"I don't think it will be clear until they announce the result."

The trust has gone between the people and those in authority who turned a blind eye to the continuing violence and the intimidation. Isn't it time that Tony and Bertie publicly acknowledged this? That never mind the fact that we have lost all trust in the "good intentions" of the (still) most heavily armed terrorist organisation in Western Europe. Our trust in those who were supposed to oversee the disarmament of that terrorist outfit, has also taken a hammering.

...if you want to book a hotel through SNCF over the web. Everything goes well until they ask you the address to which your credit card bills are sent. You insert your house number, your street name and the name of your city and then you are are asked to choose from a list of countries. This list includes Antarctica, the Faeroe Islands, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Fiji, Kiribati and Papua-New Guinea. As far as I could make out from my not unlimited knowledge of geography, the only countries missing from the list were the mythical "Bongo-Bongoland" that Tory MP Alan Clarke made infamous - and, of course, Ireland.

The response he got when he complained was less than sympathetic:

I rang SNCF, who informed me that Ireland was part of Grande Bretagne. I informed them that this arguably had been the case until 1922 and perhaps the train bringing this news to SNCF had been delayed by 83 years. At this stage and for some unexplained reason, I was cut off.

In defence of his criticism of French cook Ginette Mathiot, who having termed soda bread "pain d'Irlande" listed it under "Royaume Uni" (UK), I would have to say that the top ten soda breads I have ever tasted, have all been baked in Northern Ireland (which is in the UK, whether we like the idea or not)!

But Martin is making a serious point. In my own experience, the general view of Ireland in France is marked firstly by language and only secondly by the island's distinctive cultural and political features. In fairness, we either don't/won't speak French or we speak it badly with an English speaker's difficulty over the French nasals.

Whatever our feelings on the matter, in France we get dragged into the middle of an historical antipathy between the old enemies of England and France. And generally we are assumed to be on the side of the English.

Nevertheless, it must be about time for SNCF to cop on to partition 83 years after the fact! Maybe it's time to tip them the wink? If you do get a reply, let us know how you get on!!

The truth about lies

Leftwing radio talk show host Al Franken has won a 'breakthrough' award for his wisecracking war against the claims of the American right. James Silver reports

Monday June 27, 2005
The Guardian

His three-hour radio show over for another day, Al Franken - to many liberals, one of the Last Great Hopes of the American Left, and "an obnoxious prick" to his rightwing detractors - steps out into the blistering New York City heat and wilts. A sore back explains his painful-looking waddle to the coffee shop. The Al Franken Show, on fledging liberal talk radio network Air America, has just moved studios from the skyscrapers and buttoned-down shirt chic of 6th Avenue to the rather more down-at-heel bagel-shop obscurity between 10th and 11th Avenues on the far west side of Manhattan. He appears to be still getting used to it.

Is Franken, 54, over-doing it? His goofy features seem to adorn every third taxi in the city. There are the bestselling books (his most recent hit was Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right), the TV appearances, the political street-fighting, the corporate event pay-days, entertaining US troops abroad, and - perhaps, above all - his seemingly solo jihad against what he tactfully calls "the greedy, evil, warmongering bigots and scumbags of the American Right". Oh, and next year he will be moving his radio show to his home state of Minnesota as he gears up for a possible run for the US senate in 2008.

Tonight the former Saturday Night Live star steps on to the stage at the city's China Club to become the first recipient of the prestigious New York International Radio Festival's World Achievement Award for Breakthrough Radio, which is "only periodically given to one radio on-air talent who has made a great political or cultural impact in his country and/or throughout the world".

Award show hyperbole aside, there is no doubt that Franken and Air America - which has been going for 18 months and is syndicated in 65 cities around the US, attracting 2.7 million listeners - have carved out a niche in enemy territory. Political talk radio has traditionally been the home of rightwing shock jocks.

Now a Jewish, wise-cracking, unabashed Manhattan-dwelling liberal, in a country where that is often a dirty word, has parked his camper-van in middle-America's back yard.

"Rightwing radio still does dominate," concedes Franken, "but before Air America it was a monolith." The Right, he patiently explains, cornered the market in talk radio in the late 1980s when the Fairness Doctrine, which ensured that radio stations had to be balanced, was revoked. His nemesis, top-rated talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who claims up to 20 million listeners, launched his station and spawned a generation of copy-cats. Rightwing talk flourished, while there was no real equivalent on the Left.

Franken's routine uses wry humour to debunk inaccurate claims made by rightwing commentators and politicians. Given his heavy workload, he secured the services of 14 students - a "ragtag bunch of Harvard misfits" whom he named Team Franken - to do the fact-checking and research required to write Lies.

"What we do is set up a lie and then debunk it," he explains. "I think we are developing a kind of a cottage industry. I'm very entertained by the debunking process and also at the same time I'm outraged by the lies. I really do see the serious corrupting effect Fox, talk radio and many commentators on the right have on America. A lot of people in the mainstream media think it's beneath them to debunk it. And it's not. These people need to be subjected to scorn and ridicule. Someone has got to be willing to get down in the weeds and fight them."

