces, though, up to the required standards of competence seems certain to be even more of a difficult task than it was in Iraq.

 

TO complicate matters even further, Congress is now demanding personal accounting from General McChrystal on how the war is going. But, for the moment, at least, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, has resisted the pressure and has said that the commander will only appear on Capitol Hill when a new policy has been decided. However, if US casualties and fatalities continue to grow, he may have little choice in the matter. The President appears increasingly cornered.

Mr. Obama is reminded by Republican opponents that, if the US was to wind down its commitment it would send a message of weakness and inconsistency, to its allies and foes. Yet, to press on with a long and inconclusive war in a distant corner of Asia carries perilous risks.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com, Twitter: MarkDowe2009

Labour Party Conference: ‘Prime Minister’s Speech’…

LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE 2009

Speech as given to the Labour Party Conference, in Brighton, by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon Gordon Brown MP:

AND so today, in the midst of events that are transforming our world, we meet united and determined to fight for the future.

Our country confronts the biggest choice for a generation. It’s a choice between two parties, yes. But more importantly a choice between two directions for our country.

• Watch: ‘PM’s Speech at the Labour Party Conference’

IN the last eighteen months we have had to confront the biggest economic choices the world has faced since the 1930s.

It was only a year ago that the world was looking over a precipice and Britain was in danger. I knew that unless I acted decisively and immediately, the recession could descend into a great depression with millions of people’s jobs and homes and savings at risk.

And times of great challenge mean choices of great consequence, so let me share with you a little about the choices we are making.

Mindtracker: 'Rate the Leader' -- Sky News

The first choice was this: whether markets left to themselves could sort out the crisis; or whether governments had to act. Our choice was clear; we nationalised Northern Rock and took shares in British banks, and as a result not one British saver has lost a single penny. That was the change we chose. The change that benefits the hard working majority, not the privileged few.

Iran: ‘Nuclear-enrichment facilities’…

CLANDESTINE FACILITIES

From the desk of MD

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, Iran’s President, has warned President Obama against pressing Tehran about new revelations that Iran has been constructing a clandestine uranium-enrichment plant.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s caution came during last week’s G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, after Barack Obama made a dramatic announcement that Iran has been constructing a second uranium-enrichment facility whose existence had been kept secret in violation of the non-proliferation agreements to which Tehran is a signatory.

President Obama – supported by Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and French President, Nicolas Sarkozy – warned that Iran would be held accountable if it failed to live up to its international obligations. Fearing imminent disclosure of the plant, which is being built into a mountain near the Seminary city of Qum, the Iranians were prompted to write to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to confirm its existence.

However, Ahmadinejad insists that his country was, and is not, keeping anything from the IAEA:

… We have no secrecy; we work within the framework of the IAEA.

Still, many analysts described the Iranian leader as being nonplussed when President Obama revealed the Qum plant’s existence. Ahmadinejad’s response meandered from the defensive to the aggressive. The identification of the Qum plant raises additional questions as to whether Iran is covertly operating other additional unknown sites. Mr. Ahmadinejad said:

… This does not mean we must inform Mr. Obama’s Administration of every facility that we have.

Western intelligence suggests that the site is less extensive and complex than the main enrichment plant situated as Natanz, containing only 3,000 centrifuges. (IAEA records show that Natanz has an inventory of 8,308 installed). The site at Qum is still under construction and not yet producing enough uranium. Ahmadinejad confirmed that the site won’t be operational for at least 18-months and said work on the facility was not a direct violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But, crucially, as in the case of Natanz, the second plant’s existence was initially kept secret and only acknowledged when Iran was about to be confronted with direct and invioable evidence.

President Obama’s attempt to hold the Iranian regime to account may disappoint many who have been closely monitoring and tracking the US effort to back Tehran away from the nuclear threshold – not because of any particular lack of American resolve, but because the resolve and commitment of others remains in question. Whilst the British and French have been adamant and consistent in their support, with President Sarkozy warning, that “if by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, tough new sanctions would be applied”. Germany, though, which has recently shown reticence to expand sanctions without approval from the entire European Union, has been inexplicably and notably absent from discussions concerning further action. The Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, and China’s Hu Jintao have given hints that both countries might be willing to support broader sanctions, but their failure to appear alongside Barack Obama in confronting the secret plants underscores Mr. Obama’s difficulty in building a coalition to pressure Iran.

The absence of Germany, Russia and China will come as all the more disappointing given the fact that the United States has spent more than a year in careful deliberations aimed at securing a consensus among all six countries, whose representatives will meet again with Iranian negotiators in Geneva on 1^st October. The U.S. strategy is intended to offer a clear choice for Iran: engage in broad talks without precondition, aimed at bringing its nuclear program back into line with international agreements, or, face the “crippling sanctions” of which Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, warned last spring.

