In most countries there is no shortage of ambitious politicians clamouring to be prime minister. But Belgium seems to be an exception. Poor old Yves Leterme has tried to resign - but the king has just ordered him to soldier on.

When I lived in Brussels, Brits used routinely to make two observations about Belgian politics that were guaranteed to irritate the locals. The first point was that Belgium was bound, eventually, to break up. The second was that if even the Belgians couldn’t stand each other, what hope was there for “ever closer union” in Europe?

The Belgian retort was usually that the Brits were being sensationalist - and that Belgian politics is far more complicated and co-operative than a casual observer might realise. I tend to agree that the long anticipated break-up of Belgium is still a long way off. But I also think that the sanguine interpretation of Belgian politics is becoming harder and harder to maintain.

As for the implications of Belgium’s plight for the European Union, I have had some  thoughts on that. Continue reading "The sorrow of Belgium" »

Much of the comment on Barack Obama’s big foreign policy speech has focussed on his clash with McCain about withdrawal from Iraq. The arguments here are well-rehearsed. Basically, I’m in sympathy with Obama’s argument that it was a breathtaking mistake to throw more resources at Iraq than Afghanistan - and I think his desire to switch focus is right.

But listening to the Obama speech I had several immediate questions about what he had to say about Afghanistan and - in particular - Pakistan. Continue reading "Obama’s foreign policy speech" »

Rupert Murdoch’s arrival at The Wall Street Journal is being greeted by American journalists with roughly the level of enthusiasm with which the Romans greeted Alaric the Visigoth. The Atlantic Monthly proclaims that the day the elderly tycoon took over the Journal was “a date that will live in infamy for a certain generation of American newsmenâ€.

The Atlantic frets that the Murdoch model will sacrifice “responsible, serious journalism†and damage public life in the process. Mr Murdoch’s defenders regard this as self-important tosh.

Of course, the reactions of anybody watching events at The Wall Street Journal from the Financial Times are bound to be a little complicated. But my first instincts were sympathetic to Mr Murdoch. A lot of American newspaper journalism strikes me as self-reverential, long-winded, over-edited and stuffy.

 The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.

So - as predicted - the International Criminal Court has charged Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, with genocide.

But is this a good idea, or a bad idea? There is a very good debate taking place on the Making Sense of Darfur blog. I would particularly recommend reading the first three entries by Phil Clark, Andrew Natsios and Alex de Waal. Continue reading "The Darfur indictment" »

I always assumed that only a small group of weirdos followed the European Union. However, I have noticed that most-read posts on my blog recently have been the ones about the Lisbon treaty. (Actually, those two statements may not be mutually exclusive).

So, I am encouraged to return to the subject.  I have recieved a response from Wolfgang Munchau, to my question about what exactly it is in Lisbon that he finds so attractive and indispensable.

Let’s start with Wolfgang. He denies my accusation that he is willing to destroy the European Union in order to save it, and writes: Continue reading "Lisbon - the debate continues" »

Some readers may wonder why I chose to write my column this week about the International Criminal Court, rather than the obvious subject - the G8 meeting in Japan.

The reason is that I had a thoroughly discouraging lunch with my colleague, Alan Beattie. When I mentioned that I might write about the G8, he said - “Let me guess, you will say…” and proceeded to reel off a string of cliches, which had indeed been the basis of my putative column.

Alan then forwarded me a generic column on international institutions that he has written. It really says it all - and I think I may simply reproduce it, every year, round about G8 time.

It goes as follows:

Last Friday was a big day at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Jean-Pierre Bemba, former vice-president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was charged with multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Resplendent in a grey suit and red tie, Mr Bemba looked like a respectable statesman. But he is charged with grave crimes, including the use of mass rape as an instrument of war.

It was the sort of moment that advocates of the ICC always dreamt of. But, as it celebrates its 10th anniversary, the ICC is facing its own indictment. Its critics charge that its work is often counter-productive, politicised and plain incompetent. The dream of universal, international justice is in danger of turning into a nightmare.

In theory, the ICC can serve two vital purposes. It provides justice for victims. It may also deter future atrocities. Angelina Jolie, an actress, summed up these hopes when she wrote last year in The Economist that: “Only through justice will we achieve peace.â€

The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.

So much for a “fresh start” between Britain and Russia, in the Medvedev era. It sounds like Gordon Brown and President Medvedev had a pretty disastrous meeting yesterday.

There is a striking contrast between the way the Russians are willing to deal with the British and their treatment of the Americans. Put bluntly, the Russians seem happy to beat up on the British and are much more careful to maintain a reasonably friendly relationship with the Bush administration.

It is true that there are some very tricky issues between Russia and Britain - the BP row, the legacy of the Litvinenko murder and so on. But the Russians also have serious disputes with America - over missile defence, Nato expansion etc. I’m afraid it may simply be that it is easier to bully Gordon Brown’s Britain than George Bush’s America. In fact, I wonder whether Britain might not be becoming a surrogate for Russian anti-American feeling? Continue reading "Medvedev and Brown" »

There is a fascinating page in this morning’s FT on the latest “will they, won’t they” speculation on an Israeli attack on Iran.

The big third player in this drama is the US. As ever the questions are - will the Israelis be able to persuade the Americans to attack? If not, will they get the green light from the Americans to stage an attack themselves?

Like everything else in the US at the moment, the Iran question is being seen through the prism of the presidential election. Continue reading "Iran and the US election" »

It is rarely a good sign when you begin to re-live your childhood. Of late, I have found myself drifting back to the 1970s with disturbing frequency. Once again, the British newspapers are full of headlines about Saudi oil sheikhs, inflation and trade-union militancy. A terrorist threat hangs over London. The England team has failed to qualify for a major football tournament. All it needs is some power cuts and the return of glam rock – and I will be right back into my second childhood.But my most insistent flashbacks are to the US, not Britain. I spent the summer of 1976 in California, where I made the discovery that American politics is much more exciting than the British variety.

The US was in the throes of a presidential election and the Democratic party had produced a new and exciting candidate – Jimmy Carter. Like Barack Obama today, Mr Carter was inexperienced; but he promised a fresh start and an opportunity to change America’s image in the world.

There are close parallels between the elections of 1976 and 2008. The Iraq war, like the Vietnam war, has demoralised America and stoked the desire for change. But once again, there are fears that defeat might lead to a loss of American credibility or to a resurgence of isolationism.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.