He cites a recent example from his show. "[Fox news anchor] Bill O'Reilly took [leading Democrat senator] Joe Biden's appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos and deliberately misrepresented what Biden said. Biden was calling for an independent commission to look at Guantanamo and other US detention camps. When pressed by Stephanopoulos, Biden said that although he personally thought the US should close Guantanamo, he said that he had introduced legislation to get a bipartisan commission to make the recommendations.

"Two days later O'Reilly cuts it together to make it sound like Biden had simply said 'Close Guantanamo', leaving out any mention of legislation and independent commissions. Then O'Reilly himself said 'I believe there should be an independent commission.' He not only misrepresented what Biden actually said, he then claimed for himself the senator's idea. I mentioned this to Howard Kurtz, who writes about the media for the Washington Post. He replied, 'Well, people expect that of Fox'. No one in the mainstream press holds them to any standards at all."

Franken is disparaging of his rightwing media foes. Rush Limbaugh is "fat" and "a hypocrite", Ann Coulter is "a nutcase", and Bill O'Reilly "a splotchy bully and liar". He says: "All three have very different pathologies which is really interesting."

He has written chapters or even entire books about them, such as Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (1996). Franken thinks Limbaugh is "anything but an idiot. That was meant ironically." He pauses. "But he was of course very fat at the time. He was a huge, morbidly obese, fat man with a huge gut and a big fat ass.

"Rush is someone who for years had been saying, 'Anyone who uses drugs illegally should be put away'. It turned out, of course, that he was doing massive quantities of prescription painkillers. The quantity meant that he had to get them illegally. There's no shame in addiction, but he's a hypocrite. He's a guy that talks about fam ily values and he's been married and divorced three times. Rush is a talented radio guy. It's just that he has no fidelity to the truth at all."

Franken, who has feuded with Coulter, memorably described her in Lies as "the reigning diva of the hysterical right". He has seen nothing since to make him change his mind. "Ann Coulter just says terribly, awful, vicious things ... About Muslims, she said we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Or she said the only regret about [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't go to the New York Times building. These are things that pass for jokes for her.

"O'Reilly was sued for sexual harassment by a woman who produced a complaint that included very, very graphic transcripts of alleged phone sex from him that he never denied. In fact he settled with her. Then he talks about traditional values versus leftwing people who have these terrible secular humanist values."

Franken claims not to mind any of them having a pop at him in return. Indeed, to be reviled by Bill O'Reilly is "a badge of honour". He says: "If you are known by your enemies then those are three great enemies to have. And I must say the one who comes after me the most often and the hardest is O'Reilly.

"He did me the biggest favour he could possibly have done when he essentially forced Fox to sue me over Lies. They took me to court over the subtitle - A Fair and Balanced Look At The Right - and claimed that I was infringing their trademark. [Fox News uses the phrase Fair and Balanced]. There was a hearing and the court ruled in our favour and we got massive publicity. I was hoping the case would go on for a couple more news cycles."

Nor do the mainstream media escape Franken's ire for the "disgraceful" job they did reporting the build-up to war in Iraq - which he, of course, opposed vociferously. "What we have in this country right now is a cowed media. The Bush administration has successfully intimidated them and they've done that by denying access to correspondents who have challenged them. Reporters worry about losing their access, and thus their job. It's an awful situation."

When Franken began accusing Bush of lying, it was, he recalls, "a big deal". But that's changed. "Now people are much more willing to say the government was lying, for instance, over the war." A smile creeps onto his face. "We need to broaden our vocabulary. Sometimes people aren't lying, of course, they're just bullshitting, or what they are saying is poppycock or nonsense."

He reveals his next book is called The Truth (with jokes). "It's not about the media this time. It's about whatsisname? George Bush."

From bloggers to pundits, his enemies are no doubt poised to respond. And when they do, Franken will be down in the weeds, waiting for them.

From the Sunday Life report -

North Down MP Sylvia Hermon has tabled a series of questions to the Secretary of State asking him if his officials had been in touch with Sinn Fein before Kelly's arrest.

Lady Sylvia is asking Peter Hain if he is aware of "meetings or communications that took place, prior to Kelly's arrest, between representatives of his office or department with members of the PSNI, representatives of any foreign government, or representatives of any political party which does not have its headquarters within the United Kingdom."

Lady Hermon also asks Hain if discussions were held with any political party with headquarters within the UK, or any political parties currently elected to the Assembly.

And she has asked him to indicate if "members of any political party, or those likely to communicate with any political party, had prior knowledge of his intention to authorise the re-arrest of Kelly".

According to the report, "An NIO spokesman said Lady Hermon's questions would be answered in due course."

The IRA in Derry at the time was led by Martin McGuinness, now Sinn Féin's chief negotiator. After the murder of Kathleen Feeney it issued a public statement that traded directly on the IRA's reputation for telling the truth about its own activities: "The people of Derry are aware that we have admitted responsibility for our actions even at times when mistakes were made by us and civilians injured. We say categorically that the shooting of young Kathleen Feeney was the work of the British army and not of the republican movement." It later announced that it had murdered a British soldier in direct retaliation for the army's alleged shooting of Kathleen Feeney.

He then asserts:

If the IRA could establish 32 years later that one of their own members killed Kathleen Feeney, it is almost inconceivable that Martin McGuinness did not know this at the time.

