Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

“Terrain, terrain!” and George assumes control

March 29, 2015

The German Wings 4U9525 tragedy is now leading to a discussion on whether and how depressive and suicidal tendencies of a pilot can be screened for, which in turn is leading to a discussion of what occupations should or could be forbidden to those having such tendencies. And what degree of disability is disabling for an occupation is the question that follows. Many military and  law enforcement bodies do have such bans. In some US states you can’t pass the bar exams if you have been diagnosed as depressive. (But you can continue to practice if you become depressive the day after you pass your bar exams). Should a person with suicidal tendencies be permitted to become a President or a Prime Minister or a Finance Minister? or a surgeon or a hedge fund manager for that matter?

Every human has some bouts of some level of depression. I am sure psychological profiling has become very sophisticated and can be very successful in general screening. I have even used such profiling – albeit very crudely – when screening applicants for a job. If one applied the precautionary principle – which is about the most unscientific mumbo-jumbo as can be found – very few would ever be deemed suitable for any sensitive occupation. I cannot see that psychological testing will ever eliminate all potential cases of determined, suicidal pilots. It will also give many false positives.

I suspect that the solution lies not in expecting psychological profiling to find the “needle in the haystack” but in ensuring that even if he appears he can do no harm. The regulation for always having two people in the cockpit goes down that road. It is said that for commercial flights today the pilots spend only about 5 minutes actually flying the plane themselves. And much of that time is spent in plugging in what George, the autopilot, is supposed to do. Most of their time is spent in monitoring and checking systems rather than actively flying. In theory, apart from taxiing before take-off and after landing, George could fly the entire flight. His side-kick Mary – if she was present – could do all the monitoring that pilots currently do. George would fly and Mary would – independently – provide the checks.

Coming from the power generation world I am familiar with all the “forbidden modes of operation” that are embedded within the control systems of gas and steam turbines to avoid zones of dangerous vibration or even of operating at “uneconomic” conditions. Once open a time – 100 years ago – measurements were physically monitored by operators. A very few mechanical – but automatic – governors were used, for example to restrict turbine overspeed (by restricting flow). Later – but before the electronic age – physical measurements were converted into electrical signals, displayed in control rooms and provided the operator with many, many alarms of potentially dangerous conditions. Some operating modes were automatically avoided by these measurement signals leading to the corrective operation of motorised valves. Now in the electronics age and with the speed of computing that is available, it is software in the control system – which the operator cannot override – which takes care of “enforcing” the avoidance of the most dangerous forbidden zones.

Pilotless drones are booming. Pilotless commercial planes are not yet in use not because of technical barriers but because of lack of acceptance by passengers and by society in general. Cargo planes are not pilotless yet, but only because of the concerns of air traffic control and airports and of those under the flight-path. But pilotless planes will surely come (even if pilots’ unions will not much care for this). No doubt pilotless planes will pose new challenges such as the avoidance of hacking or some unauthorised assumption of control. But these are all technical, technology, system and societal challenges rather than insurmountable barriers. No technology breakthroughs or invention of new materials are required for introducing the use of pilotless commercial aircraft.

But as a first step maybe George could enforce avoidance of some forbidden modes of flying even with a suicidal pilot at the controls. We may well see that the “Terrain, terrain!” warning will become obsolete. George (and Mary) would have taken over control of the aircraft long before the proximity warning alarms go off.

 

 

Monarch to monarch: Saudi King accepts Swedish King’s apology

March 28, 2015

The Saudi Arabian Ambassador returned to Sweden yesterday. It must be galling for the Swedish Social Democratic government that a monarch-to-monarch apology and appeal was needed to mollify the Saudis. (No doubt the Swedish monarch’s request to the government for an increase in his budget will soon be approved). The apology was carried in a letter carried personally by the King’s/Swedish government’s envoy (not the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia), Björn von Sydow. He is a former Speaker and has even been Regent when the King and his children have been abroad. He would have been acceptable to the Saudi monarch as a true representative of King Carl XVI Gustaf. The Swedish government may say otherwise, but this was indubitably an appeal from a monarch to a monarch and not from a socialist government to a “dictator” King.

The Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström says she does not back away from any of her support for “human rights or democracy” and that she has the support of the people. Indeed! But it took a King to ride in on his white charger to rescue her. “We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia” is what she said.  The Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, while in China said “We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”. Sounds pretty close to an abject apology to me.

It is also grand hypocrisy. Because of course it was always Margot Wallström’s intention to denigrate Saudi Arabia, their system of government and their legal system. She singled out Saudi Arabia as a country whose morals were too low for Sweden to cooperate with on Defence matters.

