AllAfrica.com is running a Business Day article on South Africa’s interests at the upcoming China-Africa Forum in Beijing. it would appear that, while South Africa is “keen to see increased aid to” Africa, it is particularly “interested in gaining greater access to the vast Chinese manufactured goods market”, mainly in the form of cuts “in Chinese tariffs on goods to which value has been added” since it is “the only country in Africa that exports manufactured goods to any large extent”.

Furthermore, much like happened when South Africa and China reached an agreement on SA’s textile industry, the article points out that “SA is likely to push for a Chinese commitment to voluntarily restrict exports when local industries are threatened”.

South Africa’s overall thinking was quite clearly expressed by its Reserve Bank governor, Tito Mboweni, who said: “Let’s strengthen our relations with China.” He pointed out that while “The US might still be portrayed by some as the major economic growth engine in the world … in reality that picture was changing”, with China contributing more now (24.5%) to global domestic product than the US (16.3%). This should no doubt worry the US and Western markets, since they are the largest trading partner of South Africa in terms of total trade, with Germany and the UK falling second and third respectively. Historically, South Africa has always been within the Western sphere of influence, but this may change.

From China’s point of view, South Africa is probably the key to the continent, for two main reasons. The first, obviously, is trade related, because South Africa is quick becoming Africa’s new “colonial” power. While SA woos China to try and restrict its exports, SA has not been so kind to the rest of Africa. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, “South African foreign assets throughout Africa totaled about $5.1 billion in 2004, spanning a wide range of sectors from telecommunications to mining”.

South Africa accounts for about 25 percent of Africa’s total GDP and has produced striking trade balances with less developed African economies - a concern to regional leaders.

In Zambia, South Africa has supplanted former colonial power Britain as the country’s largest foreign investor. South Africans have poured about $300 million into Zambia since 1993, according to the Zambia Investment Centre. In 2005, Zambia held a trade deficit of more than $600 million with South Africa. Moreover, nearly half of Zambia’s imports are South African.

As David Robins, Pick n’ Pay’s deputy chairman acknowledged “[South African firms] have kind of moved in with a significant amount of brute force on the African continent.” This has led to the same sort of criticisms against South Africa that have been used regarding China’s threat to local businesses. It would seem, then, that being a favoured ally with South Africa would secure access to the rest of the continent, at least by proxy.

Secondly, South Africa is viewed as a top priority in terms of a possible diplomatic ally on the UN Security Council. Currently, SA holds a two-year, non-permanent seat on the Council, but has been pushing for the inclusion of African and Latin-American countries to have permanent seats on the council and a veto. As the Business Day article noted, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma held talks on Thursday with China’s equivalent, Li Zhaoxing “to discuss SA’s upcoming membership of the United Nations Security Council”.

Several studies have predicited that “globalization is likely to take on much more of a “non-Western face”", with China and India giving it “more of an Asian look and feel“. South Africa, it would seem, is fast becoming a poster-boy for this global trend, as is Africa as a whole.

There’s been a lot in the press recently regarding the upcoming China Africa forum to be held in Beijing this weekend. Officially, the purpose of the summit is clear: to promote political dialogue, and to boost trade ties between China and at least 48 Africa’s 53 states.

However, as the New York Times puts it, unofficially China is hoping to “redraw the world�??s strategic map by forming tighter political ties” with African states that have turned their back on Europe and the United States. No doubt this is both historical - African countries have never forgotten European colonial dominance, and US interference during the Cold War that led to such tyrrants as Mobutu - and it’s also pragmatic: China is the world’s fastest growing economy, has massive reserves of $US and, more importantly, they’re following a policy of don’t ask don’t tell:

“It is never our view that a country should interfere in another country’s internal affairs,” Deputy Foreign Minister Zhai Jun said last week. “We’ve never imposed on other countries our values … and we do not accept other countries imposing their values on us either.”

This has proven beneficial for such countries as the Sudan. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, visiting China for the summit, “rejected a 22,500-strong U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur”, while at the same time he “thanked China for its support in the face of western pressure over a humanitarian crisis”. Another beneficiary has been Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, who has been shunned by the West due to his human-rights abuses, and has found support from China in helping to continue to sustain his regime in the face of massive unemployment, food and energy shortages, and economic meltdown. A deal with China and Angola for a $2 billion loan that helped that country avoid issues with the IMF regarding corruption.