And that:

Sinn Féin has repeatedly and at times eloquently demanded that there should not be a "hierarchy of victims" of the Troubles, yet it continues to operate in a blatantly hierarchical manner. While laconic, anonymous statements following secretive investigations are good enough for the IRA's victims, nothing short of full accountability is good enough for the victims of the British state and loyalist paramilitaries.

Finally:

Sinn Féin also complains that politicians who knew about collusion between the British state and loyalist paramilitaries "have never been called to account for their actions or for their culpability in the murder of citizens". Yet for almost 32 years, senior leaders of Sinn Féin knew that the IRA was lying about the murder of Kathleen Feeney. They knew what happened and why. And they kept their mouths shut.

By The Watchman

If the Ulster Unionist Party bungles the next few weeks and months as it has bungled just about everything else in the last 8 years then it really will be dead in the water. It has to realise that the electorate has given it a savage vote of no confidence. Its former leader, who often seemed divorced from reality, might blame everyone other than himself for the debacle. But a shattered party has no such luxury.

The post-Trimble UUP has not made a good start. The three leadership contenders publicly focused on internal party reform, not unimportant but comparatively peripheral. None mentioned the metaphorical elephant in the living room: the cumulative alienation of the unionist electorate thanks to an inept engagement with republicans. Trimble failed to grasp the interdependence of the IRA's political and military wings. He believed that republicans were on a road that was certain to end in purely constitutional means and took political risks on that basis.

The result was a long list of failures: putting the unreconstructed IRA/Sinn Fein into power in breach of previous pledges, bungling the UUP's approach to policing, endorsing procedural chicanery in the Assembly, and an ideological passivity (Dean Godson's phrase) in the face of republican pressure. It discredited the UUP as a robust defender of unionist interests and the party's centre-right vote duly floated off to the DUP.

The party may decide to advance towards a centre ground already occupied by the Alliance Party. That offers ideological purity but also a vote combined to bien pensant Greater Belfast. The Roy Garlands who argue for this approach have long been on the periphery of unionism. They regard an Olympian detachment from the concerns of most unionists as a mark of non-sectarian virtue and are happy for company in the wilderness.

They are often as dogmatic as Old Paisleyites in their own way and have learned nothing from the fates of Faulkner and Trimble. (Their stance misses the lesson identified by T.E. Utley 30 years ago: that the UUP always suffers more from fragmentation to the right than to the left.) The unexpectedly high vote for Alan McFarland suggests there may be a future powerful push in this direction from a large minority in the party.

Some may be attracted to a merger with the DUP but they should be more cautious. The DUP's shortcomings have been obscured by the sheer awfulness of the Trimble UUP. Despite profound changes within the party, a united unionism under the DUP flag poses lots of problems:

· The party is still imprinted for the foreseeable future with a profoundly sectarian outlook.

· Although many representatives have a well-earned reputation for constituency work, the flipside is a long-standing parochialism. The DUP has never properly exploited its Westminster presence and constantly misses opportunities to build up support for unionism outside the Province. Its involvement at Westminster in matters that do not concern Northern Ireland has traditionally been dilatory.

· The tight control over the party exercised by a coterie at the centre would give enormous control over the future representatives of a single unionist party to a very few.

· Finally, the DUP's opposition to the Belfast Agreement lacks credibility. Its fierce attacks on the UUP since 1998 have concealed a tacit acceptance of the Agreement.

In its first negotiation as the lead unionist party, only the intransigence of Ian Paisley kept the DUP out of what would have been a suicidal decision to share power with Sinn Fein just before the Northern Bank robbery. One constraint on the vaulting ambition within parts of the DUP is a unionist party that can hold the DUP to account. Parties exist to win votes and seats. The UUP must start again to compete with the DUP over the key centre-right, which comprises unionism's centre of gravity. This has several implications:

· The UUP must make a clean break with the past. Its overriding priority must be to rebuild trust and credibility with the unionist electorate that has been shattered by David Trimble's tenure. The UUP's key strategic misjudgment was to believe that the IRA was in the process of giving up violence and that forming the Executive would accelerate that process. It needs to apologise for its mistakes and admit that it has learned from them.

· The party must differentiate itself from the DUP by trumpeting an assertive, proactive and robust brand of unionism that defends the quality of UK citizenship without reducing its cause to sectarian head counting. That brand must then be allied to sounder strategic judgment. Never again can a unionist leader entrust his own credibility and that of his party to the IRA. Many of its problems arose from Trimble's determination to do a deal with the IRA at almost any price. Never again can terrorists be got in government on the basis that Trimble permitted.

The UUP must learn that there is a difference from setting out a non-sectarian prospectus and a discourse that just sounds wet. The difference can be easily illustrated. On his Let's Talk debut, Tyrone Howe, a likely rising star of the party, lapsed very quickly into community relations-speak about "reconciliation". At no point did he sound like someone who understood identifiably unionist concerns or would articulate them.

When, say, Bob McCartney makes the same comments, he can do so without losing credibility as a unionist champion because of his well-known combativeness on other issues. Howe, admittedly intelligent and telegenic, sounded like an Alliance spokesman. Nothing in terms of his delivery or content will ever pull back a DUP vote.

