If you happened to be in and around the Heathrow area last week, you may have been fortunate enough (if the riot police weren’t too much of a distraction) to see me supergluing my hands to one of BAA’s 4x4 security vehicles. Reviews were mixed.

The Mirror said: “One 22-year-old man glued himself to a BAA car before being removed and arrested on suspicion of criminal damage.” According to the ever-attentive activist resource Indymedia: “A man superglued himself to a security vehicle at the Heathrow business academy. He was unstuck and arrested.”

In the (frankly misleading and inaccurate) words of the Times: “a man was restrained while attempting to glue himself to a car. He was arrested, one of six arrests that had been made by 8pm yesterday.” (One of the subsequent commenters on the piece, incidentally - one Jim from the Midlands - asks “Why on earth would one think that glueing ones self to a car would have any impact on BAA?”, actually not an unreasonable question in the circumstances. Unfortunately for Jim, since he chose the Times as his news source - in preference to, say, Indymedia - the answer is likely to remain a mystery.)

No pictures of the event yet, sadly. So in the meantime, you’ll have to make do with the above picture of three fellow troublemakers stationed nearby at the time, who were kind enough to cheer me on my way to the cells. And, in addition, a picture of the extremely powerful and impressive march by London-based Climate Campers, wielding pages of the Tyndall Centre’s aviation report and boards depicting faces of victims of climate change.

On a separate but related note, I have just written a short blog entry for UK Watch on some of the mainstream press’s more ridiculous coverage during the Camp for Climate Action. Read it here.

David Wearing writes an informative and compelling commentary on the recent crisis in the financial markets on his blog:

Big Finance has argued for liberal financial markets and generally to be left alone by government. But plainly Big Finance does not object to state intervention in principle, having just accepted over $300bn of cheap public money. What Big Finance wants is for the government to back off when it is making a profit and step in when it is making a loss. This is not about liberalism vs interventionism. Its about what suits economic power at any given time. ...

The reality is that economic questions are settled in favour of material interests, not philosophical principles. The moral-philosophical question of relevance here is whether we can accept a socio-economic settlement designed to benefit elite interests, or whether we should demand one that serves the common interest. Once that fairly straightforward question is answered, the answers to smaller questions on how and when to “intervene” in our economy will flow quite easily and naturally.

In contrast to the usual stereotypes of single mothers, fraudulent disability benefit claimants and the like, the phenomenon of "corporate welfare" goes largely unnoticed in the public sphere. Yet it effectively represents a massive redistribution of wealth away from the general public and towards those at the very top of the economic pyramid. In essence, a silent, undeclared class war is being waged - on behalf of the rich. Wearing's piece provides an excellent outline of this process, and puts recent events into badly-needed context. Read the whole thing here.

What’s the natural response of a government for which climate change is “the most far-reaching - and almost certainly the most threatening - of all the environmental challenges facing us”, with “potentially devastating” consequences, to the news that the same issue is “bottom of the priority list” for Britain’s biggest companies? Why, to give the (completely unelected) individual who acted as the voice of big business in Britain over the preceding 6 years a place in the cabinet, of course. That, and to downgrade the key cabinet committee on the issue.

A further insight into this extraordinary world of doublethink and hypocrisy can be found on the website of one of the UK’s premier climate change policy centres, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. A brief glance at page 42 of the report on climate change and aviation policy they published last year allows us to compare the level to which the UK’s carbon emissions must fall by 2050 (the blue line) and the levels of carbon emissions from predicted expansions in our aviation sector, adjusted for the increased effects flying in particular has on the atmosphere.

The blue (lower) line in this graph actually represents a level of emissions slightly in excess of what the scientific community (as opposed to the government) considers the required level to which we must restrain our emissions in order to avoid reaching a dangerous “tipping point”, beyond which the effects of climate change are out of our hands: the equivalent of 440 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO2. It should therefore be of some interest to anyone who cares about the future of humanity that emissions from our predicted aviation expansion alone take us above the necessary target. As the campaign group Plane Stupid put it, “We could close every factory, lock away every car and turn off every light in the country, but it won't halt global warming” if our present patterns of aircraft travel continue.

