大象传媒

(this week's newsletter)

I trust you鈥檝e been feeling well-loved this week 鈥� because President Sarkozy of France loves all of us. He adores us, admires us and wants to move in with us. (Apologies to my non-British readers: in this context 鈥渦s鈥� means 鈥渦s Brits鈥�.)

He has smothered us in love, he has ladled love upon us in such quantities that it has been difficult to breathe. He has flattered and flirted so outrageously that his new wife, the delectable former model Mme Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, must have been left wondering if his affections have already moved on.

So how should we react? Well, it鈥檚 always nice to be loved and admired 鈥� and Gallic charm can go a long way. But we鈥檙e grown-ups, aren鈥檛 we, and we know that a flatterer鈥檚 intentions are not, shall we say, always strictly honourable.

鈥淣ations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.鈥� Lord Palmerston, 19th century prime minister and foreign secretary, knew a thing or two about foreign relations -- and I suspect he would not have succumbed to M Sarkozy鈥檚 blandishments. Nor, I fancy, will Gordon Brown.

Yet we did learn something important during the French president鈥檚 visit. He is unusually pro-Anglo Saxon in his outlook; he thinks the UK has shown France the way forward. True, he may be a lot more showy than Mr Brown, but the two men do share a deep admiration for Margaret Thatcher.

For the best part of 30 years, France and Germany have been the motor that drives what is now the European Union. (When it started life as the EEC, its main purpose was to prevent those two countries going to war again.) But M Sarkozy is not a huge admirer of the current German chancellor, Angela Merkel, nor she of him. It has long been a British dream to come between France and Germany, and now, maybe, the dream has come true.

Or maybe not. Lord Palmerston was right about national interests 鈥� and it may well be in France鈥檚 interests to cosy up to Britain, but it is certainly not in its interests to cold shoulder Germany. M Sarkozy isn鈥檛 changing friends; rather he wants some new friends while keeping all his old ones.

What it means is closer cooperation between Paris and London when it suits both parties 鈥� but only then. As for relations between Paris and Washington, the 71-year-old Republican presidential hopeful John McCain likes to joke: 鈥淔rance now has a pro-American president, which just goes to show you that if you live long enough, you'll see everything."

A close aide of M Sarkozy鈥檚 told me at the time of his election last year that the President got on famously with Tony Blair, but found Gordon Brown a lot harder to read. Like Mr Blair, he has a way with words, is a great charmer, and delivers a great speech. None of which can be said of Mr Brown.

Yet I fancy the prime minister would agree that the Royal Gallery in the Palace of Westminster has rarely witnessed a tour de force such as that delivered by the French president on Wednesday. Together, he said, France and Britain can rule the world. 鈥淚f the United Kingdom and France together want more justice, the world will be more just. If the United Kingdom and France fight together for peace, the world will be more peaceful. If the United Kingdom and France unite to brave the rising economic storm and jointly propose the necessary reforms, the world will be less uncertain and more prosperous.鈥�

We shall see. Back home, French voters are none too impressed with their flamboyant President鈥檚 performance so far 鈥� and yesterday the French newspaper commented acidly that M Sarkozy had seemed just as British in London as he had seemed American in Washington.

A final word about Mme Sarkozy: some of my colleagues say she reminds them of Audrey Hepburn. I agree she鈥檚 elegant and charming, but for me, La Hepburn will always be, as they say, nonpareil.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It鈥檚 been a while since I brought you up to speed on the US presidential election drama 鈥� so here鈥檚 a summary for those of you who have better things to do than to follow every twist and turn.