Unionism is constrained by a Belfast Agreement that is loaded in favour of Republicans. The DUP is discovering that the only basis for a return to devolution is another leap in the dark and putting its fate in the good faith of Sinn Fein. Unfortunately, it is not in the IRA's interests to wind up its armed wing and, in any event, the nationalist electorate will never punish Sinn Fein even if the DUP accuses it of reneging on a deal. That puts unionists at a huge disadvantage and will test the DUP's traditional unity and discipline to the limit. A key test for the UUP is to look beyond the Agreement.

· The party desperately needs new faces that are not discredited by past failures. There is a deficit of rising talent. (Proof of that can be seen in the website of the Young Unionists that has run comment threads full of puerile gloating at Paul Berry's expense.) The UUP must creatively build new non-institutional links with Orangeism, for the estrangement of rank and file Orangemen from the party has been an overlooked factor in the party's decline. It must also reach out to other burgeoning cultural groups within the Ulster-Scots movement and hopefully draw on the grassroots talent there.

· In terms of organisation, there must be a clear out of the Trimble faction from Cunningham House. May 2005 may have been the worst reversal but it was not the first electoral setback. A new leader will succeed or fail on whether he can build a sharp campaign machine to rival that of the DUP. The decay at a constituency level must also finally be addressed. Towering ambition and in-fighting should not be allowed to wreck any more constituency associations, as the sorry lesson of South Belfast should demonstrate.

There will be no quick fix for recovery. But despite the DUP's current ascendancy, there is clearly a place for an alternative brand of unionism: constitutionally sound; non-sectarian; and non-parochial. The DUP may be less stable than it looks on the surface and its eventual leadership succession is likely to weaken the party in a number of ways.

It may have cornered much of what talent there is in unionism, but it still has its mediocre representatives. It is beatable. The task for the new UUP leader is to show, through strength of personality, strategic direction and firmness of purpose, why the party deserves to lead unionism once again.

And if the opportunity is missed? Or the threshold ducked?

Will the Irish and British Governments continue with the current [and past?] strategy as described by Secretary of State for NI [and Wales - Ed] Peter Hain in an article in The Times -

But if you are going finally to crack the end of the process that culminated and then went beyond the Good Friday Agreement, these are the two parties[DUP and SF] that can most effectively deliver if they choose to do so.[added emphasis]

And if they choose not to? Is there a Plan B? Or will the Irish and British governments continue to replay the scene indefinitely?

Update With the BBC re-editing the original report.. sheesh.. I'm adding the relevant question, and answer, from the transcript of today's press conference

Question: Prime Minister, just looking forward to your meeting with the Taoiseach this afternoon and the hope for an IRA statement sometime in the future, how difficult do you envisage it will be to persuade Unionists that Republicans are for real this time, considering what has happened in the past?

Prime Minister: I think it is going to be very difficult to persuade Unionism of the sincerity of any Republican move, which is why that move has got to be clear and bold, because then it will have to result, if the Republicans do give up violence once and for all, it will have to result in a proper power sharing executive in which the Republicans are able to take their place at the democratic table. So it is immensely important that they do make this move, I don't know whether they will or not, but of course you know better than me that it would be daft to say after the events earlier this year that the credibility threshold was going to be easy to pass, but it can be passed, I am sure of that, if the IRA recognise that this is a one-off opportunity to accept what is now inevitable, which is that the only way that you are ever going to be able to pursue the cause that people believe in in Northern Ireland from the Republican point of view is peacefully, it won't happen any other way. And political progress has achieved a lot in Northern Ireland, but we have got to go on and make it achieve more. So it will be difficult, but on the other hand if it is done, and it is done genuinely and violence is genuinely given up, then the obligation then transfers to Unionists to make sure that they drop their opposition to going into a power sharing executive, and that is the situation really.[emphasis added]

Another Update A Joint Communiqué British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, referred to in the above question, was issued this afternoon - full communiqué here

On the "Review of political developments" the Intergovernmental conference had this to say -

Both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It remains the template for political progress in Northern Ireland.

The Conference reviewed recent political developments, including the results of the Westminster and local government elections in early May and contacts since then with the parties in Northern Ireland. The Conference acknowledged that all political parties with significant electoral mandates had important contributions to make in advancing progress and looked forward to continued dialogue with each of them.

The Conference agreed that any prospect of restoring devolved government on an inclusive basis was dependent on the rebuilding of the necessary trust and confidence. This required the IRA to definitively end all paramilitary and criminal activity and to fully and verifiably decommission its weapons. In the context of such an outcome being secured and verified by the IICD and IMC, it would expect all parties to fully play their part in the restoration of devolved and inclusive government in Northern Ireland and in the operation of all of the institutions of the Agreement.

That would appear to build into the 'credibility threshold' the Independent Monitoring Commission's report[s?]

Final Update Transcript of joint press conference between PM Tony Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern available here.

I'll just highlight this question -

Question: Prime Minister, Taoiseach, are you both in agreement that you don't require the disbandment per se of the IRA, and secondly how would you characterise your own relationship working together given recent speculation?