But the government simply isn’t listening. Indeed, after they released their recent energy white paper, the Tyndall Centre were scathing on the hypocrisy they continued to display. “There remains a gaping chasm,” they write, “between the well-meaning rhetoric underpinning the Government’s Climate Change Programme, Draft Climate Change Bill and Energy White Paper and their continued refusal to sanction meaningful and effective action to urgently reduce our escalating carbon emissions. … Given the Government’s acknowledgement of the seriousness of the climate change threat, the EWP only serves to reinforce the shameful political expediency of current UK climate policy.”

The business world couldn’t care less; nor, apparently, could the government. Whether the issue can be dealt with turns on the willingness of the public to take it seriously, and to raise the stakes accordingly.

Efforts to do so are now well-advanced. This year’s Camp for Climate Action takes place at Heathrow Airport, beginning next Tuesday 14 August, and culminating in 24 hours of action, taking place from midday sunday 19th till midday Monday 20th August. If you can go, go. If you can’t go, consider donating, or helping out in some other way. As the organisers write:

“What we do now decides what the future holds. Those who came before us didn't know the problem, those who come after us will have severely limited options. We have both the power and the responsibility to make a radically better world.

“By uniting in collective action this summer we can begin to make it happen.”

We are living at a critical time. And if we’re serious about tackling climate change, far from allowing airports to expand, we need to start shutting them down.

As the debate between Oliver Kamm and Johann Hari goes on, the list of neoconservatives whose philosophy the former is willing to defend gradually dwindles. “I have scant sympathy with Ambassador [Jeane] Kirkpatrick's political views”, writes Kamm. Norman Podhoretz, whose connection to Elliott Abrams Kamm uses to play up the latter’s neoconservative credentials, is a man “whose wider political views I reject in almost every particular”. Abrams “is not a neoconservative of the school I identify as consistent with the Left's ideals”. As we’ve already established, in fact, considering these last two to be proponents of democracy is utterly laughable, given their respective records.

Nonetheless, “the neoconservative stress on democracy … has a clear lineage in theory and practice”. Not quite so clear any more, it must be said. But Kamm has one last ace up his sleeve: Paul Wolfowitz. For “another variant of neoconservatism, most obviously associated with Paul Wolfowitz … does favour intervention to promote democracy. … Ultimately, our security requires the spread of democratic values”, and “certain neoconservatives understand that better than anyone” except Nick Cohen and his clique.

Well, since he names Wolfowitz, it’s worth reviewing this character’s record on democracy promotion. Firstly, in Indonesia, where he served as US ambassador during the rule of the brutal, corrupt and despotic General Suharto. Individuals active in promoting human rights at the time do not, it must be said, paint a flattering picture:

"Of all former U.S. ambassadors, he was considered closest to and most influential with Suharto and his family," said Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, head of the state-sponsored National Human Rights Commission.

"But he never showed interest in issues regarding democratization or respect of human rights," said Hakim, who at the time headed the Legal Aid Institute that defended dissidents and sought to free political prisoners. "Wolfowitz never once visited our offices."

"I also never heard him publicly mention corruption, not once," Hakim said. …

Wolfowitz publicly lauded the dictator [Suharto], praising his "strong and remarkable leadership" in congressional testimony.

Wolfowitz "never alluded to any concerns about the level of corruption or the need for more transparency," said Binny Buchori, director of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development - a coalition of 100 agencies promoting democracy in Indonesia.

"He was an effective diplomat, but he gave no moral support for dissidents," she said. "He went to East Timor and saw abuses going on, but then kept quiet."

Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a former foreign policy adviser to B.J. Habibie, Suharto's successor as head of state, also agreed that Wolfowitz was a competent and popular envoy.

"He was extremely able and very much admired and well-liked on a personal level ... but he never intervened to push human rights or stand up to corruption," she said. (“Indonesian Activists Slam Wolfowitz' World Bank Candidacy”, Dow Jones Newswires, March 22, 2005.)

Remarkably, as Jeffrey A. Winters, Associate Professor of Political Economy at Northwestern University writes:

In a Lexis-Nexis search of every mention of Wolfowitz in the press during his years as ambassador, there is not one instance where he is quoted as speaking up on human rights or democracy in Indonesia. Instead, he is consistently apologetic for the Suharto regime, always turning the focus toward matters of business, investment, and the local and regional stability the iron-fisted Suharto helped promote.