The driving force for China’s interest in Africa is obviously driven by the need for oil and raw materials, such as iron ore and copper, to sustain its economic growth. Trade in the first ten months of 2005 jumped by a massive 39% on the back of massive investment into oil - primarily in Angola and the Sudan (25% of its oil imports come from these two countries), but also Nigeria, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “China’s manufacturing sector has created enormous demand for aluminum, copper, nickel, iron ore, and oil” and, because of instability in the Middle East, they are focusing elsewhere for suppliers instead, such as South America and Africa. In addition to raw materials, China also “sees Africa as a growth market for its military hardware”, and also “textile manufacturers, for example, are reportedly investing in African factories”.

The increase in Chinese influence and arms sales has drawn criticism because of the don’t ask, don’t tell, see no evil approach China has taken. The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, for example, commented that “In Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the Chinese government has shown that it is eager to embrace dangerous and or unsavory regimes in order, among other goals, to secure access to oil.” Former US assistant secretary of state for Africa Walter Kansteiner adds: “Does it worry the U.S. government that China is aiding and abetting Robert Mugabe? Yeah, it does and it should. You know, he’s a bad guy, doing bad things to his people. And so, if Beijing is supporting and helping him, from a policy-maker’s point of view, that’s counter-productive.” World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz also recently criticised China because “Chinese lenders “do not respect” a set of internationally agreed principles to ensure that loans to African countries fund projects that meet high social and environmental standards”.

All this is, of course, highly hypocritcal in light of the fact that US arms sales and military aid to Africa continue to increase (the US accounts for roughly 40% of the world’s arms sales). Also, as David Kang, a visiting professor of East Asia Studies at Stanford University, notes: “The United States is highly selective about who we’re moral about. We support Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia�??huge human-rights violators�??because we have other strategic interests. China’s not unique in cutting deals with bad governments and providing them arms.” Lastly, if the World Bank wishes to talk of “high social and environmental standards”, one only has to look at the Chad debacle (see also here) to understand that the World Bank has no leg to stand on.

US businesses also deal with less than wholesome regimes, such as in Azerbaijan where western countries turned a blind eye to corrupt elections in 2005, as well as brutal crushing of dissidents because Azerbaijan was a strategic Western ally (contrasted with support for Georgia’s revolution primarily where the western world had less influence). Despite being one of the world’s most corrupt countries, BP happily pointed out that “The desire of the [Azerbaijan] government to make this work has been key to our decision to stay. Conditions are very favorable to foreign investors here.” Oil trumps human rights, since the new Baku-Ceyhan pipeline will soon be transporting around one million barrels of oil per day for Western markets.

The real reason for criticism of China’s actions is, of course, their growing influence in the Third World, specifically Africa, in a way that undermines US strategic goals. As the New York Times pointed out, China believes its African influence “will give their diplomats an advantage at the United Nations and other international organizations, where African countries can constitute a powerful voting bloc”. Couple that with their growing influence in the traditional sphere of South America, and its easy to understand US concerns, especially since they’re mired in an increasingly unstable Middle East.

The US’s goal in the Middle East has always been about securing oil and energy, not necessarily only for its own possible consumption needs, but to ensure control of “two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions” which “would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination” (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard). As noted in the Monthly Review, since the National Security Strategy of the United States was announced in 2002, it has focused on increasing “its activities in West Africa, centering on those states with substantial oil production and/or reserves in or around the Gulf of Guinea”. They cite Richard Haas, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, as saying that “sub-Saharan Africa is likely to become as important as a source of U.S. energy imports as the Middle East”, and point out that the US has stationed bases throughout the region, primarily under the guise of the “war on terror”, but mainly because “the real issues are not the African states themselves and the welfare of their populations but oil and China�??s growing presence in Africa”:

For the Council on Foreign Relations, all of this adds up to nothing less than a threat to Western imperialist control of Africa. Given China�??s role, the council report says, �??the United States and Europe cannot consider Africa their chasse gardé [private hunting ground], as the French once saw francophone Africa. The rules are changing as China seeks not only to gain access to resources, but also to control resource production and distribution, perhaps positioning itself for priority access as these resources become scarcer.�?� The council report on Africa is so concerned with combating China through the expansion of U.S. military operations in the region, that none other than Chester Crocker, former assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Reagan administration, charges it with sounding �??wistfully nostalgic for an era when the United States or the West was the only major influence and could pursue its…objectives with a free hand.�?�

The unfortunate reality is that, if history is any judge, the scramble for Africa between China and the United States shall have the same effects on Africa that occured during the Cold War: regimes playing the fears of both interested parties off one another; dictators and tyrrants kept in power in order to further strategic aims; wars fought by proxies in the battle for mineral resources; and the continued suffering of local populations. Some do express hope that the Chinese “will be forced to take account” of issues such as corruption, as well as the concerns of the African people and not just their elites. But, as long as competition between China and America persists in Africa, such concerns may well not be in their self-interest.

Ha’aretz is reporting that flights used by the CIA to transport terrorist suspects stopped over in Tel Aviv. The “straw” company owning the plane, Prescott Support, is apparently a front for the CIA. The interesting thing, though, is that you can go here and have a look at photos of the plane in question. It seems to get around, with photos being taken as far back as 2001, in a variety of places including Malta, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Iceland, USA, Portugal, Malaysia and Singapore.

When Michael Franti mentioned in the opening scenes of his new film I Know I’m Not Alone (you can buy it here) that he was growing “frustrated” at the reporting on the Middle East, I could relate. I can’t say I’ve always been political, and I wish I could proudly confess that I’ve always been aware and concerned about what was going on in the world. The truth is, I used to avoid reading or watching the news in South Africa, and I remember complaining to my step father that there should be a “good news” newspaper out there, as if the media were supposed to stop reporting the bad stuff and everything would be fine. When the fall of apartheid exposed whites for the first time to the crime that had plagued black communities for decades, you became desensitized and frustrated at the monotony of reporting, and preferred instead just to close my eyes, at least for a while.

Fortunately for us, Franti wants to keep his eyes wide open. Taking a camera, a few friends, and his guitar, he heads to Iraq, Palestine and Israel, hoping to bypass the politicians and the soundbites and speak to the people on the ground, see how they live and listen to what they think. He talks to taxi drivers, shop owners, families, children, musicians, soldiers - the everyday people who rarely, if ever, have a voice on television. I could probably count the number of documentary films that have truely moved me through their simplicity and power on one hand. This most certainly belongs at the top, and I wouldn’t mind calling this one of the most lovely pieces of film I have ever witnessed.

First and foremost, Franti is a poet, so the film is layered with his songs and lyrics reflecting the world he sees and hears around him, and his ideas and thoughts about that world. Of course, Franti goes out of his way to try and find musicians in each location: in Iraq, a death metal band; in Palestine, a trio of hiphop artists; in Israel, he jams with an excellent group of Israeli musicians.

One of the wonderful things about a smile and music is that they’re excellent ways to break down barriers between cultures. Time and again, he is welcomed with open arms into families singing “Habibi” (an Arabic term for showing someone you love them), bringing smiles and laughter to children running along rubble-strewn streets and pock-marked buildings. Generally, though, it seems as if his music is Franti’s way of expressing himself to the viewer. While he himself does sometimes talk to the camera directly or with a voiceover, or he speaks to those he meets, it is the voices of the people he meets that have center stage: Franti sings about what he thinks, but we hear from them what they live and feel.

What is highly enjoyable is that Franti is not trying to impose his thoughts or ideas on the people who are living through occupation or terror. As he explains towards the end, he doesn’t want to choose sides, except for the sides of the “peacemakers”. He just wants to know what they think and, in turn, to let them tell us, the viewer. When ex-Saddam dissidents tell him that if Iraq invaded America, and Americans fought back, they would be considered to be fighting for their country instead of being terrorists, or when someone else tells him the Americans should leave, he doesn’t attempt to argue or justify what’s happening. Nor, when he plays to a room of American soldiers, does he try and judge them even though it’s clear that Franti doesn’t agree with the reasons that they’re there. The film is more effective in its subtlety and non-confrontational style, something that a number of documentary makers could learn from.