Prime Minister: Well, on the latter point, look there is a different position on the Common Agricultural Policy for very obvious reasons and the Taoiseach is, as you might expect and rightly so, is a very strong advocate of the Irish national interest. I have got to protect the British national interest. So there have been different positions on the CAP, but it is a relationship that has stood the test of time over the past few years and has worked extremely well and will continue to do so. And the interpreter's box here is for the Iraqi Prime Minister. I hasten to say that. I was a bit alarmed when I saw that actually when I came in.

On the first point which is to do with the form of disbandment. Look let us be very clear, otherwise you get into verbal battles which are not what is important. What is important is that the Republican movement pursues its aim by exclusively democratic and peaceful means, and that means an end to all violence and all preparations for violence. And therefore that means an organisation like the IRA moving into a different way of working, a different frame, a different modus operandi where it is no longer posing a threat of violence, or violence itself in the community in Northern Ireland. Now I think that is pretty clear and what language you use to describe how that happens is I think far less important than the blunt fact that you have got to have an end to violence in word and in deed.

Irish Prime Minister: And I think at the end of the day people will see very clearly whether we have achieved that or not and that is what matters. That violence and all the associated activities are over, then people will be immensely happy. And on the second part of your question I just want to wish the Prime Minister well for the Presidency ahead and for the G8 Meeting. I have had recent experience of it and regarding the CAP there are just a few million between us, but we will sort that out some other time.

That would appear to be something for everyone, then.. not that that approach hasn't been tried before..

The success it seems comes from addressing the sporting needs of an Irish audience first:

Figures show they have abandoned the BBC in favour of TG4 which took a gamble in securing the rights for Wimbledon for the next three years. Ratings figures out next week are expected to show that the All-Irish coverage has attracted a legion of new viewers. Last week while the BBC brought viewers every shot of Tim Henman's early exit from the championship, viewers of TG4 enjoyed a great match from another court, featuring Gilles Muller and French Open Champion Rafael Nadal - with Muller knocking the fourth seed out.

Next week they have the Irish rights to coverage of the Tour de France!

According to the Irish Times on Saturday, the key intervention came when David Burnside

Mr Burnside asked each candidate in the event of the DUP entering into a power-sharing Northern Executive with Sinn Fein would he lead the Ulster Unionist Party into opposition. Mr McFarland and Mr McNarry told delegates that they wouldn't adopt such a stance. Sir Reg however said he would consider such an option, earning muted applause. Sir Reg during his election campaign indicated that he would not share power with Sinn Féin should the IRA effectively disband in the coming months. He said that it could until the next Assembly elections, in such an eventuality, before he would be prepared to accept republican bona fides.

Astute enough. It communicated a hardline to the traditionalists when he needed it, and yet with a strong possibility that the DUP will insist on new Assembly elections before taking their executive seats, hardly binding in any practical sense.

Howwever, taking the loose affliation that is the UUP and turning it into a tight and disciplined is a mountain for anyone to climb. Few doubt the UU house is still divided. He will some time and grace to get it right. The conservatives within the party will feel they have taken back some of the ground they lost under Trimble. Then again, they thought they were buying a conservative when they got Trimble!

Can Empey keep them onside and at the same time create some forward momentum before what is likely to be a very tough Assembly election some time in the next one to two years?

What would happen if a newspaper invited readers to an editorial conference down the pub? First to arrive would be fans of the paper, keen to get involved. Next would be curious bystanders, drawn by the heat of debate. Last would be the drunken idiots, ranting and swearing incoherently until they were escorted from the premises. At closing time the newspaper would be left with no editorial - and a lot of spilt beer to wipe up.

That is pretty much what happened when the LA Times last week opened up its editorial comment on Iraq to public amendment online. It was called a wikitorial, from 'wiki' - originally Hawaiian for 'quickly', now internetese for a page that can be edited by allcomers. It is one of the many innovations that old media see happening, know is important, but don't know why.

In France however, there is a much greater consonance between bloggers and journalism:

'Au blog, citoyens', screamed the front page of leftwing daily Libération, echoing the call to arms in the 'Marseillaise'. Inside, the newspaper devoted a double-page spread to the story of Christophe Grébert, a blogger from the small town of Puteaux who used his site, monputeaux.com, to report on the politics of the local town hall. He is being pursued by the mayor for defamation, a development that guarantees him worldwide internet martyrdom.

Along with a celebration of citizen blogs around the country, Libération hinted its support for Grébert in an editorial comment. 'The law should certainly punish malevolent rumour, defamation and intimidation,' the newspaper said. 'But it is more important still that the law is not subverted by those who want to limit the field of free speech and fair comment. Blogs can be a powerful tool in the service of democracy.'

And this, spotted by Ezter, at Crooked Timber.. may suggest the NYTimes Technology editor might know a site he would like to nominate.. although it sounds more like a comment aimed at the NYTimes marketing department -

STOP BUGGING ME If newspaper marketers think they are receiving reliable user information via those annoying site registrations, they should run their Web addresses through bugmenot.com, which offers quick user names and passwords to people who click on a link only to be confronted by a mandatory registration page. Some examples of usernames: thisisannoying; iwantnews; thisisjustsilly; whydoyoudothis.

Drop your suggestions at the Guardian.. and then call back and tell us which sites you've nominated.. or not..

Reg Empey doesn't seem to be in any rush to declare a return to any restored executive..

