When in Europe Watch What You Say – EU Attempts to Restrict Free Speech. Media Missing in Action

From The Brussels Journal
By Paul Belien

If all goes as planned, the 27 member states of the European Union will soon have a common hate crime legislation, which will turn disapproval for Islamic practices or homosexual lifestyles into crimes. Europe’s Christian churches are trying to stop the plan of the European political establishment, but it is unclear whether they will be successful. The media are silent on the topic.

Last April, the European Parliament approved the European Union’s Equal Treatment Directive. A directive is the name given to an EU law. As directives overrule national legislation, they need the approval of the European Council of Ministers before coming into effect. Next month, the Council will decide on the directive, which places the 27 EU member states under a common anti-discrimination legislation. The directive’s definition of discriminatory harassment is so broad that every objection to Muslim or homosexual practices will be considered unlawful.

Read the rest of this entry >>

European Left Is More Dangerous for Jews than the European Right

From The Brussels Journal
By Soeren Kern

Jewish groups in Europe and the United States have reacted with alarm to the gains made by far-right political parties in the recent elections for European Parliament. Right-wing and nationalist parties posted significant victories in Austria, Britain, Denmark, Hungary, Romania and the Netherlands in four days of voting that ended on June 7.

The Paris-based European Jewish Congress (EJC), an umbrella organization for Jewish communities in Europe, said: “As we assess the results of this week’s elections, one disturbing trend has already crystallized; the gains made by extreme-right groups is a Europe-wide phenomenon. The success of the far-right and nationalistic parties that won seats in the elections on the basis of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic platforms points to a clear erosion of tolerance and a clarion call to European officials to immediately engage in intercultural dialogue. The success of such rabid groups as The Freedom Party in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party in Austria (FPO), the Danish People’s Party, the British National Party, and Jobbik in Hungary, among others, will sadly only serve to embolden those who espouse the dangerous concepts of extreme nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.”

The New York-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said it was “deeply distressing that the blatantly anti-Semitic parties received so many votes,” and called on European leaders to “ensure that anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry never again gain a foothold in Europe…. It is imperative that European leaders do not remain silent, but speak out and reject the hateful and bigoted worldview of parties of the far-right and their supporters.”

The Geneva-based World Jewish Congress (WJC) said: “Far-right parties and extremists have made gains across Europe amid protest votes and low turnout for the European Parliament (EP) elections. The elections were held in all 27 EU member states from Thursday to Sunday last week. Support for centre-Left parties and governments collapsed across the EU as fringe parties, picked up protest votes.”

Although these and other Jewish groups are not alone in their concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, their fear of the far right often obscures the indisputable fact that some of the greatest threats to Jews (and Israel) in contemporary Europe stem from the left side of the political aisle. Indeed, it is no big secret that all across the European continent, left-wing intellectuals are playing a crucial role in making anti-Semitism seem respectable. Of course, they are (usually) careful to promote their hatred of Jews only indirectly. Instead, modern anti-Semitism is typically disguised as anti-Zionism and an obsession with Palestinian victimhood.

European Judeophobia often takes on new life forms such as anti-Semitic boycott campaigns and anti-Israel demonstrations, the growing intensity of which the European left not only overlooks or obscures but often actively supports. It is transmitted by Europe’s left-leaning mass media, which not only believes that the systematic demonization of Israel promotes the postmodern and postnational ideological worldview of Europe’s governing class, but also appeases the wrath of Europe’s Muslim immigrants, lest they expose the myth of European socialist multicultural utopia.

As the European left intensifies its common cause with the Palestinian movement, Islam itself has emerged as a major threat to Jewish life in Europe. Although definitive statistics are scarce, most of the acts of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions in Europe in recent years seem to be perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Indeed, a 2003 report published by European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) attributed the increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe mainly to Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups. But those findings were so embarrassing that European left-wing elites quashed the report and commissioned another one. A subsequent EUMC report, which used a more politically correct research methodology, concluded that the “noticeable rise in reported anti-Semitic incidents” was the fault of “young, white Europeans incited by traditional right-wing extremist groups.”

In any case, right-wing groups such as Geert Wilder’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Danish People’s Party, far from being the purveyors of “rabid” racism and anti-Semitism that the EJC claims, are some of the best allies that Jews (and Israel) will find in Europe today. In fact, the Danish People’s Party is a strong supporter of Israel as well as the US-led War on Terrorism, of which Israel is a major beneficiary. It has called for stronger sanctions against totalitarian regimes and dictatorships, especially those in the Islamic world. It has also supported academic grants for specific research into terrorism and Islamism. For his part, Wilders calls himself a true friend of Israel. During a recent visit to Jerusalem, Wilders said: “We see Christians and Jews as part of one culture. When I’m here I’m with my people, my country, my values. I feel more at home here than in many other European countries. Israel’s a democracy – it’s everything we stand for.”

Wilders and a growing number of other Europeans understand the threat that Islam poses to Europe and to the Western world. They are also taking a stand against an European leftwing political class that despises its Judeo-Christian heritage so much that it has become an undiscerning apologist for Islam. Unfortunately, the Islamization of Europe, which is being promoted by an intolerant leftwing multicultural dogma that gives immigrants more rights than natives, is one of the main factors contributing to the alarming rise of truly troublesome extremist groups like the Hungarian Jobbik party.

The European political right is far more nuanced and complex than catch-all labels such as “far right” or “extreme right” imply. Whereas right-wing groups in Denmark and Holland, animated by common sense, are pushing back against a European multicultural movement that has run amok and has pushed Western Civilization to the edge of the abyss, other groups like those in Austria, Hungary and Romania, animated by ignorance, are promoting hatred against any and all immigrants just for the sake of it. It is a world of difference.

The knee-jerk tendency to stereotype the European right-wing as anti-Semitic obscures the fact that, with few exceptions, the only genuine European supporters of Jews and Israel are on the political right-wing. Indeed, in the bigger scheme of things, Jews have much more to fear from the European left than they do from the European far right.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group

Gulag Survivor Says EU 'Built on Soviet Model'

Vladimir Bukovsky spent many years in Russian labor camps and psychiatric prisons for defending human rights. He settled in Britain in 1976. He lectures and writes on the old Soviet system and the EU.