She has been noticeably silent about voicing any criticism of China (where Prime Minister Löfven is on a visit). For Sweden to fall out with China would be economically unsustainable. The EU has been criticising Saudi Arabia for air attacks in Yemen but Margot Wallström has been conspicuously silent on the matter. Hopefully she has learnt the lesson that there is a little more to be considered about consequences when one is a Minister rather than an activist leading a demonstration. (That is a lesson still eluding her Green party partners in government who bear their share of blame for the Saudi Arabia fiasco).

DagensNyheter:

Saudi Arabia decided on Friday to normalize bilateral relations with Sweden after a meeting between the government’s envoy, Björn von Sydow, and Saudi Arabian government leaders and King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

“We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia. This allowed the Ambassador to return” said Margot Wallström when asked if Sweden had apologized.

“I’m not backing down from my statements for democracy and human rights. It is well known what we think on these issues and it is something we have strong support in the Swedish population” she said

Margot Wallström thinks she has acted professionally and that the problem was resolved quickly in normalising relations with Saudi Arabia. Bjorn von Sydow had the meeting with government leaders and carried a letter from King Carl XVI Gustaf to King Salman. von Sydow will not go into any more detail.

“We can confirm that the king on the government’s desire sent a letter that the government’s envoy handed over to the Saudi king” wrote the Court Information officer Margaret Thorgren. “Please also refer all questions to the Foreign Ministry”. ………

According to the television channel Al-Arabiyya the Swedish king stressed “the power in the relationship” between their countries to his brother-monarch King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven comment on the re-established diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia during his visit to China. He did not directly answer the question if Sweden apologized.

“We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”.

A “democracy” provides no immunity from – or an excuse for – incompetence and stupidity.

Death by deportation

March 28, 2015

Asylum seekers who are rejected and are then deported become non-persons. The deporting country does not really care what happens to them and just want them out of the country. The “receiving” country does not really much care about someone who does not want to be in the country and usually either arrest them (if they are wanted) or leave them to their own resources. Often they are killed shortly after being deported.

Many countries use force or drugs or both to ensure that the person can be deported. Recently a case of a deportee killed in Sweden while being deported to Iraq was reported. It was not the first case of a death during deportation. Such cases don’t get much publicity. Deportees are truly non-persons, citizens of nowhere, shunned at one end and unwanted at the other. And after all, “Who cares?”

But it does seem to happen fairly regularly.

Man died during deportation at Arlanda

Police investigate as man dies while being deported from UK

Algerian immigrant killed by French police while being deported

Nigerian, Murdered by Spain, Does Anyone Care?

Deported from Japan: until death do us part

Deported From U.S., Honduran Immigrants Return To Death And Terror

LESBIAN DIES AFTER BEING DEPORTED BY UNITED KINGDOM BACK TO UGANDA

When Deportation Is A Death Sentence

And, I find, I do care. But not enough to do very much about it.

Swedish Green minority in government leads to oppression of the majority and a “bad democracy”

March 28, 2015

The Swedish Green party won 6.9% of the vote (25 seats in a 349 seat parliament) in the last general election. But they are part of the minority government with the Social Democrats (31% of the vote – 113 seats). Inevitably the Social Democrats are forced (or choose to) adopt some of the Green party policies. Most Green party policies are about forbidding things they don’t like on ideological grounds. Or they are about increasing taxes to discourage behaviour they don’t like. Very few of the Swedish Greens’ environmental policies are based on sound science. They are mostly based on alarmism and fear. Even when they propose new taxes they have not even an inkling – apart from how much will be collected – of what they will actually achieve. The goals are never capable of being monitored or – in many cases – even measured.

Whenever the Social Democrats accept Green policies – which they themselves don’t agree with – they put it down to being the “price of having a coalition partner”. They are effectively promoting a minority view and subverting the democratic process. A policy supported by 6.9% of the voters is inflicted upon the entire population.

It happened again this week. Green party minority dogma is planned to be inflicted on the entire country and the Social Democrats – who promised not to do this – are now complicit in the subversion of democracy. It is a simple case of a tiny minority oppressing an overwhelming majority. (Not so different from a dictatorship). The Social Democrats are effectively a “poodle” being wagged by their Green tail.

TheLocal: Sweden’s left-wing government proposed a hike in petrol taxes on Friday, citing the drop in oil prices and pressure put on it by its coalition partner the Greens.

“The oil price has plunged by 50 percent, so it’s become cheaper to fill up at the pump. That’s one thing. The other is that we are in a government with the Green Party,” Social Democratic Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson told reporters at a press conference.