'We went into government with republicans on three occasions just to give them time to change their ways and each time they soiled the nest. So we will only be interested in what the IRA does and not what it says.'

Sir Reg said the body established to monitor the IRA and loyalist paramilitary ceasefires, the International Monitoring Commission, will be in a position by March 2006 to report on almost eight months of terrorist activity, or lack of it.

Neither was he optimistic of the prospects of a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity -

'I suspect they[PIRA] will do as they have done in Dublin and privatise their criminality, allowing ordinary criminals to carry out robberies and so on and then tax them,' Sir Reg said.

There is also a longer article in the print edition of The Observer I have in front of me.. but for some reason it doesn't seem to be online.

But in it Reg takes a couple of extra swings at the DUP, and Ian Paisley in particular -

"He said he would smash Sinn Féin wielding a sledgehammer in the Eighties and he hasn't. He has never in his entire career successfully negotiated anything.

"The only thing he and the DUP can achieve is a bantustan society where there is separate development between the two communities, one which is ruled by Sinn Féin, the other controlled by the DUP"

Of course, Empey was likely to open his leadership term with a bullish statement of intent..

By contrast, Alan McFarland speaking after the result of the leadership contest was known is quoted in this report

After the contest, Alan McFarland said the UUP, "now needed to rally round its new leader and move forward".

"We cannot out-DUP the DUP, we should not be trying, but there needs to be clear water between ourselves and the DUP to give the electorate a choice as to whether they vote Ulster Unionist or the DUP.

"Our first problem is, we have to try to produce a party, as soon as we can, that is electable, that actually looks as if it is together, organised, speaking with one voice with clear policies," he said.

Since then Reg Empey, speaking on the Politics Show on BBC1 today, has said they have met and discussed the situation - seemingly everything's sorted between the two of them and McFarland understands the position [a slight paraphrasing may be inferred].

I'd suggest that there's more discussions ahead between these two and Empey could do worse than to keep Alan McFarland as close as possible to his leadership.. no confirmation of who will be Deputy Leader yet?.. just a thought..

Update the BBC's Mark Devenport does the profiling here

Thanks too for mentions from Diarmid Logan; Dosing Times; exit 145; Best of Both Worlds; the very excellent Tom Griffin; Paul the erudite Magyar; Kevin the disillusioned lefty; Mr Peter The Gudgeon Reavy; Buff and Blue; The boys (and one girl) in the Back Seat; Res Publica; Never trust a hippy; O journalism; An tImeall ag dul ar fheabhas; Incorrect use of soap; Free Stater; Politicalist; Sheila O'Malley; Irish Aires; David Williamson; the inimitable Felix Quigley; Steven at Everything Ulster; doChara; and thanks to Colman at the Euro Trib for occasional links in his thrice-weekly Irish news round-ups.

Now repeat it all out loud in one breath. Sounds like a warm up for the U2 gig in Croker tonight!

Unionists have reacted with scepticism, perhaps seeing it as a cynical move by republicans to demonstrate - without conceding anything - to the two governments that they are 'moving on' before the next round of talks.

Unionists tend to see such moves as minimalistic, not addressing their concerns. But then it isn't unionism that republicanism has to impress, and the cumulative effect of further moves may well - once again - force Blair and Ahern to adopt a softer line.

Given that this admission addresses the concern of a victim first, it might be interesting to see if a pattern develops. There have been moves to appoint a forensic expert to locate the remains of the Disappeared, so perhaps that is something to keep an eye on.

As there is a post-negotiation period where the IRA is expected to demonstrate its democratic bona fides, might we expect a drip feed of further moves? A decommissioning move must surely be on the cards, and while these confidence-building measures may curry favour with the governments, how will unionism react? Surely the DUP cannot remain outside looking in again? What direction will Empey take the UUP in after he is elected UUP leader?

All these and other questions to be answered in the next episode of Peace Processing, Episide 847.

By J.M. Lawrence

"The Bermuda Triangle" – where money simply disappears – is what Angolans have dubbed the confluence of their country’s state-owned oil company, Central Bank and Presidency, The Economist notes. In that triangle of resource wealth, money and power, far more than $3 billion dollars in annual oil export earnings vanish. Not a trace can be found on government ledgers.

That Angolans were dying of hunger by the thousands in the late 1990’s, failed to compel an investigation into how the money needed to end hunger could remain unaccounted for. A clue, though, was supplied by The Washington Post, which reported in 1997 that the Angolan government was spending more on purchases of luxury automobiles for high-level government officials and their wives than on health care and education.

The “corrupt elite” governing Kenya is plundering their country’s economy to amass personal wealth, The Economist reported in 1999. On that diversion of national wealth into Swiss-type bank accounts, the Roman Catholic Church declared: "To notch up foreign bank accounts at the cost of hunger, suffering, blood and death of others is a repugnant infamy," The Economist conveyed.

The Front de Liberation National, governing Algeria, has doled out $26 billion to officials in their party. This personal allotment of national wealth was recently disclosed by ex-prime minister, Mr. Abdelhamid Brahimi, The Free Africa Foundation relates in “The Rape and Plunder of Africa.”

