Pyongyang on the Amstel

Ladies and gentlemen, the long wait is over! For everyone who has ever wondered what it is like to visit the hermit kingdom of North Korea, but couldn't get that elusive visa, wonder no more. Soon to open in the world capital of debauchery: North Korean Restaurant Pyongyang.

They have sky-high hopes of the place too:
"A lot of people from outside of Amsterdam will visit because of the unique experience. The large South-Korean community living in Buitenveldert, part of Amsterdam will mainly visit in the evening. It will be visited by many people to have a first meeting with North-Korea. It will be a meeting point of people interested in culture but also business."


I'm already thinking that it will rival the It's A Small World Afterall ride in Disney Land as the most wonderful place on earth. Where you will be able to savour the exquisite and unique food the people of North Korea, courageous workers that they are, haven't tasted in decades; where the beautiful servant girls dance and sing for the greater glory of the Eternal President, the Supreme Leader and the Brilliant Comrade; where all the ills of the capitalist west are forgotten the moment one takes up the karaoke machine's microphone.

Of course, this new Eden might never see the light of day. They have some very specific requirements for potential employees, including speaking North-Korean and at least a year's worth of experience working in a North Korean restaurant. And with only one North Korean living in the whole city of Amsterdam, (Dutch language alert) it's not looking hopeful. Holding back tears at the thought of this restaurant not opening is almost impossible. Why, oh why Dear Leader, for whom the waves cease their raging and on whom the sun has placed it's brilliance, don't you ride to the rescue of your celestial restaurant? Or send your son, the Brilliant Comrade, on whom the mountains ever smile and to whom the sunflowers look for their guidance, to our aid in this, the hour of our need?

Defence cuts: Money or Military Judgement?

In an earlier post I argued that spending cuts should never be justified solely on the basis of saving money. Any cut should serve to streamline government, do away with non-essential assets or improve services. Yet this view often gets snowed under in the relentless torrent of money-saving measures, as the picture given by ministers often emphasises only the amount of money saved. This was also true for the cuts to the defence budget announced weeks ago.

The scrapping of HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier aircraft was 'sold' to the public by stressing that it would save more than a £100 million, but the military consequences were largely glossed over by ministers. The UK would be without carrier-based aircraft for ten years, leaving a gap in the defensive strategy of the country and causing worries about Britain's ability to defend the Falkland Islands. As Con Coughlin argues in his Telegraph column today this should not particularly worry us, as Argentina does not appear to be willing - or even possess the military capability  - to invade the island group. He might well be right. However, Coughlin then goes on to suggest that Harrier should not be scrapped because the aircraft might be necessary to strike at Al Qaeda in Yemen should they ever succeed in commiting a terrorist act on British soil.

Ministers have always said that the cuts to the defence budgets would never impair Britain's military capabilities, without ever explaining in detail how this would be so. For instance, if the Royal Navy could do every thing it needed to do without an aircraft carrier duing the next decade, why the need to continue the construction of two new carriers to be completed in 2020? They never gave, at least in my view, an adequately answer. This gives the appearance that scrapping Ark Royal was done just for financial reasons.

But now at last ministers are beginning to counter this fear. Lord Astor, the BBC reports, has said 'the decision to scrap Harrier had been a "military judgement" and not just about costs. He added: "Deleting the entire Tornado fleet would save three times more money." He said the defence review had been "tough but fair".' I'm not sure whether a Tornado aircraft is better than Harrier aircraft, and the government's position that it is may be true, but the arguments that this is so should not be financial but military in nature. Lord Astor's comments iare a promising start, and the MoD should now continue by informing the public of what those 'military judgements' were.

Nick Clegg and Election Pledges, Not a Good Match

Nick Clegg's comments on ITV's Daybreak today beg the question: why does this make him, and his fellow Lib-Dem MPs look so untrustworthy and opportunistic? Having signed a pledge, before the general election, committing him and his party to not voting for any rise in higher education tuition fees, he now, as a member of Her Majesty's Coalition Government, makes an about-face and supports the near trebling of fees. His exact comments on Daybreak - as reported by the BBC - were: "I should have been more careful, perhaps, in signing that pledge at the time. At the time I really thought we could do it." He then sets about backtracking from that pledge, signed in the full knowledge of what he was committing himself to politically, by blaming the state of the finances and the compromises he had to make to join the Coalition.