EU President Calls Obama Economic Plan a 'Way to Hell'

Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek addresses
deputies at the European Parliament.

From CNN International

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek shocked the normally civil European Parliament Wednesday by warning that Washington's plans to fight the global economic crisis are "the way to hell."

The apparently off-the-cuff remarks of the leader of a small Central European country might not normally make waves -- particularly since his parliament had pulled the rug out from under him just the night before.

But the Czech Republic currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the European Union, making Topolanek, in some sense, one of the leaders of the 27-country bloc that is larger than the United States.

President Barack Obama plans to visit the Czech capital of Prague next week after stopping in London for the G-20 summit of leading industrialized and emerging economies.

So for Topolanek to attack the United States -- and its Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner by name -- is a big deal.

"The path the United States has chosen is historically discredited," he said, advising Americans to "read dusty history books" so as to avoid repeating "the errors of the 1930s" and the Great Depression.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Italy’s Most Prominent Muslim Convert to Catholicism to Establish Party to Defend “Europe’s Christian Values”

From LifeSiteNews
By Hilary White

A well-known convert to Catholicism from Islam has announced that he will be starting a new European political party that will uphold “the sanctity of life of every human being.” Magdi Allam, an Egyptian journalist living in Italy, said that he and others will run in European Parliament elections on June 7, 2009 for a new party called Protagonists for Christian Europe.

“The party,” he said, “will be committed to promoting and defending Europe’s Christian values.” It will “fill the ethical void” that he says exists in Italy and in Europe and will be based on the “Judeo-Christian roots of Europe.” These values “must be recovered and affirmed with clarity now more than ever” in response to the threats of “savage capitalism, relativism and the spread of Islamic extremism,” Allam said.

He warned against the growing incursions of Islamic law in Europe, which, he said, represent a threat to the traditional Christian family structure, “as is occurring already in England, where decisions by private Muslim courts regarding polygamy are indirectly beginning to be legitimized.”

He wrote recently of his conversion to Catholicism: “On my first Easter as a Christian I not only discovered Jesus, I discovered for the first time the face of the true and only God, who is the God of faith and reason.” He has received numerous death threats from Islamic extremists since his baptism.

Allam, who was baptised and received into the Catholic Church in a well-publicised Easter Vigil ceremony at St. Peter’s Basilica by Pope Benedict XVI this year, is a long-time supporter of Israel and was honoured last year by the American Jewish Committee. Author of the Italian best-seller, “Long Live Israel - From the Ideology of Death to the Civilization of Life: My Story,” he has continued to defend Israel despite the fact that the Islamic Palestinian authority Hamas condemned to death in 2003.

Allam was exposed to Christianity early in life, being raised in part by a member of the Catholic religious order, the Comboni Missionary Sisters, and later sent to a Catholic boarding school in Egypt - the Institute of Don Bosco - for junior high and high school. He is a deputy editor of Milan-based Corriere della Sera newspaper, regarded in Italy as a paper with a conservative editorial position.

Why Europe is Secretly Afraid of a Socialist America

From American Thinker
By James Lewis

Suppose you've been living under the protective wings of a benevolent superpower for sixty years. And suppose you've used that big half century to take off on an endless vacation -- spending all your tax money to buy votes for the socialist Ruling Class. It's been one long, grand, drug-infested, sex-drenched, self-indulgent, tabloid party scene. Any time danger threatens you look to Washington for protection. The rest of the time you noisily abuse those Yankee imperialists, merely to boost your fragile ego. Corruption has become pervasive.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Europe Is Obama's First 'Global Test'

From American Thinker
By Soeren Kern

President-elect Barack Obama is already facing his first global test. And it's not coming from the usual suspects like Iran or North Korea, but from America's "allies" in Europe.

European leaders have congratulated Obama on his election victory by sending him a six-page letter in which they benevolently "offer" the United States a "partnership of equals" in order to address global problems in the post-Bush era.

That's right: Europeans are calling on Obama to "accept" Europe as America's equal on the global stage. The idea behind this new man-to-man relationship with Washington was hatched by (surprise, surprise) France, which currently holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the reason for establishing an equal transatlantic partnership is that "the world has changed." Europe has suddenly realized that the United States "is not the only one concerned by the world's problems. The European Union has become more resolute.... We don't want to play a secondary role any more," says Kouchner.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Guns, Foreign Courts, and the Moral Consensus of the International Community

From The Acton Institute
By Jordan Ballor

In a landmark decision that will impact the future of gun regulation in the United States, late last month the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. In District of Columbia etal. v. Heller (No. 07–290) a slim 5-4 majority found the D.C. ban to violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Over the last few years observers of the Supreme Court have noticed a trend among some of the justices to cite the decisions of foreign courts as part of the relevant precedent in deciding the cases before them. In 2005, justices Scalia and Breyer engaged in a rare public conversation on this very topic, “Constitutional Relevance of Foreign Court Decisions.” In the recently-decided D.C. v. Heller neither of the two dissenting opinions, written by justices Stevens and Breyer respectively, make substantial reference to foreign court decisions. But the growing phenomena of reference to foreign judgments as precedents raises the question of what the justices might have found if they had consulted such materials.

This tendency to invoke foreign jurisprudence is becoming more troubling as it becomes clearer that the moral consensus that once united Western nations has almost entirely broken down. A few years ago a pastor I know, as part of his duties as a representative of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC), took part in an inter-church dialogue with a member of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (GKN), a grouping of Reformed congregations in the Netherlands. The GKN sent what they considered to be a moderate pastor to participate in this conversation about moral issues. In the course of the discussion, the GKN moderate asserted that it was more evil to own a gun than to have an abortion.

At this, the CRC representative was only able to respond that their discussion was effectively over. The CRC’s official position on abortion is that the church “condemns the wanton or arbitrary destruction of any human being at any stage of its development from the point of conception to the point of death.” As any rhetorician knows, argument can only proceed where there is some basic level of agreement, and the ethical opinion expressed by the GKN pastor was so far removed from the sensibilities of the CRC that there was effectively no point of contact for continuing dialogue. The GKN has since joined a number of other Protestant denominations in the Netherlands, including other Lutheran and Reformed denominations, to form the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland (PKN).