10 things you should know:

1. No, it鈥檚 not over yet.
2. No, the Democrats still haven鈥檛 decided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
3. But 鈥� and this is the important bit 鈥� it鈥檚 now virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. Obama has more delegates at the party convention in August, and has won a bigger share of the popular vote during the primaries. There are still a few more to go, but the pundits have decided the gap is too big for Clinton to close.
4. The next key date is 22 April, when Pennsylvania holds its primary. Even if Clinton wins, which she almost certainly will, it won鈥檛 change things a lot.
5. After that, wait for North Carolina on 6 May. Obama will win that, and then the party grandees will start telling Hillary it鈥檚 time for her to concede gracefully.
6. Yes, Obama was damaged by the reporting of some of his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright鈥檚 sermons, but yes, he did recover with his well-received speech in response. (The text is , and it鈥檚 still worth reading.)
7. Yes, Clinton was damaged when she erroneously claimed that during the war in Bosnia, she鈥檇 flown in to the war zone and dodged sniper fire. After video footage showed that she didn鈥檛, she issued a statement saying she 鈥渕is-spoke鈥�.
8. Whoever the Democrats end up with, the opinion polls are suggesting it鈥檒l be an unbelievably tight race against the Republican candidate Senator John McCain. The election website currently has McCain beating Obama by 1.3 per cent, or Clinton by 0.3 per cent. In other words, there鈥檚 nothing in it 鈥�
9. The conservative radio talk-show host is urging Republicans to sign up as Democrats and vote for Clinton in the remaining primaries, on the grounds that the longer this goes on, the better it is for the Republicans.
10. But some Republicans worry that their man McCain has a notoriously short temper. Once the election proper gets under way, they fear he may lose it.

The election itself is on 4 November. Just 32 weeks to go 鈥�

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is the man to open a new chapter in Pakistan's turbulent political history? Even more intriguingly, could he be the man to gently shunt President Pervez Musharraf into retirement?

It's just possible that the answer to both questions is Yes.

Yesterday was, by any standards, a remarkable day in Pakistani politics. After a parliamentary election last month which went unexpectedly smoothly (by Pakistani standards, anyway), and resulted in an unexpected defeat for Musharraf, Monday saw an overwhelming victory for the man chosen by Benazir Bhutto's PPP and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League as their candidate for Prime Minister.

And what did he do? He immediately ordered the release of all the judges who'd been placed under house arrest last November by Musharraf. What's more, his orders were immediately carried out. I spoke to one of the most senior of the judges, Khalil ur-Rehman Ramday, last night: when I asked him "Are you a free man?", he replied: "So it would seem." "It's too good to be true," he said. "But it is true."

So where does this leave Musharraf? On his own, and virtually powerless. Was this the game plan all along? Who insisted he must hang up his army uniform? Who also insisted that he must go ahead with promised parliamentary elections, even after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto? Did his friends in Washington and London know that this is how it would end up?

The fervent hope in Whitehall now seems to be that he will fade gently into the night. A retirement home already awaits him, I'm told, and he's being encouraged to accept the end of his political career with as much dignity as he can muster.

But don't start celebrating just yet. The coalition partners in government are not natural bed-fellows, and there are plenty of people (jihadi Islamists and recalcitrant army generals, for example) who would dearly love them to fail. Pakistan's recent history is not littered with success stories, so it would be wise to wait a while before passing judgement. But at the very least, I would suggest that yesterday offered just a glimpse of a better future for a people who surely deserve one.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I鈥檇 perfectly understand if you鈥檇 rather not think about money this weekend. But you鈥檒l probably have noticed that the words 鈥渇inancial crisis鈥� have been much in the air again this week, and I think we need to try to make sense of what鈥檚 going on.

I鈥檓 one of those people who get a headache just looking at a bank statement. So this hasn鈥檛 been an easy time for me. But I labour long and hard on your behalf, and I think I鈥檝e got the hang of it.

It goes, I think, something like this. Suppose I ask you to lend me 拢50. How you respond will depend in large part on how much money you have. If you don鈥檛 know exactly how much you鈥檝e got 鈥� if you鈥檝e already lent out oodles of dosh but you鈥檙e not sure you鈥檒l ever get it back 鈥� well, you may politely tell me to look elsewhere. And if you鈥檙e just one of many in the same position, I鈥檒l find it pretty tough to get my hands on that 拢50.

I will be, to use the technical term, the victim of a credit squeeze. And I will be in pretty much the same position as many of the world鈥檚 biggest banks. No one wants to lend, because no one is sure any more how much is in the coffers.

Last Tuesday, my colleague Jonty Bloom explained it all in wonderfully simple terms in an essay which you can either hear again via the Listen Again facility, or you can read the transcript which I鈥檝e put online .