There are some genuinely touching moments that are inspirational testimonies of the human spirit, one of the most poignant being towards the end when a Palestinian and Israeli soldier talk to one another about the possibilities for peace and friendship. Religion, says the Israeli soldier, must not be part of the government of either side otherwise that leads to trouble. There’s a nodding of heads, and understanding between two people portrayed as mortal enemies.

All in all, I cannot recommend this film highly enough. It is exceptional, and deserves to be watched all over the world because its message is cultureless and timeless. From the Israeli army dissenters courageously speaking out, to the Palestinian mother who sleeps on the street because she’s afraid her house will be demolished around her; from the Israeli and Palestinian families who’ve lost loved ones and have come together to find forgiveness, to the Iraqi taxi driver who just wants peace. There are beautiful tales here that deserve to be heard, and to be witnessed by eyes that should no longer be closed.

I had an interesting conversation on the weekend with some friends, talking about Second Life, what it was, what it meant and so on. I held the view that Second Life fulfilled the requirements of being a type of drug, maybe even an hallucinogen, a highly addictive virtual substance that affected your senses and altered perception and reality. Having become addicted to old-school MUD’s in the mid-1990’s, I generally avoid online gaming as my addictive personality tends to not know when to quit, except perhaps too late (failing university was one consequence). So, when I hear of people dying from playing online games too much, or committing suicide, this strengthens my overall view that these things should be treated with extreme caution.

But something my one friend mentioned got me thinking. He asked, paraphrasing: “What’s the difference between what you do in Second Life, and what you do on, say, eBay? Or Amazon? Or any other internet activity?” And that’s, strictly speaking, true. A quick look at Second Life’s homepage shows 1.4 million users, and just over half a million dollars (US) spent in the last 24 hours (as of 16:51 GMT). But that’s not all. People have real-world business conferences in Second Life’s virtual setting, there’s traditional advertising and marketing and a virtual world representation of real world stores, musicians perform concerts, people buy, sell and rent virtual land, run businesses, and have legal disputes. People even play games within Second Life, as well as have traditional developers and coders within the game itself. There’s even porn.

What does it all mean? Is it just a game as many characterise it? Is it an OS or application platform as some people have suggested? Perhaps they’re both right. Myself, I view it as simply providing spatial references to the concept of “cyberspace”. (Perhaps we can call it “cybatial” if we want to get geeky). In Roger Clarke’s excellent work, Paradise Gained, Paradise Re-lost, he points out that “various experiences of using the Internet have” a “common” them, namely that “participants indulge in a ’shared hallucination’ that there is a virtual place or space within which they are interacting”. This is, incidently, where I thought that Second Life was a hallucinogen, but obviously the idea of Second Life being a drug applies to the internet as a whole.

The real significance of Second Life is that it has carried out what McLuhan termed the narcissus effect, named after the mythical story of Narcissus who saw his reflection in a pool of water and fell in love with it, eventually dying as he was unable to tear himself from gazing at the reflection. As he says in Understanding Media, “in the true Narcissus style, one is hypnotized by the amputation and extension of his own being in a new technical form”. What Second Life has accomplished is to amputate the physical bodies of its participants. You’re no longer just going to a webpage from your browser, you’re walking to a store or flying to a conference on an island.

What Second Life demonstrates is what the Internet of Things may well look like. Second Life 2.0 (as in the unknown future incarnation of Second Life or an equivalent) will be not just about amputating ourselves, but also our real-world objects once they are embedded with RFID, as well as places and locations. A virtual-world representation of the physical world is not too hard to imagine where you’re able to walk around your own home, invite guests over and have them interact with whatever you have in your house all within the confines of your computer. Got a new widescreen plasma? You buy it from the store, log online, and you can show it off to your virtual neighbours. Perhaps you could pop on some VR goggles and really walk around looking at a 3D representation of your home, design a few objects in Second Life, and have a fabber create them for you, all while a friend from Australia sits on your couch talking to you. Hey, nice Plasma.

As Cypher says in The Matrix, “It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, ’cause Kansas is going byebye”.

I even suspect that real world geospatial data will be transplanted into “cyberspace”, meaning you could have a situation where you could physically interact with the real world - walking down the street, for example - but actually be viewing yourself in the game. Imagine: being able to live in a game, forever, that exists parallel to the real world. It’s not hard to conceive, because it does seem to be happening, slowly but surely, and Second Life is simply another sign of this, a reflection in the pool, not just of ourselves, but increasingly of our world.