While this is a relatively minor anecdote, it serves well to illustrate the conflicting moral values placed on issues of life by the mainstream culture in Europe and the United States. No doubt there are those on either side of the Atlantic who would take issue with the dominant cultural judgment, but the national and international legal documents underscore the real differences. Where the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights singles out the right of the people to keep and bear arms, proposed European Union constitutional documents make no such mention. And as a recent Washington Times article relates, “many in Western Europe and Japan see U.S. gun ownership rates and gun violence as a clear mark of difference with other industrial countries.”

But the difference has not always been so stark. Indeed, the preamble to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written in 1948, recognized the possibility of “rebellion against tyranny and oppression” as “a last resort,” an option that ideally could be avoided by protections according to the rule of law.

On the question of abortion, part of what derailed adoption of the EU Constitution in 2004 was concern by nations like Poland and Ireland that the vague constitutional provisions about “dignity” and “integrity” of the human person would require the repeal of national anti-abortion laws. The Treaty of Lisbon, successor to the failed EU Constitution, was rejected by Ireland last month, in part over similar concerns by pro-life advocates that adoption of the treaty “would threaten the Irish constitutional protection for the unborn, given the almost universal acceptance and promotion of abortion at the EU level.”

Upon reflection, then, the ethical judgment expressed by the GKN pastor seems to represent fairly well the mainstream EU attitude toward moral issues like guns and abortion. If part of what characterizes a civilization is a consensus on moral issues, then the idea of a unified Western civilization encompassing Europe and the United States is an illusion. A consensus that diverges on such fundamental questions of the right to life and responsibilities of self-defense is simply no consensus at all.

Jordan J. Ballor is associate editor at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty in Grand Rapids, Mich., and a contributor to the Acton Institute PowerBlog.

"What Price Democracy, Mr. Sarkozy?"

Nigel Farage is one of the most articulate and impressive young leaders in Britain. He is a founder of the eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party, and a member of the European Parliament for South East England. We're unabashed anglophiles here at Sunlit Uplands, and we think you will see in the following exchange between Farage and French President Sarkozy, how freedom loving Britons have routed the French in every conflict from Agincourt to the present day.

EU Wants "Voluntary" Labeling of Blogs

From The Brussels Journal

A quote from a motion for a resolution at the European Parliament:

(...) Whereas weblogs are an increasingly common medium for self-expression by media professionals as well as private persons, the status of their authors and publishers, including their legal status, is neither determined nor made clear to the readers of the weblogs, causing uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits, (...)

[The European Parliament] suggests clarifying the status, legal or otherwise, of weblogs and encourages their voluntary labelling according to the professional and financial responsibilities and interests of their authors and publishers; (...)

In the spirit of the above legislation, Sunlit Uplands has been considering what we might offer in the way of "voluntary" labeling; perhaps something that draws from Jefferson:

Caution: In defense of faith, freedom, western civilization, and the Christian renewal of society, this blog is proudly counter-cultural, politically incorrect, and aspires to be provocative. With Jefferson, we believe that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This blog may cause statists, secularists, liberals and officious bureaucrats, palpitations, night sweats and difficulty breathing.

Those experiencing shaking, high blood pressure or reddening of the extremities for more than four hours should consult a doctor.

Ireland Sees Growing Opposition to European Constitution

From the Los Angeles Times

By Kim Murphy Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

CANVASSING: Maire Hoctor, right, Ireland’s minister of state for elder affairs, tries to convince a voter in Nenagh to vote “yes” in the June 12 referendum on the EU treaty.

The June 12 vote on the Lisbon Treaty now seems less certain, as opposition groups, some businessmen and farmers raise concerns about sovereignty.

NENAGH, IRELAND — The "Yes on the EU" bus rolled into town blaring a foot-stomping "Galway Girl" from its megaphone one afternoon last week, but what it got was a whole lot of no.

An Irishman has always been a hard sell, and never more so than when issues of sovereignty are at stake. "People died for your freedom," declares one of the signs that have popped up in this agricultural town as Ireland prepares to vote June 12 on the European Union's new constitution. "Don't throw it away."

Farmer Ida McLoughlin isn't sold on the other posters plastered around town: "Vote yes for jobs, the economy and Ireland's future."

"Since the EU, all you see are 4x4s going down the street and big buildings going up. The thatched cottages are gone," McLoughlin said. "You have all these Johnny-come-lately people who were poor and got rich, and they're dreadful people. We've lost our Irish values."

Adoption of the so-called Lisbon Treaty requires ratification by all 27 member states of the EU, which could take a much more prominent role on the world stage under the streamlined diplomacy and beefed-up military readiness the document envisions.

Fourteen nations have ratified the agreement through their parliaments, and the remainder are expected to do so by the end of the year. Only Ireland's constitution requires a referendum -- and that could make or break the long-awaited constitution.

The Irish government, most business leaders and political parties of nearly every stripe have come out overwhelmingly in favor of the Lisbon Treaty, pointing out how Ireland's membership in the EU over the last 35 years has helped transform the Emerald Isle of 4.1 million people from an impoverished backwater dependent on Britain to one of Europe's most robust economies.

But a newly vigorous opposition composed of farmers, a few wealthy businessmen with vague connections to the U.S. defense establishment and the leftist Irish republican party, Sinn Fein, have gained quickly in recent polls, and the outcome is suddenly no longer a sure thing.

It is not clear what happens if Ireland says no -- except that the union would surely be plunged, as it was when France and the Netherlands voted down an earlier EU constitution in 2005, into uncertainty and more tedious negotiations on what EU leaders say is a badly needed framework for decision-making among its suddenly more numerous member states.

"It would put us in the very tortured position of going back to the drawing board," said Marc Coleman, a Dublin-based economic analyst.