Here鈥檚 the key passage: 鈥淚t all started with sub-prime lending. There is a lot of ignorance about what sub-prime actually means, but it is quite easy really: sub-prime is a euphemism for rubbish. American banks lent lots and lots of money to people who couldn't pay it back because they were too poor to. That was bad enough, but the banks made it worse by then passing on the risks of not being paid back by bundling together thousands of good and bad mortgages and selling those bundles on to other banks around the world.鈥�

Have you ever heard of a 鈥淢insky moment鈥�? was an American economist who used to argue that markets are inherently unstable and that if you have a long stretch of good times, you鈥檒l just end up eventually with a bigger collapse.

His reasoning went like this: When times are good, investors feel so confident that they take on more risk. The longer the times stay good, the more risk the investors take on, until, one day, they've taken on too much. They reach a point where the cash generated by their assets is no longer enough to pay off their debts. That鈥檚 when the lenders start to call in their loans 鈥� and asset values collapse. It sounds horribly familiar, doesn鈥檛 it?

So perhaps capitalism has a built-in contradiction. It thrives on private risk 鈥� and the notion that the bigger the risk, the bigger the potential reward. But if too many people lose too much by taking on too many risks, the state has to intervene, because it鈥檚 in no one鈥檚 interests for the whole edifice to come crashing down.

The financial regulatory agencies are meant to keep an eye on the banks to make sure that they behave sensibly. But Jonty Bloom has a theory: that people鈥檚 memories are just a fraction shorter than the typical economic cycle 鈥� so that there鈥檚 always a period when they come to believe that this time things are different: that they have reinvented the wheel, that the force of gravity has been overcome.

So do yourself a favour. Write a note in big black letters, and stick it somewhere where you鈥檒l see it every day. 鈥淲hat goes up, must come down.鈥� And if you know any bankers, give them a copy too.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

You can read the full text of the Barack Obama speech on race -- and it's worth your while to do so, because I fancy it's going to be much discussed, debated and dissected over the next few days. I'll leave the verdict on its political effectiveness to others who are not constrained by 大象传媒 editorial guidelines -- but I will ask just one question.

Is it Senator Obama, the former editor of the Harvard Law Review, or his speech-writers who don't know the difference between "who's" and "whose"? I've checked several online versions of the text as provided by the Obama campaign, and they all agree that he referred to "the white man whose been laid off ..."

Ouch.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's too early to say "I told you so" but there are already worrying signs that some of the concerns voiced ahead of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence may have been more than justified.

A Ukrainian police officer serving with the UN police in the northern flashpoint town of Mitrovica of injuries sustained during yesterday's fierce clashes with Serbs -- and Quentin Peel of the Financial Times has a perceptive piece on the wider regional ramifications and Russia's manoeuvring.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

of the Financial Times makes an interesting point about European leaders and their fondness for grand-sounding initiatives. The Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has launched an "Alliance of Civilisations" (what do you mean, you've never heard of it?); and President Nicholas Sarkozy of France is trying to push something called the "Mediterranean Union".

Rachman suggests that the Europeans risk looking irrelevant, but he adds: "Irrelevance is not such a bad fate. The US is relevant alright - but it is also involved in two draining wars, and has hugely expensive security commitments all round the world."

To which one of his readers has commented: "You might say that the US is engaged in two draining wars and has expensive commitments precisely because Europe has made itself irrelevant through a lack of defence spending and a focus on soft power. Quite simply the defence umbrella created by the US after WW2 has helped allow Europe its long slide into the background (there are other reasons, including demographics, but top of the pile is reliance on the US). But the European focus on soft power is wrongheaded - it didn鈥檛 help in the Balkans and it hasn鈥檛 helped anywhere else either."

What do you think? Is Europe irrelevant because it prefers to rely on "soft power"?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Have you noticed how Iraq rarely makes the front pages any more? Maybe it means that, at last, things are getting better there?

Fraid not. Yes, for several months last year, as the US 鈥渟urge鈥� policy put more than 20,000 extra troops in and around Baghdad, violence fell. But now the trend is upwards again: on one day alone this week, more than 40 people were killed. It鈥檚 beginning to look as if the bombers are back.