Winters also recounts one illuminating episode which occurred during during Ronald Reagan’s 1986 visit to Indonesia. Wolfowitz was “scrambling to get the Indonesian government to grant visas to two Washington-based reporters from Australia”. Writes Winters:

According to Los Angeles Times reporters Jack Nelson and Eleanor Clift, "Paul D. Wolfowitz, the U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, had urged the Indonesians to withdraw the ban on the journalists for fear that it would draw attention to the human rights issue. Administration officials had emphasized that Reagan had no plan to raise human rights with Suharto and would prefer that the issue not be raised publicly."

More apologism on behalf of the Indonesian government proved to be rquired of the ambassador, however:

The Australian journalists, immediately taken into custody in Bali and deported, were being blocked because of a recent article another journalist had written back in Australia. The article accurately described the Suharto dictatorship's abuses of human rights and focused on the Suharto family and cronies as being corrupt.

The Telegraph reported that, "Mr. Wolfowitz had described the [Australian] newspaper article as 'bad' and told a press conference on his arrival in Jakarta that the U.S. would handle the sort of situation it created with the Indonesian Government by playing down the article and trying to ignore it." …

Wolfowitz's cowardly behavior prompted a rare rebuke from the head of the Australian government. The Advertiser in Australia reported that Wolfowitz was specifically singled out for criticism by Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke for his comments. Hawke "did not hesitate to attack… the new U.S. Ambassador to Jakarta, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz."

Indeed the comment quoted above on Suharto’s “strong and remarkable leadership” was made in 1997, very late in the day for the the dictator, who was deposed in 1998. So it would appear Wolfowitz was defending the record of the brutal, autocratic, genocidal thug right until the end.

More recently, Wolfowitz has had an interesting role in Turkish affairs, particularly after that country’s parliament - in accord with overwhelming popular opposition - failed to approve the US’s use of Turkish territory during the attack on Iraq. The following is excerpted from an interview with CNN Turk in May 2003:

Wolfowitz: … From a U.S. Turkish point of view there is good news and bad news. The good news is that a majority of the parliament did vote to support us in the things that we asked for. The bad news is that because of the procedural issues that wasn’t a big enough majority to get it done and that many of the institutions in Turkey that we think of as the traditional strong support is the alliance were not as forceful in leading in that direction.

CNN Turk: Which traditional alliance are you talking about?

Wolfowitz: Well I think you know which ones I mean but I think particularly the military. I think for whatever reason they did not play the strong leadership role on that issue that we would have expected. …

I think it’s perfectly appropriate, especially in your system, for the military to say it was in Turkey’s interest to support the United States in that effort.

CNN Turk: Didn’t they say that?

Wolfowitz: I don’t know. My impression is they didn’t say it with the kind of strength that would have made a difference. …

Lets have a Turkey that steps up and says we made a mistake. … Let’s figure out how we can be as helpful as possible to the Americans …

As one columnist in the Boston Globe pointed out, this was in a context in Turkish politics in which “[t]he Turkish generals have made it a habit to step in from time to time to dismiss governments they do not like, returning rule to civilians only when it suits them. The last time this happened was in the late 1990s”. And sure enough, later the same month the Turkish military again began issuing none-too-covert threats towards the country’s government.

In fact Wolfowitz’s comments were sufficiently egregious and inflammatory to provoke one Congressman Barney Frank to call for his resignation, “because of his outrageous effort to undermine democracy in Turkey”. Said Frank:

It is unacceptable for both international and domestic reasons for the second-highest ranking official of the American defense establishment to be an advocate of military pressure being brought to press elected officials into changing their decisions, and the retention of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz in this position can only signal a throw back to the unhappy days in the past when America felt justified in urging foreign militaries to thwart democracy when elected officials were insufficiently obedient to American foreign policy dictates.

And so another one bites the dust. The “neoconservative stress on democracy”, with its “clear lineage in theory and practice” is yet again revealed to be utterly hollow.