The treaty signed in Lisbon in December would help Europe project itself more forcefully on the international stage by creating a European Council president and foreign affairs representative while outlining a framework for EU troop deployments in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

The treaty would broaden and establish a legal basis for the EU's lawmaking powers in some areas while making them subject much more directly to national parliaments and citizens initiatives. It would set out voting weights between large and small countries, improve cross-border cooperation in areas such as crime fighting and climate change and streamline the European Commission to a manageable decision-making body of 18.

Under the treaty, member nations still would retain their historic veto power in crucial areas such as defense, foreign policy, taxation and social security, but not on issues like immigration and energy policy.

Voters in overwhelmingly Catholic Ireland worry that the nation would be forced to expand abortion rights (no), forfeit its long tradition of military neutrality (no) or give up the holy grail of the Celtic Tiger economic miracle, Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax rate (probably not, though some in Europe would like to try).

Treaty opponents say the government is too smoothly dismissing what may be legitimate fears and is too quick to warn that Ireland would incur the wrath of the rest of Europe if it voted no.

"People always say Ireland is in very good standing at the European level. But why wouldn't we be? We haven't invaded one of the partner countries, we haven't partitioned them. But we're also a small member state, and in the power structure that is the EU, small states have to be very careful in how they protect their status and institutions," said Mary Lou McDonald, a member of the European Parliament with Sinn Fein.

Here in County Tipperary, the "Yes on the EU" bus was stopping in front of village cafes and bakeries; young activists from the majority Fianna Fail party trailed out in yellow T-shirts. They smiled and passed out leaflets touting EU membership as a bonanza for Ireland -- the country received 58 billion euros in European funds for agriculture, infrastructure and other programs from 1973 to 2003. Its exports to other EU states increased from 45 billion euros in 1997 to 87 billion in 2006.

Maire Hoctor, a Fianna Fail lawmaker and a minister of state from Nenagh, strolled the sidewalks, stopping for hugs, handshakes and an occasional tongue-lashing. She was joined by party colleague Jim Casey, mayor of North Tipperary.

"They're not going to give us anything. They're going to take it away, for sure," said Bernie O'Brien, an elderly woman who resisted their overtures.

"I remember when we had nothing in this county: We had a one-way ticket to Britain, and that was our lot," Hoctor told her.

Much of the opposition in rural Ireland involves an issue that has nothing to do with the EU treaty at all: agriculture proposals submitted last month to the World Trade Organization by the European trade commissioner, who is Britain's former envoy to the British province of Northern Ireland.

Irish farmers say the trade proposals could put 50,000 cattle farmers in Ireland out of business by easing importation of Brazilian and Argentine beef and driving down prices. The Irish Farmers Assn. says it will urge its members to vote "no" on the EU treaty if Ireland doesn't exercise its EU veto to block the trade proposals.

"It's just going to decimate farms," McLoughlin told Hoctor. "Sure, we've gotten subsidies from the EU. We got the check in the post, like everyone else. We were bought. We were humiliated. My husband has been told what to grow, when to grow it."

Casey said the issue shouldn't be used to block a treaty that will be good for Ireland.

"We've always negotiated good deals for the farmers in Ireland in Europe, and I'm convinced that will continue," he said. "The EU has provided well for farmers. Since we entered Europe, everything has gotten much, much better." T

he other main source of opposition has come from a group called Libertas, fronted by two wealthy businessmen who have had extensive contracts with the U.S. military. This has caused some in the Irish media to speculate that the group is advancing the agenda of U.S. conservatives, some of whom worry that a stronger, united Europe would undermine U.S. interests on the continent.

But Ulick McEvaddy, a former military intelligence officer whose company has contracts for aerial refueling with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps and who is one of Libertas' biggest supporters, said he was worried about threats to Ireland's independence.

"We're handing over direct responsibility and huge issues of sovereignty to the Brussels parliament," McEvaddy said. "If they believe in this great experiment, put it to all the people of Europe."

Even in County Tipperary, some are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

"Europe hasn't let us down yet," said Mick Connell, a member of the local council in Templemore, not far from Nenagh. "That should be good enough."

New Film Exposes the EU Coup d'Etat

The United Kingdom Independence Party has made a film entitled "Remote Control," exposing the coup d'etat being carried out by European leaders against the peoples of Europe and their democratic institutions. The following is an excerpt; the entire film can be seen here.

Poland and Malta Stand Up to European Union, United Nations on Abortion

by Samantha Singson

The governments of Poland and Malta broke rank with the European Union on the question of abortion this week. The dissension occurred at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which convened it’s annual two-week meeting at UN headquarters in New York on Monday. The reaction of Poland and Malta happened after the EU tried to shift the meeting’s agenda to include the right to abortion.

On Tuesday Radoslaw Mleczko, the Polish Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, told the gathering of UN Member States that Poland generally aligned itself with the EU but that any EU reference to sexual and reproductive health could not include abortion.

On Thursday afternoon, the head of Malta’s mission to the UN, Ambassador Saviour F. Borg said, “Malta would like to clarify its position with respect to the language relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the [EU] statement. Malta firmly continues to maintain that any position taken or recommendations made regarding women’s empowerment and gender equality should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health rights, services or commodities.”

The split in the European Union is significant because the EU hardly ever splits on questions of social policy at the UN. Even countries that are generally anti-abortion go along with the more radical approach taken by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. They do this as an agreement that the EU will always work out their differences behind closed doors and present a united front at UN negotiations.

This works to the advantage of the pro-abortion states since they outnumber the anti-abortion states.

Moreover, an EU that is divided is one that can be defeated on social policy questions. In fact, the last time the EU split in any significant way was in the UN cloning debate which resulted in the UN calling for the ban of all forms of human cloning, an effort opposed by the UK, France, Germany and other left-wing European governments. It is unclear how meaningful this current split will be in the negotiations which will begin in earnest tomorrow.

Pro-life and pro-family issues were also woven into UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s opening remarks to the commission on Monday when he criticized the now widespread practice of choosing abortions based on the sex of the baby, an issue that was all but taken off the agenda at last year’s CSW despite solid support from both civil society and numerous governmental delegations.