In a recent post on the John Hopkins study of 655,000 deaths in Iraq since the US invasion, William Arkin asks: “Is the Hopkins study correct, and can reasonable non-partisan people feel comfortable with the conclusion that Iraq has suffered about 15,000 violent deaths a month every month since the U.S. invasion, about 500 deaths a day? I think not.”

This is just the latest in a long line of statements coming out against the study. Bush, for example, declared that, “I don’t consider it a credible report. Neither does General (George) Casey (top U.S. commander in Iraq) and neither do Iraqi officials”, calling the study’s methodology “pretty well discredited.” Casey commented that the figure “seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I’ve not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don’t give it that much credibility at all.” (Although Casey couldn’t confirm where he got his 50,000 figure from). A spokesman from the Iraqi government said, “The report is unbelievable. These numbers are exaggerated and not precise.” UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett was a lot more reserved, saying, “The report gives a figure which is orders of magnitude different from any other source… nobody else has come up with figures on this scale… the report has been criticised by the Iraqi government as unreasonable”, but a spokesman for Blair was more forward: “It’s not [a figure] we believe to be anywhere near accurate”.

What annoys the hell out of me is not that people question the study - that just makes good sense - but that they pick and choose which studies to question. For example, in the Sudan, the press routinely takes estimates of deaths there also generated from studies also using estimates and, in some cases, using very similar methods, without question.

A recent study (by Hagan and Palloni) concluded that around 170,000 to 255,000 thousand people had died in Darfur (but the authors believe it much higher at near 400,000), while a Coalition for International Justice study caused Hagan, in an earlier analysis using the CIJ data, to conclude that the death toll was at around 390,000. The CIJ study, incidently, was “based on semi-structured interviews with 1,136 randomly selected refugees at 19 locations in eastern Chad. … The field data for the 1,136 interviews were compiled using a standardized data entry process that involved the collection and coding of detailed information from each refugee respondent�??s set of answers. The researchers then used a statistical program to aggregate the data and analyze the results.”

My, that sounds very familiar. As pointed out in the John Hopkins newspaper, “These same survey methods [for the Iraq mortality study] were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions.”

Don’t know about you, but I have yet to read in the press refutations of the figures presented for these countries. Does the press publish columns or articles lamenting the fact that this is impossibly high? That it’s incorrect or too high? Of course not. The Washington Post went on about “Why has the world failed to act?”, pointing out that “Darfur has all ingredients for international intervention”, while citing the Hagan/Palloni study that the death toll was around 200,000 - 400,000. MSNBC also said that Hagan and Palloni’s study was the “first scientifically rigorous estimate of the death toll” and it showed “that the pessimists were right”. And so on. I also note with some amusement that, in 2005, the WaPo concluded in an editorial that Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick needed to “cite better numbers” - referring to Hagan’s original study - because if “his international partners … are allowed to believe that the death toll is one-third of its real level” the killing in Darfur will continue.

The real bottom line is that it’s easy to accept the Sudan estimate because they’re not, strictly speaking, “our” victims, but the Iraqi’s are. Of course the John Hopkins study will not be correct but it is by far the most accurate measurement we have to date; that’s the crucial point. The state of the country at the moment means it’s impossible for there to be any proper way of knowing the real figures (one of the reasons why the Sudan estimates and studies are also likely to be the most accurate assessment of casualties).

Read some sad news today: The renowned Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was found murdered in a lift on Saturday, the 7th of October, believed to have been killed by a man “in his twenties dressed in a black cap, seen just before neighbours discovered her body in the lift”.
Continue reading »

BBC4 just screened Nahid Persson’s Prostitution Behind The Veil, which was nominated in 2005 for an Emmy award. It also one a Guldbagge in Sweden for best documentary in 2005, and. achieved honours at the Creteil International Women’s Films Festival.