It's understandable that Mr. Clegg now wants to distance himself from his pledge, yet this pledge is not so easibly abandoned. It was a major plank of the Lib-Dem election campaign. Something, they claimed, set them apart from the Conservatives and Labour. This is what he said at the time (and click on the link to see a nice picture of a proud Mr. Clegg with his newly signed pledge):

Labour and the Conservatives have been trying to keep tuition fees out of this election campaign. Despite the huge financial strain fees already place on Britain's young people, it is clear both Labour and the Conservatives want to lift the cap on fees . . .The Liberal Democrats are different. Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good, including for part-time students . . . Students can make the difference in countless seats in this election. Use your vote to block those unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all.

Indeed, if you look at the election results, I think you'll find that the Lib-Dems won a great number of seats on the back of the student voters they so actively wooed. If those students now abandon them the Lib-Dems are in danger of being reduced to a rump party at the next election.

On the one hand, yielding to the circumstances of the times is brave and may sometimes even be the wise thing to do. But to make such a big deal of a cast-iron pledge only to then abandon it months later without even the merest semblance of fighting for what you believe, is not brave, nor wise. It smacks of rather dastardly opportunism and makes it seem like Mr. Clegg will say and do anything for swift electoral gain.

A few Lib-Dem MPs are made of sterner stuff and have signalled their continued opposition to tuition fee rises. They have realised that a politician is worth no more than his word of honour and a promise made cannot lightly be broken. Voters will except a change of heart if it is genuinely based on changing facts and circumstances, but they will see through simple political trickery.

Aim of Protest Lost in Flames

The money quote of the day comes from Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU) (Evening Standard):

“It speaks volumes about the anger and concern of students and academics in further and higher education at what this government is trying to do.”

Why, you may reasonably ask, is this remark so hilarious? Well, it seems that the protesters out in force today to march against the proposed rise in university tuition fees were so angry that they turned into a maniacal horde intent not on peaceful and lawful demonstration, but on the destruction of what I can only suppose they regard as their sworn enemy, the democratically elected government of the United Kingdom.They are angry and concerned, indeed, and they told the Conservative Party about it by assaulting Conservative Party HQ in Milbank Tower. If all these students take away from their university education is that the correct way of showing your disagreement is to throw a massive anger-tantrum, then I doubt a trebling of tuition fees will bring in enough money to raise the standards of British higher education.

Whatever message the protesters had to send has now been swept away by the flames of phoney outrage. Any protest that turns into a riot should not be acknowledged by amending the plans for fee-rises. If they want to be heard, demonstrators need to police themselves better and weed out the riotous elements early on. Now, sadly but inevitably, the majority of peaceful student protesters have to suffer because of the minority who could not act in a grown-up manner.

Squatting Is Nine-Tenths of the Law, Apparently

The famed anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote in 1840 that "property is theft". This slogan has since been carried all over the streets of the world on banners and pamphlets by countless thousands of anarchist activists. On would accordingly expect that today's anarchists would remember these three simple words that inspired some many of their ideological forebears. And I was given to understand that squatters in Western Europe often claim to be anarchists, or at least to be inspired by anarchist theories. But now it seems squatters in the Netherlands have abandoned the simple creed of Proudhon for that capitalist phrase 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'.

In September Parliament finally passed a law making squatting illegal, one of the few good initiatives taken by the former Dutch government under Prime Minister - and Harry Potter look-a-like - Jan Peter Balkenende. No longer would law-abiding property owners have to fear waking up one morning to find their houses or offices seized by balaclava-wearing youngsters. Even the left-wing mayor and aldermen of Amsterdam, usually favourably disposed to squatting, said they would uphold the law and start evicting squatters as soon as possible. So that was that, or at least that's what everybody thought.

Squatters, not content with returning their newly-conquered homesteads to their rightful owners, began claiming protection under the European Human Rights Convention, which prohibits someone from having his home taken from him without judicial fiat. Yes, squatters, having taken a home from its owner by simply occupying it and refusing to leave, in what seems to me clear violation of the Human Rights Convention, now claim protection under the same. What's worse, as the Dutch public broadcaster NOS reports, a bleeding-hearted judge is actually going along with this idiotic - there's no other word for - line of reasoning.

Squatting is robbery, plain and simple and squatters should not expect the law to support them. When news of the impending ban first emerged, squatters took to the streets carrying placards saying "your laws, not ours" meaning that they did not obey the democratically-made laws of society. Yet now, in the face of certain eviction, they choose not to make a stand based on ideals, but surrender quickly and claim the protection of the laws they claimed to despise. I always thought, misguided and abhorrent and criminal though their actions were, squatters at least were led by ideals. But no, they are nothing more than opportunistic hypocrits and they should be treated as the crminals they are.