In his speech to launch the new UN multi-year campaign to end violence against women, the Secretary-General stressed, “Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist. No country, no culture, no woman young or old is immune to this scourge.”

The Secretary-General also highlighted the importance of families and children stating, “We know that violence against women compounds the enormous social and economic toll on families, communities, even whole nations. And we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women, we empower our greatest resource for development: mothers raising children.”

Among the many pro-life and pro-family lobbyists attending the CSW is a large contingent of high school girls from Overbrook Academy in Rhode Island. Fourteen year old Elsa Corripio told the Friday Fax, “We want these delegates to know that there are many young people who believe in respecting life.”

Ana Paola Rangel, 15, added, “Maybe we can't change the world, but we know we can make a difference.”

The CSW meeting continues through next week.


Samantha Singson writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group's Friday Fax publication.

The West’s Fatal Mistake: We Are All Serbs Now

Published by The Brussels Journal

By Thomas Landen

Today, one day after Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, the United States and the major European countries rushed to recognize Kosovo’s independence. George Bush hailed Kosovo’s “bold and historic bid for statehood.” Five years ago, Mr Bush invaded Iraq and began “operation Iraqi freedom.” He toppled Saddam Hussein in order to get rid of a rogue regime, one of the members of the “axis of evil.” Five years later, Mr Bush is saddling Europe with a new rogue state.

Surely, Mr Bush knows that al-Qa’eda fighters were involved in driving the Serbs from Kosovo in the late 1990s. The Jerusalem Post reported in 1998 that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was “provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries,” and had been “bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahedin [some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan.” There is more proof of involvement of the KLA of the (then and current) Kosovar leader Hashim Thaçi, nicknamed ‘the Snake,’ with al-Qa’eda than there was of the Iraqi Ba’ath regime of the late Saddam Hussein.

Yesterday, thousands of ethnic Albanians were celebrating their independence in the Kosovar capital Pristina, shouting “KLA! KLA!” and waving American flags alongside the Albanian and the new Kosovar national flag. Is America now in league with al-Qa’eda and the Albanian mafia? What is the point of fighting Islamism in Iraq while at the same time one creates a free haven for Islamists on the European continent?

Surely, Mr Bush knows that “the KLA […] is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel. Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead right to the KLA, and right to Albanian gangs in [Kosovo]. Furthermore, the KLA was involved in sex slaves. Furthermore, they were supported by Osama Bin Laden.”

Only last week, General Fabio Mini, the Italian general who commanded the NATO troops in Kosovo in 2002-2003, warned that the recognition of Kosovo’s independence would turn out to be a “fatal mistake.” This new state, the general said, will only benefit the clans who currently rule Kosovo: i.e. the clans of the current Prime Minister, Hashim ‘the Snake’ Thaçi “who is in business with the oil companies,” of his predecessor Ramush Haradinay, who is standing trial for war crimes in The Hague, of former Prime Minister Agim Ceku “who wants to become a generalissimo” and of Behgjet Pacolli, a billionaire “who needs somewhere to stack the money of his empire.” “What these clans want,” General Mini said, “is a place in Europe where they can open new banks, a free haven for the money that flows in from the East.”

Sadly, Mr Bush is not the only one making a “fatal mistake.” Many of the 27 European Union (EU) member states have done so, too, including the big three – Britain, France, Germany – and the Franco-German poodle, multinational Belgium. Others, however, have serious misgivings. Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia oppose Kosovo’s independence. The Italian government is divided on the issue.

In a statement issued in Brussels the EU foreign ministers say that Kosovo’s history of “conflict, ethnic cleansing and humanitarian catastrophe” in the 1990s by Serbia exempts it from the rule that international borders can only be changed with the agreement of all parties. The EU countries that recognize Kosovo’s independence admit that they are doing so in violation of the rule of “territorial integrity” of nations under international law. They want to ‘punish’ Serbia for its misbehaviour in the 1990s, but fail to see that they are ‘punishing’ the whole of Europe by saddling it with a state run by criminal gangs.

Russia refuses to accept Kosovo’s independence. So does China. Moscow has called on the United Nations to annul Pristina’s decision. It will be interesting to see which countries will back Russia in the UN. Moscow’s allies in the Organization of Islamic States definitely will not. They applaud the establishment of a new Muslim state in Europe. Will Russia now become the leader of the Europeans who resist the Islamization of their continent? Or will the crisis in the Balkan trigger a new world war, just as the Great War was triggered in the Balkans in 1914?

Indeed, what will Russia do if the 16,000 NATO “peace keeping” troops in Kosovo attack the Serbian army when it attempts to recover its breakaway province? If Russia intervenes, then 2008 might become the year that war broke out between Russia and NATO. America, the EU, Europe’s immigrant “youths” and Osama bin Laden would find themselves on one side, and Russia, with China and the Europeans who resist Islamization on the other.

The End of Press Freedom in Europe?

The unelected elite running the European Union are consolidating their power and tightening their grip. The following from The Brussells Journal sounds the alarm that freedom of the press may soon be eliminated.

EU Journalist or Propagandist?

By Elaib Harvey

Created 2008-02-15 19:23

Yesterday I received a copy of an open letter from Aidan White, the General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). And very odd it was. It talked about the idea of a new journalist registration system, with Mr White pointing out that such a thing already exists in the shape of the IFJ card.

I write on behalf of the International Federation of Journalists and the European Federation of Journalists concerning a current discussion within European Union circles over the issuing of a specific European Press Card.

You might like to know that there is already an accreditation in circulation which is recognised by the major organisations of journalists throughout the European Union – the International Press Card of the IFJ.

The IFJ International Press Card (IPC) is the world’s oldest and most reputable press accreditation and provides instant confirmation that the bearer is a working journalist. It is only issued to genuine journalists who are committed to ethical standards and solidarity between media professionals.

Despite his job Mr White is no radical, and often seems pretty tardy on issues relating to press freedom, however here he is bang on. I immediately picked up the phone to the IFJ and spoke to them.

Indeed this letter seems to be a shot across the bows of the Commission. There are discussions going on in the Commission, (but at this point I and nor do the IFJ know how high up they go) about the creation of an European Press Card.