Under the title “le sang des pauvres,” which translates to “the blood of the poor,” Liberation reported in 1992 that Mr. Moussa Traore, Mali’s former head-of-state used his term in office to steal more than $2 billion from that country.

And, the “financial drain continues,” The Free Africa Foundation expounds.

“So money is not the problem here, it’s the management!” the United Nations states in its May 4, 2005 report titled “The IMSCO Proposal/Report: Towards An African Solution.” The report relates that “Southern Black Africa” is “awash in oil and gas and they have more complete control of the world’s strategic metals: e.g. 99% of platinum group metals; 96% of chrome; 98% of manganese; 89% of diamond; 68% of gold; 97% of vanadium and 40% of uranium.” Finding: “These resources (sic) numbers strongly suggest that no one can successfully argue that Africans anywhere are poor, but rather disenfranchised.” Here the U.N. notes: “the world (sic) industrial nations are resources (sic) poor and badly need these resources.” Thus the U.N. determines that, "This wealth places Africa on the top of the Pyramid of the economic Resource War game." The report asserts: "the people of Africa… can and must insist…that African governments are not the owners of African land and wealth."

But most of the continent’s leadership continues to demonstrate an opposing view. "Leadership in Africa, with few exceptions, is seen as an opportunity to get rich rather than serve the people," Mr. Tony Nze Njoku writes in Finance & Development, a World Bank publication.

“Dishonesty, thievery, and peculation pervade the public sector… The chief bandit is the head of state himself,” Mr. George Ayittay exposes in “The Vampire African State” for The Free Africa Foundation. Mr. Ayittay finds that “case after case” demonstrates that most African government officials are "Faithful only to their foreign bank accounts…"

In these foreign bank accounts, an estimated $140 billion had been illegally amassed by 1992, according to Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo, The New York Times reported. During a meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) that year, President Obasanjo suggested that international financial centers should return this illicitly obtained wealth of corrupt African leaders. Why, then, was President Obasanjo later the same year requesting $64 billion in additional aid from the Group of Seven Industrialized Nations and Russia “when he could have asked the thieves [who] were sitting right in front of his very eyes at the OAU meeting” for the $64 billion, posited Mr. George B. N. Ayittey, Ph.D.

Why hasn’t President Obasanjo asked the thieves at home for the $64 billion? For, “the money suspected to have been stolen by some Nigerian government officials and kept in foreign accounts [rose] from $50 billion in 1999 to $170 billion in 2003,” Vanguard reports.

On these foreign bank accounts, Mr. David Asonye Ihenacho writes for Nigeriaworld:

First, the sum of 170 billion dollars…is about 60% of the entire debt owed by the entire continent of Africa to the rest of the world…Second, who are these Nigerians with this large sum of money stored overseas? The sum of 170 billion dollars is by far bigger than the entire wealth of the four richest people in the world combined. The wealth of Bill Gates III of Microsoft, Warren E. Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, Karl and Theo Albrecht of Wal-mart retail and Paul G. Allen of Microsoft combined does not rise up to 170 billion dollars.

Individuals on the continent of Africa were transferring “$20 billion a year into bank accounts in Europe ” during the 1980’s, according to a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, the Africa Insider reported.

Critics of the government in Kenya assert that government officials there maintain their largest accounts "in foreign banks and that there is more money from Kenyans in foreign banks than the entire Kenyan foreign debt" of approximately $8 billion, The Washington Times wrote in 1995.

"What Arab country has $50 billion in private savings stashed abroad? asked The Economist in 1992. Egypt - a country with a $35 billion foreign debt and where “customers fight over Mercedes sports cars that sell for $400,000” - was the answer supplied. And a note furnished was that this is a ‘where a typical monthly wage is $50, and rubbish is collected by small dirty children in rickety donkey-carts"

As is the case for most of the Third World, for every dollar of foreign aid going into Africa, $3 flee the continent for banks in Europe and America, Mr. Philip Emeagwali informed the Voice of America in 2000. "Most African political leaders [have]…bank accounts in Europe," primarily in Switzerland, Mr. Emeagwali continued.

"It is time the West helped Africa to retrieve the money our politicians have stashed in Western banks,” Mr.Ekoue Teko writes for New African. "If this is done…we will have enough to live on without borrowing," he finds.

Not to do so will only perpetuate the ongoing travesty. On the problems confronting Equatorial Guinea, the Cape Times reported in 2004: "the root cause of the turbulence is very likely the same old problem which bedevils many African countries…And that is that the country's leaders are quite simply hogging all the wealth to themselves."

As an immigrant from the Third World told me: "There is no limit to how much they will steal from the poor."

Yet, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the U.N. are touting a Millennium Project to donate more tens of billions of dollars to the thieving leaders in Africa. Mr. Blair and the U.N. assert that this Marshall Plan is needed to end poverty. They are blind to the fact that, as the Royal Africa Society states: "Africa has had a Marshall Plan several times over in the last 50 years and has little to show for it."

Despite the laudable aims of such a Truth Commission, I've yet to be convinced that, in practice, it would come close to satisfying the varied, and often contradictory, needs and/or agendas of the required participants.

And Adams acknowledges those difficulties -

Those of us who have promoted the idea of a truth process should be under no illusions about the difficulties inherent in such an undertaking or, in particular, the damage that could be done if it wasn't handled properly.