Born in Iran in 1960, Nahid Persson fled the country over twenty years ago and now lives in Sweden where she has studied microbiology. She also founded a radio station there. In 1993 she began studies at Film-och TV Skolan, and received master class education from 2003-2004. (Danish Film Institute)

The film was excellent, if rather shocking. Persson has returned to Iran “make a documentary, but not this one.” In Iran, “she finds the divisions between the classes greater than ever, unemployment has skyrocketed and widespread disillusionment provides a lucrative market for an elderly man, Habib, who sells prophecies on the streets” using canaries to pluck random, written predictions from a box. Deciding to make a documentary about the fortune teller, while filming “she was both shocked and intrigued to discover” Habib shared “his accommodation with Minna and Fariba”, two female prostitutes who are both heroin addicts. As Persson explains, the two “women were happy that someone was interested in their plight”:

“We had a natural relation. We trusted each other,” Persson says. “They even asked me on several occasions to go with them when they were going to meet some of their regular customers, because they were from some police station. But I didn’t do it out of the fear that I had to film someone who wears the uniform of a pasdar [Iran’s Revolutionary Guard]. And it was also better for them that I didn’t do it.”

Both women had become drug addicts due to addicted husbands. Fariba was given it by her husband to treat her kidney pain, and slowly got addicted; eventually “her husband sends her into the street and tells her, ‘Go bring clients.’” According to the film, Fariba had two children, one of which she still had, but the other, a three month old baby, was sold off by her husband. Minna’s story was similar in that her husband was arrested for drug running and more, and she turned to prostitution when she ended up living on the street with her child. She claimed she had no idea of his crimes, but he did get her onto drugs, too. Both women are often forced to take their children with them as they seek clients.

The film reveals how Shia Islam law can be used to “legally” conduct prostitution:

Men in Iran can find a way to buy sex and still comply with Muslim law by way of “Sighe,” a temporary marriage legal in Shia Islam. A Sighe marriage can last from two hours up to 99 years. Both Minna and Fariba participate in this pseudo-marriage with many of their customers

The film is well made, and sympathetic to the characters, and reveals a hidden side to Iran, where an official Iranian report concluded in 2000 that “Drug addiction is the rage among schoolchildren, prostitution has increased 635% among high school students and the (growth) rate of suicide in the country has exceeded the record by 109%.” The film looks at some of the prime causes of this: unemployment and poverty, and the fact that contraceptives were banned after the Iranian Revolution which led, from 1970 to 1990, to an almost doubling of the population from 28.4 to 54.6 million people.

All in all the film is worth watching to try and gain a better understanding of the social issues Iran faces.

In a statement released on the internet from Osama Bin Laden, he said that:

�??It is a fundamental principle of any democracy that the people choose their leaders, and as such, approve and are party to the actions of their elected leaders… By electing these leaders, the American people have given their consent to the incarceration of the Palestinian people, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the slaughter of the children of Iraq. This is why the American people are not innocent. The American people are active members in all these crimes”

It is this principle that he was citing when he warned American citizens ahead of their election in 2004 that “”Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands.” He also repeatedly cites religious texts to “fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.”

I mention all this because I was shocked to read, in the Jerusalem Post today, the idea that “once noncombatants have been warned, the IDF bears no moral responsibility for their lives if they are unintentionally killed along with terrorists, arms and ammunition stockpiles”. Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba, Chief Rabbi of Safed Shmuel Eliyahu, the chief rabbi of Kiryat Shmona, and head of the Birkat Moshe Hesder Yeshiva, Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitz, all seemed to agree with this type of view. In fact, I was rather stunned by Rabinovitz’s statement in particular, which said:

“It is Hizbullah’s fault if these people are killed, not ours. Islam aspires to rule the world. Warfare is a means to this end. We are involved in a struggle for survival against radical Islam. That is the reality. A nation that ignores this reality and fails to do everything in its power to protect its own people runs the risk of extinction.”

It’s astounding because it is a mirror image of bin Laden, who talks about “a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims” by America and Israel, and that “militant struggle … is aimed at defending sanctity and religion” against “an enemy who is attacking religion and life”.

If anyone can tell me the difference between these two positions, I’d certainly like to hear them. As usual, we’re not responsible, we’re justified, and you’re the bad guy.

One of my favourite skits from The Mitchell And Webb Look, currently showing on BBC Two on Thursdays, 9:30pm (GMT) is the Nazi Officer skit (view it here). They also have a MySpace site here. Well worth watching, utterly hilarious!.