The ramifications of this could be massive. It could mean that it would be the Commission which could decide which journalist were 'proper' journalists and which were not. I know personally of journalists who have been threatened and arrested on the say so of European officials. They are accused of publishing inaccuracies, they are told that 'what they write does not represent the interests of their newspapers'. I know of newspapers that have had their advertisers phoned by the Commission's legal team with suggestions about how the Commission is represented in the paper, and how it would be helpful if they were to have a quiet word with editorial team. I remember when Alessandro Buttice the lawyer who represents OLAF as its press spokesman sent out a 16 page document to the Brussels' press corps advising them of how they should report EU news.

Access to Commissioners and officials could be restricted to those on the Commission list. Today there is European Institutional press accreditation, but any journalist who is vouched for by an editor is accepted. This new idea has a strong suggestion that the Commission itself will do the vetting not the news organisation and must be opposed as vigorously as possible.

I cannot emphasise how serious this could be.

France Dies, The Dauphin Speaks

Prince Jean d'Orleans, Duc de Vendome

From The Brussells Journal

Jean d'Orléans, Duke of Vendôme, is the son of Henri, Count of Paris, one of the two major pretenders to the French throne, the other being Louis de Bourbon. Jean d'Orléans is therefore the Dauphin, the heir apparent from the House of Orléans.

While some insist Louis is the true King of France, and others take the side of Henri, I think most will agree on the validity of this message from Jean d'Orléans, subsequent to the recent vote in Versailles:

Does the Europe they offer us correspond to the wishes of the French and European peoples? Does it respond, in its projected form, to the aspirations of young people in search of meaning? I have traveled a great deal, these past ten years, in France and in Europe. Not as a politician seeking a term of office, but as a citizen attentive to the everyday life of his compatriots, and concerned about the destiny of France and of this continent. I have taken the time to listen and I know - because we have discussed it together - that many Frenchmen do not understand where they are being led. This incomprehension creates anxiety throughout the land and confusion in the young. France is not bored, she is worried.

The French people tried to express it, when they were permitted to. In 2005, they rejected, through a referendum, the constitutional treaty that was submitted to them. This time, they will not be allowed to voice their opinion on a document that repeats the essential points that they had rejected. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for a president of the European Union and a vice-president in charge of foreign affairs. It extends the powers of the Union in numerous areas, to the detriment of the States. It assures the preeminence of European law over the laws of the nations. [...]

I am 42. I was 13 when John-Paul II became Pope. I belong to the generation of young persons who lived in step with this Pope of modern times. We saw him accelerate the fall of the Soviet Union, through the strength of his words and his actions. That empire, that was thought to be unshakable, was built on a Utopia. The bureaucracy that governed it disdained the human and spiritual exigencies. It promised men a material happiness that would never replace their profound aspirations. It forced them to worship idols, that they demolished as soon as they could. The Soviet Union was founded on a lie, at least by the omission of the cultural roots of the people whom they wanted to subjugate to their laws.

Because I am attached to Europe, like the majority of those of my generation, I want it to be spared from this dangerous presumption. The Union is too often ignorant of the culture and riches of the countries it wants to enfold. Even though it is responsible to no one, the Court of Justice imposes on the States its own jurisprudence. European law consecrates the power of a technocracy that desires to regulate people's lives in the smallest detail. Now the current Pope, Benedict XVI, sent a forceful reminder last year: "You cannot hope to construct a real common house if you neglect the very identity of the peoples of our continent." And this identity "consists of values that Christianity helped to forge."

This obvious fact did not convince the writers of the charter of fundamental rights, annexed to the Treaty. No reference, in the text, to the Christian roots of our Europe. Even though the Union says it is "conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage", the wording is vague enough to allow many interpretations. Anyway, it is enough to read it to understand: the inspiration of this charter is basically individualistic. It dissolves the natural solidarities and communities, just as the Treaty submitted to the French Parliament dissolves European nations. Can we really believe that this is what young Europeans want? If we want it to resist the storms, we must found Europe on something more solid. Not on a Utopia, but on Truth.

French President Acknowledges Europe's Christian Heritage

Paris, Jan. 31, 2008 (CWNews.com) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoke out in support of recognizing "the Christian roots of Europe."

At a meeting of his political party, the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, Sarkozy said that leaders of the European Union were wrong to exclude an explicit reference to Christianity from the language of the proposed EU constitutional treaty. (The French voters rejected that treaty in a 2005 referendum.)

"We erred when we turned our back on the past, and in a certain sense turned our back on our roots, which are obvious," Sarkozy said. Echoing the argument that has been advanced by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the French leader said that without a basis in Christian culture, the European Union will have no firm foundation.

"If we reject our past, we are not ready for our future," Sarkozy said.

The New EU: Definitely a Superstate

From The Brussells Journal

By Michael Huntsman

Across Europe there are plenty of people who care not for the European Union’s appetite for unaccountable power. Some want to extract their countries from the Union in order to restore real power and independence to their country. Some simply want to halt the constant one-way cession of power to the Union. Others just want to have their say.

With the latest, and arguably the most far-reaching, power-grab, the new Union Constitution effected by the Treaty of Lisbon, the political élites of almost every member state have concluded that they know what the right answer to the question is and have determined that they are not, under any circumstances, going to allow their electorates to give the ‘wrong’ answer to that question.

Thus, without your say-so or mine, the EU is to be given all the institutions which, in customary international law, are recognized as those which identify a state as independent and sovereign. If the EU opts to exercise power in the manner of a sovereign independent state, that presages the subsuming into what is now to be called, simply, “The Union” the twenty-seven member states and their powers.

To those of you who doubt so bold a claim, I recommend that you look no further than the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay on December 26, 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States. Although signed by only nineteen Latin American and North American States, the criteria it laid down for the identification of what is and what is not a sovereign independent state are now accepted in customary international law as the criteria for identifying such states.

What are those criteria?:

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Importantly these criteria were considered by a commission set up by the European Union at the time of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. This was the Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, better known as “The Badinter Commission” which in its Opinion No. 1 laid out what must now be regarded as the EU’s opinion on the issue:

“The President of the Arbitration Committee received the following letter from Lord Carrington, President of the Conference on Yugoslavia, on 20 November 1991:

We find ourselves with a major legal question.