Iran has proven adept over the years at dividing the international community, having weakened skilfully the effects of past sanctions and buying time to advance its nuclear programs which, in the view of some experts, has now acquired enough low-enriched uranium to enable the regime to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon.

America has placed great emphasis in recent days on Russia’s apparent willingness to support new sanctions. Mr. Medvedev’s absence from the G-20 podium during Barack Obama’s international address spoke far more loudly of the difficulty the US faces in mustering a durable coalition for sanctions. Without Russian help, it will be very difficult to build a united front, even in the light of Iran’s new transgressions.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com, Twitter: MarkDowe2009

Military: ‘RAF Tornado GR4′…

RAF Tornao GR4, low level manoeuvring (Image Credit: Michael Leek)

Nuclear Weapons: ‘A pledge to cut Trident’…

TRIDENT MISSILES

From the desk of MD

PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN seems set to endorse President Barack Obama’s ambitious goal of removing nuclear weapons from the world. According to the final draft of a resolution to be put to a rare UN summit of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the leaders will seek to resolve “a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons”.

In a show of support for President Obama’s recent attempts to withdraw nuclear arsenals, Gordon Brown is expected, tomorrow, to unveil plans that will reduce the number of Trident nuclear submarines from four to three. Mr. Obama convened the extraordinary summit-level session of the Security Council – which also includes France, Russia and China – to give extra impetus and momentum in his mission to denuclearise the world as the crisis surrounding Iran and North Korea, both intent on acquiring atomic weapons, appears to be deepening.

Understanding the world we live in is an integral part of blogging: plug-in to Mark Dowe's Journal for incisive and relevant day commentary.

The American President first proclaimed his dream of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague at the end of March. For his proposal (now) to be adopted formally by the UN Security Council amounts to a significant endorsement by the world’s leading powers. In addition, Mr. Obama’s stance is gaining rapid support amongst the non permanent members of the council, including Libya, which was, until recently, an aspiring nuclear state.

 

IN BRITAIN, the Trident programme is due to be upgraded at a cost of around £25-billion, approved by the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Britain’s stock of warheads has already been reduced by 20%; scrapping one nuclear submarine would not mean, though, it could cut-back further as the Government’s policy is to retain the minimum number needed for an effective deterrent. Whilst the decision to downsize Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet is one for the full UK Cabinet, Mr. Brown’s plan looks certain to be approved. The perception that Britain is playing its full part in global disarmament talks is an important one, as well as saving up to £5-billion. Savings from Trident seem certain to part of the Government’s public spending cuts to be used in balancing the nation’s books.

Critics argue and describe Trident as a Cold War relic, and will be disappointed by Britain’s continued commitment in retaining its independent nuclear deterrent. However, that is likely to remain “non-negotiable” because of the threat that a rogue state like Iran might acquire, or even use nuclear weapons.

 

THE RESOLUTION makes reference, and applauds, the continued efforts between the US and Russia in cutting their arsenals further as they negotiate the 1991 START treaty that is soon to expire. As in Prague, the resolution sets to reaffirm the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which comes up for review next May. Continued caution is given that nuclear materials might fall into the hands of terrorist groups.

The proposed resolution also contains clear and explicit warnings to both Iran and North Korea as they continue to defy calls to relinquish their covert nuclear programmes. The document states:

…particular concern at the current major challenges to the non-proliferation regime;

and, demands:

… the parties concerned comply fully with their obligations.

The naming of either country was thwarted by Russia and China. The stand-off with Iran remains contentious and threatens to eclipse the adoption of the resolution.

Portentously, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s energy chief, announced this week that his scientists had perfected a new generation of centrifuges for enriching uranium, and is now testing them:

… Chains of 10 centrifuges are now under test and will be gradually increased.

Worryingly, too, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remains steadfast that he will not cede the “sovereign right” for his country to develop nuclear technology, which he insists is strictly civilian in nature. Such sentiments have, again, been echoed by Mr. Ahmadinejad prior to the meeting of the Security Council.

 

NEW SANCTIONS against Iran seem uncertain. Some Western countries, such as France, indicated that they would not support any US proposals to impede Iranian imports of refined fuel. Bernard Kouchner, France’s Foreign Minister, said that he felt such a step would amount to a “full-blown blockade”.

The five permanent members of the Security Council, joined by Germany, will discuss their position ahead of new talks scheduled in Geneva on 1 October, with Iran. Washington has quietly promoted the idea of a petrol embargo against Iran that would have a big chance of hurting the regime.