I was certainly left with no illusions after the conference.

I was even more aware than before of just how difficult, if not downright impossible, it will be to overcome some of those obstacles.

He considers the reality facing those who would have to provide information for such a Commission to be viable -

We have to consider, too, what incentive there could possibly be for people such as politicians, clergy or business leaders to volunteer information to a truth commission regarding their own role in the conflict.

If anything, they would have a strong vested interest in not co-operating.

Is it desirable (or even feasible), then, that a truth commission should have powers to investigate, seize documents and summon people to account for themselves if there seems to be sufficient evidence that they have a case to answer? And, in those circumstances, what safeguards would there be for high-profile individuals who would forever run the risk of being maliciously named?

To protect against that, should media access be strictly limited with most sittings held in private? What impact would such restrictions have on public confidence in the process and, in any event, would it be realistic to expect there wouldn't be a continuous leaking of information from the proceedings? Unless properly designed and managed, of course, a truth process would always be open to abuse by those intent on using it to rewrite history to their own advantage.

He identifies perhaps the most obvious problem for any Truth Commission operating in a society where much of the political wrangling remains embedded in competing versions of the past -

Those seeking to inflate their particular "truth" at the expense of others' versions would try to use a truth process as a platform from which to continue the conflict by other means.

Further hurt would then be heaped on already grieving relatives forced to watch from the sidelines as their bereavement is used to bolster the position of one side or another in a public squabble between opposing factions.

And he ends with, IMO, an astute observation on the prospects for a truth-seeking process at this point -

Unless people on all sides are willing to face up to the pain of objective truth and, further, have a clear and realistic idea of the limits to what can reasonably be achieved, then a truth process should, at least at this juncture, be a non-runner. Unless the circumstances are right, there would be a real risk of it further entrenching divisions or, at best, raising public expectations and then dashing them again.

So the ultimate question must be: are the people of Northern Ireland ready to face the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

As yet, there's little evidence from any side that, even if the people were ready, the truth would be forthcoming.

The intelligence establishment does exist of course but its true political agenda is clearly to make life as easy as possible for senior republicans. So the danger of securocrat conspiracy theories is that they can easily implicate senior republicans as well. Might a leading Shinner have lifted the phone and given the nod to Kelly's arrest, for some reason? That's no harder to believe than the existence of a hidden network of disgruntled spooks hell-bent on restarting the Troubles.

He also give short shrift to the 'it's to placate the Unionists theory over Sean Kelly's arrest:

Another republican fantasy currently doing the rounds suggests that Sean Kelly's arrest was a sop to unionists by the new Secretary of State to make up for his ludicrous lefty past. There are two problems with this theory. First, neither main unionist party has expressed any concern over Peter Hain's appointment. Second, both main unionist parties have expressed concern over Sean Kelly's arrest.

In support, he cites:

The DUP in particular fears that, because the details of Kelly's review hearing need not be reported, another juicy set of republican misdeeds is about to be swept under the rug. Perhaps Nigel Dodds should start complaining about securocrats – he certainly has the better excuse.

However since the Northern Bank raids, he is clear what future the IRA should choose:

"I would still support Sinn Fein's right to be part of the peace process," Mr. King said, "but I would be very critical of the IRA for not disbanding. No, they have to disband. Northern Ireland is at the threshold of being a democratic society." What will he do if, as is now speculated in Ireland, the IRA refuses to disband? "With the IRA, I will reconsider my relationship," he said. "The IRA really has to disband. Whether they do it this week or next week, they have to do it pretty soon, and if they don't, I will consider speaking out against them."

Ragham Amú (blúire do)

Is bás, dar liom fein, fragairt,
Is beatha fiafraí –
Ragham amú tamall eile
Is chífidh an tír

- Seán Ó Ríordáin

ragham amú
siar ó dheas
aniar aduaidh
beam ag tnúth
le teas an ghutha
ragham ag triall
ag Rí na bhFeart
is i ndeasghnáth
coinnle is craicinn
i gCaiseal Mumhan
dófam ár seascdhámh
i dtíne chnámh
is scaipfeam an luath
ar choincleach an traidisiúin
ragham amú
déanfam dearmhad
ar mhórdearmhad
i seachrán sléibhe
nó ar maos
sa riasc
idir Altan Mór
is Altan Beag
ag stáisiún traenach
Chaiseal na gCorr
fágfam slán
leis an traein stairiúil
a théan amú

Noteworthy amongst everything else was Peter Hain's advocacy for greater powers for the Welsh Assembly (subject to approval by referendum:

Peter Hain's claim that he can handle double-jobbing has been put to an early test. Trying to settle squabbles in the (Welsh) Assembly by giving it greater powers is, indeed, a bold move. Last week in the Commons, he also learned that trying to forge closer north-south links - in this case with a vague and under-funded Welsh transport plan - can be a thankless task. The truth is north and south Walians traditionally don't care for each other much. All very instructive when it comes to dealing with Northern Ireland, perhaps.

If the IRA is now finally removed from the scene, what do republicans do next if they want to turn the pressure up on the British? The only plausible answer would seem to be that republicans no longer regard the IRA as of benefit to t