Serbia considers that those Republics which have declared or would declare themselves independent or sovereign have seceded or would secede from the SFRY which would otherwise continue to exist.

Other Republics on the contrary consider that there is no question of secession, but the question is one of a disintegration or breaking-up of the SFRY as the result of the concurring will of a number of Republics. They consider that the six Republics are to be considered equal successors to the SFRY, without any of them or group of them being able to claim to be the continuation thereof.

I should like the Arbitration Committee to consider the matter in order to formulate any opinion or recommendation which it might deem useful.

The Arbitration Committee has been apprised of the memoranda and documents communicated respectively by the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Serbia, and by the President of the collegiate Presidency of the SFRY.

1) The Committee considers:

a) that the answer to the question should be based on the principles of public international law which serve to define the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state; that in this respect, the existence or disappearance of the state is a question of fact; that the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory;

b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;

c) that, for the purpose of applying these criteria, the form of internal political organization and the constitutional provisions are mere facts, although it is necessary to take them into consideration in order to determine the Government’s way over the population and the territory;

d) that in the case of a federal-type state, which embraces communities that possess a degree of autonomy and, moreover, participate in the exercise of political power within the framework of institutions common to the Federation, the existence of the state implies that the federal organs represent the components of the Federation and wield effective power; […].”

Turning now to how these criteria are fulfilled by the new EU Constitution as embodied by the Treaty of Lisbon, there can be no dispute whatsoever concerning the EU’s possession of a permanent population and a well-defined territory.

Does the EU, then, fulfil criterion 3 of the Montevideo Convention (supra)?

Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon sets out the core Institutions of the Union: The European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Commission, The Court of Justice of the European Union, The European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors.

Looking at the powers that each of these has, who can seriously argue but that these amount to the institutions of government, providing, as they do the over-arching institutions that make up the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches that all would say go to make up an independent nation?

Turning now to Criterion No. 4, one only has to look at three things.

Firstly the extent to which the Treaty of Lisbon is taken up with the issue of a common foreign and security policy (into which is subsumed, by Article 27 (1), the ‘common security and defence policy’ of the Union): Articles 10a to 31 are taken up entirely with the scope of the common foreign and security policy, which indicates the fundamental importance that this aspect has in the context of the whole Constitution.

Secondly, the fact that, by virtue of Article 22:

The Union may conclude agreements with one or more States or international organisations in areas covered by this Chapter.

Thirdly the fact that by Article 32 the Union arrogates to itself ‘legal personality’.

Given the criteria I have set out, can anyone set out a counter argument as to why, from the day the treaty comes into force, the European Union is not, at the very least, potentially, a Sovereign Independent State?

Can anyone argue seriously that the nature of the Union once this comes into force does not fall squarely within the description given by the Badinter Commission at (d) above? Not least as concerns the phrase concerning the wielding of effective power?

Lest anyone be disposed to rely on that old chestnut, the fact that there is no European Army, the possession of a military is no bar to Statehood: look at, say Costa Rica or Liechtenstein, amongst others, whose lack of military forces is no bar to their independent statehood.

I have set this out because the “Union” which it is proposed shall come into existence in 2009 indeed has all the hallmarks of a Sovereign Independent State with powers superior to all of its component member states.

It is the creation of such an entity that the political elites of twenty-six out of the twenty-seven member states have decided will not for one second be the subject of proper democratic discussion, debate and finally any sort of vote designed to secure the whole-hearted consent of the peoples of Europe to it.

Why? Because these arrogant people know we would never for one moment consent to such a thing if told the truth and given a vote on it.

What they should remember, however, is that they only rule by our consent and if they opt to rule without our consent, then they must be ready to accept the consequences of that decision which may be to face the just and righteous wrath of the people when they realize that a despotic tyranny, of which they are but impotent subjects, has been created by stealth.

As we embark on this crucial year of 2008, it is the creation of this tyranny which all free men must resist with all their might and political acumen this year and thereafter. Each of us may just be a still small voice: but together we can be a crescendo.


More on this topic:

These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You, 13 December 2007

THE ANGLOSPHERE: NEW ATTENTION TO AN OLD IDEA

As the British people come to recognize that they have little in common culturally, socially, and historically with the continental peoples comprising the artificial alliance known as the EU, and Americans begin to realize that the President of the United States, at the behest of multi-national corporations, has stealthily moved them by executive fiat toward a North American Union, an old idea is beginning to reemerge.  It is the idea that there is a natural, organic unity of the English-speaking peoples throughout the world based on their history, language and culture. They share a belief in "fair play," a dedication to individualism, have a strong sense of justice, and a willingness to stand up for the "little guy" and those who have been unfairly treated. These cultural qualities are the foundation for the great hallmarks of the English-speaking world -- Magna Carta, habeas corpus, trial by jury, freedom of speech, common law and America's own Bill of Rights.

In the nineteenth century, England's Poet Laureate, Lord Tennyson, recognized the common bonds in a poem entitled England and America in 1782:

O Thou, that sendest out the man
To rule by land and sea,
Strong mother of a Lion-line,
Be proud of those strong sons of thine
Who wrench'd their rights from thee!

What wonder, if in noble heat
Those men thine arms withstood,
Retaught the lesson thou hadst taught,
And in thy spirit with thee fought--
Who sprang from English blood!

In the twentieth century, the greatest proponent of an alliance of the English-speaking peoples was Sir Winston Churchill. His official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, explores in his recent book, Churchill and America, Churchill's belief in the ideal of an Anglo-American "fraternal association." Churchill expressed the idea in many of his writings. In one speech he spoke of it as follows:

"I therefore preach continually the doctrine of the fraternal association of our two peoples, not for any purpose of gaining invidious material advantages for either of them, nor for territorial aggrandizement or the vain pomp of earthly domination, but for the sake of service to mankind and for the honour that comes to those who faithfully serve great causes".