If France stands fast to its belief this would likely infuriate Israel, which has been threatening air-strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites situated at Natanz, Arak and Bushehr. Israel would feel that any potential country contesting the will to discipline Iran could weaken its authority to act against a country that is continually provocative against the territory of Israel and its people.

 

Related:

• Nuclear weapons and the NPT?
• Nuclear disarmament?
• The Saturday Essay, viz. ‘European Missile Defence’
• North Korea: ‘Uranium enrichment programme’…

 

UN Talks:

• AFP, 24 Sept 2009 Obama pushes nuclear arms-free world at UN talks
• [G20] New York Times, 25 Sept 2009: Iran and secret nuclear sites

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Site Note…

NOTE

IT will be my intention this week, as far as written work on this site is concerned, to conclude the introductory openings on ‘Sociological Studies & Methods’. Further research and investigation has been needed since the opening work on this area was published.

Readers will no doubt appreciate the significance of presenting accurate information, and in keeping with internet and digital best-practices.

 

CONTINUED thanks to Alpha Inventions (www.alphainventions.com) and its members who have shown a continued interest in the work displayed on this site. AI is a tremendously powerful blogosphere tool that seeks to promote websites, worldwide.

Reconfiguration on this site is also ongoing.

 

MD

Protected: (Re-Live): ‘Battle Helmand Province, Afghanistan’…

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

UK Politics: ‘Political posturing’…

POLITICAL POSTURING

– [REVISED VERSION]

From the desk of MD

THIS SITE seeks for the establishment of an independent Scotland. Devolution has always been, in my view, a stepping-stone towards independence.

The Scottish Government is headed by a minority SNP administration at Holyrood. As part of this year’s parliamentary legislative programme in Scotland, our leader, Alex Salmond, will make possible a referendum on independence. That pledge was given before the party took office, and is a central tenet of the party’s standing. Scotland should grasp its opportunity by seeking a mandate for self-governance.

The history of the union should speak for itself. Until Devolution came into being – just over a decade ago – Scotland was nothing more than a mere region of English counties. Scotland’s industries, ripped from the heart of Scotland, was done by a former Conservative Party that sought to appease English voters. Those times should not be forgotten, and should be chalked-up by both the SNP in Scotland and by New Labour in London, before the next General Election. History in Scotland matters.

Keep out! -- Image Credit: Guardian Newspaper, 21 August 2008

Devolution was afforded to Scotland (and other parts of the UK) through the reforms made by New Labour, proposals that were rejected by Tories but, now, more than a decade on, quite conveniently accepted by them. The ideological stance of Conservatism – free markets, periods of retrenchment and serving business before the nation’s people – is a position that will continue to belie its existence and core values.

How so dire and pitiful the Tory image was after it left many hundreds of thousands of families in poverty, exasperated by their entrenched policy of dealing with poverty in absolute terms: a policy that drove many to unrelenting despair. Now, less than 9-months before the next General Election, we hear David Cameron and his cronies speaking up of the necessity (in their view) for yet more retrenchment; Tory policies that aim, in essence, to hit the less well-off, again, for the mistakes and errors of a ballooning public sector deficit created largely through financial mishandling by bankers, and the resultant multi billion pound government bail-out of a number of high street banks.

Watch one of Scotland's best singers, Annie Lennox, perform her new single "Shining Light".

To their credit, Labour, under Gordon Brown, has sought to protect the most vulnerable in society. It raised millions of children out of poverty since it came to office in 1997, and did its utmost to help people and small firms during the current economic downturn. In terms of the General Election, I believe people will reflect on the tough political decisions that Mr. Brown made in helping the economy to move out of recession. The Tories, though, had no suitable alternative plans; at best Conservative politics could only be described as half-baked, evidenced from the lack of substance in all of its counter initiatives. Still, many have been skewed by Cameron’s deft aptitude when making public announcements. Look a little closer, and most if not all Tory policies are framed that hide bigger questions. Shakers and movers, Tories seek to gain office by whatever it takes. The Tory bandwagon and its relentless pusuit for office is opportunism that masks its utter distaste for redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor. That much is certain.

The Conservative Party remains the greatest threat to the Union as we know it. No- one outside of England requires nor needs a Tory party in office at Westminster. Its values are alien to all other parts of the United Kingdom, and we should never need, or see a desire for voting in a Tory party that can only rupture the Union even further.