From the Media Lens message board:

The mainstream media - united in idiocy

The Independent:
At his debut "Colgate" summit here with Mr Bush, Tony Blair cavorted in a shirt and sweater, and a pair of "ball-crushingly tight, dark-blue corduroys", in the words of the Great British ambassador of the day.... Not so Gordon, in the same dark suit he might have worn as Chancellor at a Guildhall banquet.

Daily Telegraph:
Mr Blair and Mr Bush were fond of appearing together in casual attire, including, according to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, Mr Blair's "ball-crushingly tight dark-blue corduroys''.
Downing Street aides said Mr Brown will not take any sartorial risks. "He may remove his tie,'' ventured one official.

Sunday Telegraph:
The new Prime Minister has asked for a more "focused'' and "business-like'' atmosphere. You can be sure there will be no "ball-crushingly tight dark-blue corduroys'' so memorably described by Christopher Meyer.

Sunday Times:
When Gordon Brown meets George Bush at Camp David today, we can be sure that he will not emulate his predecessor in wearing what the then British ambassador described as "ball-crushingly tight" trousers.

The Times:
Mr Blair, after some intense consultation with his style advisers, wore a pair of blue corduroys, later described by the man who was British ambassador at the time as "ball-crushingly tight".

The Mirror:
One addressed "Gordon", the other "Mr President", the nauseating Tony & George act that served Britain so badly went out of the window. This was ballsy politics in a business suit, Brown wisely avoiding the embarrassing ball-crushingly tight corduroys favoured by Tony Blair.

Financial Times:
But Mr Brown has ensured there are obvious contrasts with his predecessor on this, the first substantive overseas trip of his premiership. Gone is Mr Blair's casual Camp David attire - the "ball-crushingly tight" trousers described by Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to the US.

The Guardian:
Brown wanted his Washington debut to look nothing like the Bush-Blair love-ins of the past, and he succeeded. Out went the groin-squeezingly tight jeans, in came the suits.

And there's even more ...

Sending the right signals

Leader
Monday July 30, 2007
The Guardian

A very different British prime minister arrived at Camp David for his first summit with George Bush last night. Unlike Tony Blair, Mr Brown will not swagger around in tight jeans...

And still more ...

And of course Rawnsley in the Observer:

At his first Camp David meeting with George Bush, more than six long years ago, Tony Blair was told that his host wanted to be informal. Eager to please, he wore a pair of bollock-crushingly tight jeans and seemed to try to ape Bush by adopting a sort of cowboy gait.

'Gordon does not do jeans,' as one of his friends puts it. Nor does he do cowboy. Gordon Brown only has two outfits in his prime ministerial wardrobe. One is a suit. The other is a suit without a tie. The latter is as informal as he gets. Relaxed but businesslike is the impression that Mr Brown would like to be projected from Camp David.

And more after that ...

Feeling weird yet?

Daily Telegraph:
The personal tailoring ensured the cut was on the generous side with no room for the "too tight to mention'' appearance of Mr Blair's trousers when he went for a walk with President Bush and his dog Spot at Camp David in February 2001.

Photographs on that occasion show Mr Blair vainly attempting to wedge his hands into the pockets of his tight-squeeze trousers but being unable to insert them for fear of cutting off the circulation.

Daily Telegraph:
They wore suits and ties, rather than "ball-crunchingly tight'' slacks. They shared experiences of Scottish Presbyterian church services, instead of Colgate toothpaste.
Of course Gordon Brown and George Bush bonded at Camp David - it was their job to do so - but there was clearly a greater degree of formality in their relationship than there was between the American President and Tony Blair.

The Guardian:
He eschewed the New Labour-issue tight jumper and even tighter jeans, as sported by Tony Blair at his first Camp David summit in 2001.

And finally (or not, as the case may be) ...

And Nick Robinson:

'There'll be no Colgate moment, no movie with the wives, no chinos that are - in the words of the British Ambassador at the time - "ball crushingly tight". This first Camp David summit between Prime Minister and President will not, must not, be the same as the last first summit.'

Quite.

And here - courtesy of the Media Lens editors - is the punch-line (my link):

By the way, there were more press mentions of the tight trousers than of the latest Oxfam report of the cataclysm in Iraq.

For more on this spectacular performance, have a look at Media Lens's latest Media Alert.