Are the Unemployed Going To Be Forced To Work?

All the British newspapers are full of it today: the proposal by the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith MP to force people on unemployment benefits to do work placement for four weeks or lose their benefits for three months. There seems to be some confusion on the exact terms of the scheme however. The Observer is reporting it as entailing that everyone on benefits will have to participate in work placement or have their money taken away. But the Telegraph writes that the placement scheme will only be forced on those people who are 'work-shy' and failing to do enough to actually find employment. Since the White Paper containing the details will only be released later this week we will have to wait to see who is right.

In either case there is much to be said for forcing those on benefits to spend their time doing something productive in exchange for getting money from the government out of the taxes paid by those in work. (in the interest of fairness I should disclose that I myself am currently unemployed, although I am not on benefits) This is especially true with regards to the 'Telegraph version' of the proposal. Unemployment benefits are intended to help an individual who loses his job through that -hopefully short - period that he is looking for another job. It is meant to temporarily stand in stead of a regular salary so the jobless do not go hungry. It was not meant to go on forever and ever while the jobseeker sits on the sofa.

In exchange for paying unemployment benefits the government may, on behalf of society, demand from the beneficient the effort that he does whatever he can to find new employment. If he does not, why should he continue to receive benefits? This does apply to someone who is trying to find work, responding to vacancies every day, but for some reason beyond his control can't get a break. Yet if someone does not even try to do his best to find work, he should not be rewarded for his laziness. Seems quite fair to me.

If the 'Observer version' is the correct one, it is not that easy, though. Work placement schemes often involve the most menial of jobs, cleaning rubbish on the street, stuff like that. It is unlikely that doing such things will give a jobseeker any relevant experience that he needs to find payed work. But maybe that's not the point. Maybe the point is simply to give the unemployed a "sense of work", as Mr. Duncan Smith is quoted as saying on the BBC website. This might be useful, although I'm not prima vacie convinced it is. We'll just have to wait and see.

Someone who has not waited is Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The BBC has him saying the following - and I'm quoting it in full as the foolishness is worth it:

"People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.

"People often are in this starting place, not because they're wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them, they've failed to break through into something and to drive that spiral deeper - as I say - does feel a great problem."

In cases such as these, when despair has set in and a jobseeker is feeling completely useless, giving him that sense of accomplishment that comes from simply being out doing something from 9.00 till 5.00 will not harm him. It might just pull him out of that 'spiral' and give him hope. Hope that he may yet find work and hope that at least society has not yet given up on him and is contend to let him sit at home alone.

Cameron Should take a Stand for Freedom

China is acting like a bully in a playground. Ever since the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Liu Xiabao has the communist Middle Kingdom been telling off every human-rights-respecting country in the world for applauding - or at least not criticising - the decision. Some countries, like France, have decided to refrain from mentioning the award in their dealings with China and have been rewarded for their silence with lucrative commercial contracts. Fearful as they are of losing the friendship and goodwill of the economic Dragon of the Orient, these countries look the other way when it comes to upholding their own human-rights standards. They take at full face value the threat uttered by Cui Tiankai, a high ranking Chinese diplomat (quoted in the Telegraph):

“The choice before some European countries and others is clear and simple: do they want to be part of the political game to challenge China’s judicial system or do they want to develop a true friendly relationship with the Chinese government and people?” He added: “If they make the wrong choice, they will have to bear the consequences”.

With David Cameron about to head to China for talks with President Hu Jintao, it is now the turn of the United Kingdom to decide on the importance of human rights and liberty for its relation with other states. Will Britain speak up for the values it professes to hold dear, or will economic opportunity force its acquiescence to the unknown horrors of the jail cell, the anguished tears of the torture chamber and the terrible silence of the execution ground?

As far as I'm concerned Mr. Cameron has no choice but to take a stand for freedom and raise China's human rights record when he meets Mr Hu. I have little hope that it will have any effects on China's actions - I am realist enough for that - but at least it will show the Chinese leadership that there are limits to the reach of their economic power. It will show them that not every country will meekly submit to their coarse demands for silence. Mr Cameron now has the chance to show true leadership and raise the standard of liberty that West says it defends and upholds. He should not merely follow in the lock-stepped footfalls of all the Presidents and Prime Ministers who held their tongues in the hope of not offending the jailers that rule in Beijing.

PS. Just as I was about to post this I saw on the BBC News website that Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist responsible for the beautiful 100 Million Sunflower Seeds display in the Tate Modern, has been placed under house arrest for the simple act of wanting to celebrate the impending demolition of his Shanghai studio.