 

Highly recommended reading:

• Anne Johnstone, Herald Scotland, 17 September 2009: “Working problems with simplifying benefits”

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

 

Danxia Landform: ‘Gansu Province, China’…

Red Sandstone: This unique geological phenomenon, known as a 'Danxia Landform', can be seen in several places in China. This example is located in Zhangye, Gansu Province. The colour is a result of millions of years of accumulated red sandstone and other sediments which have dried and oxidised -- Image Credit: HAN CHUANHAO / XINHUA / LANDOV

G20: ‘Financial reform and regulation’…

G20 FINANCE

From the desk of MD

THE LATEST ROUND of G20 talks, involving finance ministers and central-bank governors, was held in London just over a week ago. They last met in London in April, and prior to that in Washington, DC, last November, when fear and uncertainty reigned following the near collapse of financial markets around the world. Meetings held on September 4-5^th took place against a different backdrop.

The global economy is still fragile but far more stable than it was six months ago. The argument now is how best (and when) to withdraw fiscal and monetary stimulus packages as against knowing and understanding what more needs to be done. The meeting between ministers and bank governors has set the stage for a gathering of national leaders later this month in Pittsburgh; the emphasis directed towards the implementation of expansionary policies “until recovery is secured” and “transparent plans to withdraw those programmes” when the time is right.

Understanding the world we live in is an integral part of blogging: plug-in to Mark Dowe's Journal for incisive and relevant day commentary.

The build-up to this latest meeting was driven largely by noisy European calls, orchestrated by the French and Germans, to rein in bank bonuses after a round of rather extraordinary quarterly profits. On financial reform, though, not much discussed was new. Rather, ministers duly made compensation and governance reform as matters for priority. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), a Basel-based body of regulators, is to report to the Pittsburgh meeting with detailed proposals on global standards concerning pay disclosure and structure. A French suggestion to impose absolute caps on bonus payments, whilst not out-rightly rejected, seems to be headed for the long grass.

Overhauling compensation structures has been part of G20 thinking since the Washington summit, so isn’t exactly new in terms of addressing liquidity concerns. Even those who have previously promulgated a free and uninhibited market agree on the need for some change. Whilst the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in Britain issued guidelines on compensation policy in August that adheres to the principles set out by the FSB in April, others such as the Americans have moved much less quickly on pay: a broad consensus does exist among international regulators (and within most of the industry) that large chunks of bonus payments be deferred and that “clawback” provisions become commonplace enabling firms to reduce variable pay if risk-taking decisions go wrong.

The basic framework behind financial reform was made known at the Washington meeting: higher base capitals, a greater focus on systemic risk, and countercyclical rules in forcing banks to build better bank buffers during healthier times. A range of initiatives are under way in each of these areas, with some having started to yield positive results – such as the higher capital charges for instruments like the collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Swift progress is likely to be difficult. Many issues are highly technical which, by implication, infers that rule-making will take time. Many of the initiatives currently being considered would also likely have the effect of dampening growth and so will not be implemented while economies are fragile and weak.

 

IF LONDON’S G20 gathering on September 4^th and 5^th struggled to find anything new to say, much may be the same when officials meet up again in Pittsburgh. However, governance reform within the IMF may provide world leaders with one major breakthrough. For some politicians, like Gordon Brown, who argued for a new Bretton Woods Accord – one that is fit for modern day challenges – any headline-grabbing agreement on IMF reform would be welcome. Others may say that reform of the IMF will hardly matter because reforming the world’s financial system is bound to take time; resolving the problem of global finance, whilst critical, will require an ongoing process of international conciliation. Others argue, too, that the row over pay is largely synthetic and underlines just how difficult it is for any one country to press ahead alone with measures to constrain the industry.

Yet, too, there are dangers. Agreeing the detail of reform is much harder than merely setting the direction. Recent worrying fractures between the U.S. and U.K, on the one hand, and the continental Europeans, on the other, on how much tighter the rules on a bank’ capital needs to get, has exposed divisions in how supervision is meant to improve, or how new regulations might be implemented. The supervision and resolution of large, cross-border institutions have yet to produce answers to sensible calls for meaningful change. Tier-1 capital ratios are an important aspect for consideration.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Darfur: ‘New mediation efforts crucial for peace’…

SUDAN’S WESTERN REGION

From the desk of MD

MEDIATION and fresh effort is currently being made in Sudan’s ravaged western region of Darfur in an attempt to resolve a 6-year conflict that has claimed the lives of at least 300,000 people. Violence erupted in 2003 after rebels attacked Sudanese government forces.