On another occassion he expressed the ideal this way:

"I have never asked for an Anglo—American military alliance or a treaty. I asked for something different and in a sense I have asked for something more. I asked for fraternal association, free, voluntary fraternal association. I have no doubt that it will come to pass, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow and that nothing can obscure the fact that, in their harmonious companionship, lies the main hope of a world instrument for maintaining peace on earth and goodwill to all men".

Despite some recent fraying, that special relationship between Britain and America, as well as that among the whole "family of nations" comprising the English-speaking world or "Anglosphere," remains strong. It will likely remain so, long after vain attempts to create artificial "unions" in Europe and North America have been abandoned.

In the following column from today's Telegraph, John O'Sullivan shows us how prophetic Churchill was, as he reflects on the collaboration among military and intelligence officers throughout the English-speaking world.

A British-led Anglosphere in world politics?

By John O'Sullivan

This week Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of the Australian, used his column to give a slightly embarrassed account of a successful coup.

He was embarrassed because the coup was his own work, political activism rather than reporting, and possibly involved more than one breach of confidence.

It began with his research for a book, The Partnership, on the US-Australian military and intelligence relationship, which is close and growing closer.

The more Sheridan examined this relationship, the more he was struck by something else: namely, "the astonishing, continuing, political, military, and intelligence closeness between Australia and Britain".

Even though Australia has little at stake in Europe and Britain only limited interests in the Pacific, everywhere Sheridan went in the US-Australia alliance, he found the Brits there, too: "Our special forces train with theirs, as we do with the Americans. Our troops on exchange with the Brits can deploy into military operations with them, an extremely rare practice, but something we also do with the Yanks.

"Australian liaison officers attend the most sensitive British intelligence meetings and vice versa, in arrangements of such intimacy that they are equalled only in our relationship with the US."

Sheridan was uneasy, however, because there was no formal alliance structure to give top-level political guidance to this effective but relaxed co-operation.

Events came to his aid: he was invited to a UK-Australia Dialogue in Canberra, attended by Tony Blair on a flying visit. At the reception, Sheridan buttonholed Blair, Australia's PM John Howard, foreign minister Alexander Downer, and almost anyone else who would listen to preach the necessity of a new UK-Australia security structure. He sensed they were unimpressed.

As he later discovered, however, at a cabinet meeting attended by Blair the next day, Downer proposed a new annual meeting of Australian and British foreign and defence ministers on the lines of their AUSMIN meetings with Washington. Blair responded enthusiastically - and AUKMIN now meets annually.

Well, an interesting little story, you may think, but hardly earthshaking. And if AUKMIN were an isolated incident, that would be a sensible response.

As Sheridan's account makes plain, however, AUKMIN merely brass-hatted an existing system of military and intelligence co-operation between Britain, Australia, and the US that was unusually intimate and extensive.

But the story rang several bells. I had recently been reading a Heritage Foundation study by the American writer James C. Bennett, in which he argued that such forms of developing co-operation were especially characteristic of English-speaking, common law countries such as, well, Britain, Australia and America.

There is a definite pattern to them. Citizens, voluntary bodies, companies, lower levels of government form their own networks of useful co-operation for practical purposes across national boundaries.

Over time, these networks become denser, more complementary, more useful, and more self-conscious, creating what Bennett calls a "network civilisation". In time, governments see the value of these networks and underpin them with new links - trade deals, military pacts, immigration agreements - creating what he calls a "network commonwealth".

Such network commonwealths may end up being more integrated - psychologically and socially, as well as economically - than consciously designed entities such as the EU.

If you want to know which countries the British feel really close to, check which ones they telephone on Christmas Day (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America... but you knew that). Network commonwealths don't demand surrender of sovereignty, either.

Bennett calls the English-speaking network civilisation "the Anglosphere". This term, unknown in political circles a few years ago, now yields 39,700 entries on Google. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a recent article in the American City Journal, the idea is certainly in the air - and in respectable circles, too.

Its academic foundations are rooted in work demonstrating that England always had a more individualist culture than continental Europe, that the "civil society" tools of this culture were transmitted to the colonies settled from England, and that those countries have since not only prospered unusually, but also established a world civilisation rooted in liberalism.

Bennett in The Anglosphere Challenge makes unmistakably clear that it is English cultural traits - individualism, rule of law, honouring contracts, and the elevation of freedom - rather than English genes that explain this success.

These traits enable a society to pull off the difficult trick of combining trust with openness. Nations with different genetic backgrounds that adopt such traits seem to prosper more than their similar neighbours. Hence the Anglosphere includes India and the West Indies, as well as the "old Commonwealth".

The idea, lagging well behind the reality, is now seeping into politics. Last year Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, delivered an eloquent speech to the Australian parliament that praised the common British heritage linking both nations.

Even more significantly India's PM, Manmohan Singh, gave a speech at Oxford in 2005 that neatly stole the entire concept for New Delhi: "If there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English-speaking peoples, in which the people of Indian origin are the largest single component."

That raises a painful question. If Australians, Indians, Canadians, and even Americans can recognise the Anglosphere as a new factor in world politics, why is it something from which the Brits themselves shy?

To the best of my knowledge, the only politician to have embraced the idea is Lord Crickhowell, formerly David Howell, who held several ministries under Margaret Thatcher and who, from his City experience, knows that Britain's prosperity lies with the growing markets of Asia and North America.

Our fading Anglosphere ties give us an advantage over Europeans and other competitors there. If we were to pursue a deliberate strategy of strengthening such ties, we would discover a better "grand strategy" than the present muddled shuttling back and forth between Washington and Brussels, feeling a "poodle" to both.

Is our reluctance because we fear to touch anything that smacks of the empire? No such timidity restrained Singh.

Are we nervous that anything "English-speaking" might be thought incompatible with multiculturalism? Well, the first multicultural identity was the British one; today the Anglosphere spans every continent.

Is it politically dangerous as an alternative to Europe? That would only be true insofar as "Europe" failed to meet our needs - in which case we would need an alternative.

Or is it, as I suspect, that the Anglosphere offers us the prospect of national adventure that in our cultural funk we find too exciting - preferring to go back to the sleep of the subsidised?