I got a message this morning from a young medical student in Baghdad. This is how she movingly described what鈥檚 happening. 鈥淒o you know what the most difficult thing is? When you have cancer. And your doctors are assuring you that you're really getting better, and that the tumour is declining, but in reality it turns out that it's only a latent period for the cancer cells, and that those cells have exploited this latent period to gather their strength and start to become apparent again. Can you imagine the disappointment when you find out this horrific truth? You'll feel so alone. And because your loved ones have got used to the idea that you're actually getting better, then they'll need a lot of time before getting used to the idea that your condition is deteriorating.鈥�

I spoke last night to a senior US military spokesman in Baghdad, Rear Admiral Greg Smith. As you鈥檇 expect, he put it rather differently 鈥� but he accepted that the death toll trend is upwards again. (You can hear the interview here, together with an assessment from the president of the in Washington, Jessica Mathews.)

Here鈥檚 an account from last week of a day in the life of my Iraqi medical student friend. 鈥淭oday I was supposed to have my big obstetrics exam. The majority of the main roads in Baghdad are blocked since yesterday because of the visit of [Iranian president] Mr Nijad to Baghdad. Early in the morning today at about 6:45am my driver came to my house to pick me up to go to college, my two girlfriends were in the car (it's extremely unsafe for Baghdadi girls to use the public transport to move around in Baghdad, so I and 3 of my best girlfriends have hired a private driver in order to take us to college). As we got closer to the district in which my college lies, a roadside bomb has exploded at a close distance ahead of us. So we all decided to go back home. On our way back home, another roadside bomb has exploded also at a close distance behind us. I saw the other car flying in the air. So in the end we got back home. And we missed our obstetrics exam. And that's a very ordinary day of our ordinary daily Baghdadi life.鈥� (You can read her blog .)

Within the next few months, the extra 20,000-25,000 US troops who made up the 鈥渟urge鈥� will begin to go home. It is likely that the upward trend in violence is the start of a new attempt by, in this case, mainly Sunni militias to reimpose their authority in areas where the Americans had, for a time, taken control. Over the past five days, 15 US servicemen have been killed.

But according to a survey by the Pew Research Center, as reported in the today, fewer than one-third of US voters know that the total US military toll in Iraq since the invasion five years ago is now approaching 4,000.

So how long, I wonder, before Iraq returns to centre stage in the US presidential campaign? Because it may well be that by the time of the election in November, violence in Iraq will be considerably worse than it is now. According to Pew, in a single week last month, coverage of Iraq made up just one per cent of total US news coverage. I suspect that is about to change.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I'm writing this at just after 1 a.m. on Monday morning, and with nearly all the votes from yesterday's general election counted, we now know that the Spanish Socialist party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will continue as prime minister for another four years.

The prediction is that he will end up with 169 seats in the 350-seat lower house of parliament, that's five more than he had in the last parliament, but still not an overall majority. The main opposition party, the Partido Popular, will have 154, which is up six. The big losers are the fringe leftist party, the United Left, which lost three seats, and the left-wing Catalan nationalist party, which lost five.

What does it mean? Well, it means that the socialists' victory four years ago was not just the result of popular anger over the then government's handling of the aftermath of the Madrid train bombings. It also means that, although the Spanish economy is not in great shape, voters seem to think that Mr Zapatero is best placed to see them through the next few difficult months and years.

And it also means, I think, that the Partido Popular's lacklustre leader, Mariano Rajoy, will be bowing out soon. He failed to impress during the much-watched TV election debates, and he has now lost two consecutive general elections. Winning a few more seats may not be enough to save him.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Here麓s a thought for you (turn away now if you can麓t bear another word about these two). But if you麓ve been wondering how they could ever decide who should head a joint ticket, if that麓s what it eventually comes to, maybe they should try a job-swap.

When I was a Middle East correspondent in the mid-1980s, rival Israeli politicians Shimon Peres (who麓s now Israel麓s president) and Likud leader Yitzhak Shamir agreed to form a coalition administration on the basis that half way through its term, they麓d swap jobs: the one who was Prime Minister would become Foreign Minister, and vice versa. No one thought for a moment that they麓d go through with it, but they did.