The situation in Darfur is incredibly volatile. When the outgoing commander of the United Nations and African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission in Darfur, known as UNAMID, General Martin Agwai, recently declared that the war in Sudan’s western region “had all but dried up”, he stirred a ferocious argument. Many in the region are loath to accept that the nature and scale of the violence in Darfur has changed at all. The evidence, though, is quite clear; violence does still rage, and the UN must accept some of the blame for failing to do more to stop it.

That, by contrast, more people have died in inter-ethnic fighting, this year, in the southern Sudanese state of Jonglei than in Darfur, is hardly a compelling argument. There, bigger clashes are more common. Though the death rate in Darfur, a controversial measure, is widely accepted to be below what aid agencies consider the threshold for an emergency, campaigners say that “genocide” is still taking place and refute otherwise any attempt to dilute the seriousness of the position. The U.S. refuses to acknowledge that Darfur is in the grip of genocide, but critics argue this would be the American stance because such an acceptance would require a deployment of huge military resources.

 

GENERAL AGWAI accepts that there is still no peace in Darfur. The fragmentation of rebel groups, for instance, into gangs of armed bandits, has left the region as dangerous as ever, and less predictable. Often, aid workers and food convoys are attacked. “Low-level fighting” is still creating additional displacement, refugees who must join the 2.7-million others in the camps that litter Darfur. UNAMID has largely failed to stem this violence.

Of course, General Agwai’s task has been frustrated by circumstances beyond his control. His protection force arrived early in 2008 but is still less than 75% of its mandated strength of 26,000 soldiers and police. Such manning would represent the largest such UN peacekeeping force ever deployed. Logistical support, too, is less than the General craved for. He sought for 18 military helicopters, an essential and vital asset in the remote desert regions of Darfur. To date he has received none; an impediment when one considers that the affected region is similar in size to France. General Agwai also faces concerted bureaucratic obstruction by Sudan’s government.

 

YET, UNAMID has always had substantial assets at its disposal. It has rarely intervened to stop the fighting that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives throughout the last six years. Though it has made some effort to boost security in Darfur’s towns, rural areas remain largely unprotected. Even in the towns, security is best described as patchy. A fortnight ago two UNAMID peacekeepers were kidnapped in Zalingei, provoking a response from an aid worker who was reported as saying:

…If they can’t handle their own security, how can they protect anyone else?

 

RODOLPHE ADADA, a Congolese diplomat, largely seen as ineffective, has recently stepped down from his position as political head of UNAMID. Since then, others have attempted to take the lead in reviving peace talks in Darfur, stalled since the failure of a conference in Libya in October 2007. Encouragingly, Thabo Mbeki, acting on behalf of the AU, and a former South African president, is looking at how so-called ‘hybrid courts’ might be used in prosecuting those responsible for war crimes in Darfur.

The basic tenet behind Mr. Mbeki’s plan is in offering an alternative legal framework that Sudan’s government might find more acceptable than seeing some of its officials facing trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, which has already indicted Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese President, and two of his top men. An international arrest warrant, issued by the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC for Mr. Bashir, on crimes against humanity, seems largely irrelevant so long as he remains in Sudan. Greater international collaboration is needed if the ICC’s arrest warrant is to realise its desired objectives. This is difficult because so many countries (including the United States) refute the legitimacy of the ICC’s standing. Mr. Mbeki is expected to report back to the AU later this month. A compromise over the ICC wrangle might possibly let Sudan’s government be more willing to make concessions that could just lead to a political settlement in Darfur.

A variety of other mediators are also engaging, including the Qataris and a new US special envoy to Sudan, who are actively encouraging the disparate rebel groups to resolve their differences and by forming a more coherent negotiating body. Such a goal might be achievable but will require time and patience. Splintered fragmentation of the rebels into warring factions over the past three years has been the main reason for the lack of progress towards peace in Darfur. With diplomats now shuttling between the capitals of Egypt, Libya, Qatar, Sudan and elsewhere, a little hope is held out that something might come of it.

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

 

Appendage:

• Darfur: ‘Google related pages’

Michael Marra: ‘Green Grow The Rashes, O’…

 

GREEN GROW THE RASHES, O

Chorus

Green grow the rashes, O
Green grow the rashes, O
The sweetest hours that e’er I spend,
Are spent among the lasses, O,

There’s nought but care on ev’ry han’,
In every hour that passes, O
What signifies the life o’ man,
An’ ’twere na for the lasses, O.

Braveheart: ‘Battle of Stirling’…

• Edit — 11/09/2009: For a second part production (coming soon), please visit Scotland: ‘2009 is Year of Homecoming’…

Related:

• Declaration of Arbroath
• Scotland: ‘Why independence is needed’…