So how about it? Hillary and Barack toss a coin, and the one who wins gets first try for the White House. If they win, he/she does two years as POTUS (president of the United States), and then hands over.

A White House job share. How麓s that for "change"?

UPDATE: You thought I was joking? It's not a joke at all, according to this piece on

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I麓m in Barcelona to report on the Spanish general election. The last time that I was here, Spain was still under the rule of the Fascist dictator General Francisco Franco. It was more than 35 years ago 鈥� and it was illegal to speak the Catalan language in public, or to fly the Catalan flag.

Well, you won鈥檛 be surprised to learn that things have changed a bit since then. Barcelona is now not only one of Europe鈥檚 most vibrant and successful cities, it is also the proud capital of a resurgent Catalunia, which enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy from the central government in Madrid, but where some people hope that one day they鈥檒l be an independent nation again, as they were until the early 18th century. (Think Scotland, but with more sunshine.)

And that鈥檚 one of the main reasons why I鈥檓 here. On Sunday, Spanish voters will be asked to elect a new parliament 鈥� for the past four years, the Socialist party led by prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has been in power, but if he鈥檚 to win again this time, he鈥檒l need as much support as he can get from the Catalans.

The signs are that he鈥檒l probably scrape through, but it could be tight. The Spanish economy is in the doldrums: house prices are falling, unemployment and inflation rates are rising, economic growth is down. And there鈥檚 rumbling unhappiness about immigration: the construction boom of the past decade has been largely fuelled by migrant labour from Morocco, Latin America, and Romania, and 10 per cent of the Spanish population were born abroad. (Yes, that includes all the Brits who鈥檝e retired to the Costa del Sol.)

Last night, I was at a huge Socialist party rally in a sports hall just next to Barcelona鈥檚 vast Olympic stadium. More than 25,000 of the party faithful were there, waving flags (more Catalan flags, in fact, than red flags), and cheering party leaders as they forecast victory on Sunday.

Four years ago, as you may remember, the last general election was held in the immediate aftermath of the Madrid train bombings in which nearly 200 people were killed. The right-of-centre government of Jose Maria Aznar was unexpectedly kicked out by voters furious at its response to the attacks: its original claim was the bombings were the work of the Basque separatist movement ETA, whereas as it soon became clear, they were carried out by Islamist jihadists linked to al-Qaeda.

This time, Spanish voters have a chance to make their decision in a more tranquil environment. But like voters in many other European nations 鈥� Italy, where an election is due in just over a month鈥檚 time; France; Germany; and Britain 鈥� they are uncertain about their future. A long run of economic growth is coming to an end, and large movements of immigrants, as a result of globalisation and the expansion of the European Union, mean there are questions about the nature of their societies.

Here, more than three decades after the death of Franco, voters also have a chance to show whether Spain can now be regarded as a mature European democracy. After the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo last month, Catalans 鈥� and Basques in the north of the country 鈥� have to decide how hard to push for more autonomy, or even independence. As a Catalan nationalist MP said to me yesterday: 鈥淲e are not Kosovo, but we are encouraged.鈥�

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

After a week of renewed violence in Israel and Gaza -- hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel; more than 100 Palestinians killed by Israeli military action in Gaza -- there are more people asking: Why don't they just talk to each other? A recent Israeli opinion poll suggested that two-thirds of Israelis would favour direct talks with the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas, if it led to a lasting ceasefire, and there are some people already talking, albeit at an unofficial level. An Israeli and a Palestinian -- calling themselves Peace Man and Hope Man -- are talking via their joint blog .

You can hear them talking to each other here.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I may live to regret this -- but I have a hunch that Hillary Clinton may do rather better tonight in Ohio and Texas than many people have been predicting.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

You may have missed it, but a senior White House aide called Tim Goeglein on Friday, just 12 hours after being accused by a blogger of plagiarism in a column he wrote for his local newspaper.

Not a world-shattering event, perhaps, with all the other excitements around ... but for an explanation of how a single blog can tip a Presidential advisor over the edge, I highly recommend this from the blogger who started it all, Nancy Nall Derringer, writing at Slate.com

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?