“We need to finance our reforms krona for krona. And that means we need to increase revenues,” she said. The government proposed to increase the tax on petrol by 0.44 kronor ($0.05) per litre and on diesel by 0.48 kronor.

The hike, which would take effect on January 1st, would bring in 4.1 billion kronor ($479 million) to state coffers in 2016.

The Social Democrats no doubt see this as a way of raising revenues while blaming the Greens. But it also demonstrates their incompetence in running a coalition where they ought to be the senior partner. The Green tail is wagging the Social Democratic poodle. Democracies work but they have their share of negatives. And coalition governments where a large party is dependant upon a small party leads to tiny minorities inflicting their views on the majority. There is nothing inherently better in a democracy than in a dictatorship. It all depends on the “goodness” of the democracy or the dictatorship. A “good dictatorship” may well be superior to a “bad democracy”.

In the case of the present coalition government in Sweden, the inescapable conclusion is that the inclusion of the Greens makes it a “bad democracy”.

Lee Kwan Yew: A case of a wise, benevolent dictatorship achieving what democracy could not

March 23, 2015

I have great admiration for what Lee Kwan Yew achieved for Singapore and for Singaporeans as a virtual dictator. I do not see that any “open democracy” could have achieved anything remotely similar. He became Prime Minister in 1959, campaigned for the merger with Malaysia which took place in 1963 and then oversaw the separation from Malaysia in 1965. He stepped down in 1990 and continued as an advisory “Senior Minister” till 2004 and then as “Minister Mentor” till 2011. He was effectively the Dictator of Singapore for over 40 years. The comparisons with Malaysia provide a picture of what “democracy” would not have brought – and could not have brought – to Singapore.

As part of a “democratic” Malaysia, the ethnic-Chinese would have been stifled by the Malays and their success would have rankled and they would have been constrained if not repressed. It would have been a case of oppression of a very able minority by a much less capable majority as is the case in Malaysia today. The separation from Malaysia ensured that the ethnic-Chinese majority in Singapore were not stifled by being a minority in Malaysia. That, with Lee’s vision, provided a lift not only for themselves but also for the Malaysian economy.

The one thing I feel that escaped him was the establishment of a pluralistic democracy to succeed him. If he had ensured that he could only be succeeded by equally able dictators, it would not matter.

Lee Kwan Yew built Singapore. He also put in place all the trappings of a multi-party democracy but was effectively the benevolent dictator who controlled every aspect of life for over 40 years (31 years officially as Prime Minister and for a decade afterwards).

But the institutions he set up for legislative representation and the judiciary are all somewhat nullified when the current reality is one of a single party, ruling in a quite authoritarian style under the cloak of a pluralistic democracy. The ruling party has been quite ruthless in using legalities and a compliant judiciary to exclude rival political parties as soon as they begin to show any signs of becoming popular.

What he leaves behind is a one-party “democracy”, “but Lee Kwan Yew’s legacy will not be so easily  overturned when the majority perceive – as they do – that they have it “pretty good”  and maintaining the status quo is far better than the uncertain benefits of an increased level of freedom”.

This is not meant to be an obituary for Lee Kwan Yew. There are plenty of those: here and here for example. What his death reminds me is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a dictatorship as a political system. And it is not certain that any democracy must be “better” than a dictatorship. In fact I am inclined to think that any democracy needs subordinated “dictatorships” to be able to function.

In any situation where there are many courses of action, there has to be a course of action that is “best”. The “best” course of action – by any definition – in any type of society or gathering of humans is – per force – a minority view. A “democracy” in any gathering gives no assurance that the “best” actions will guide or lead that gathering – only that the majority view will prevail. It can only be a very rare coincidence that the “majority view” coincides with the “best view” of actions to be taken. Every corporate manager is required to be something of a dictator. It is his selection which determines whether he is one of the “best” for the situation he is to manage. The good managers are those dictators who lead and manage to carry their constituencies along. The US President is given some dictatorial powers for the duration of his term. It is the selection of the President which must determine whether he is any good but the democratic process does not necessarily select the “best”. It is the fundamental weakness of democracies that the “majority views” which prevail have no necessary connection to the “correct view” or the “best view”.

Maybe Lee Kwan Yew was just an accident – the right person for the times. But he surely was a wise and benevolent dictator. So I am led to conclude that while democracies avoid the worst they will almost never provide the best. Democracies are great levellers – but they level down. Like evolution, they do not drive towards excellence; they settle for the “good enough”. It is with a dictatorship – however constrained – that one may get a chance for the best.

 

Swedish King rides to the rescue of the damsel Minister in distress?

March 22, 2015

Swedish foreign policy has blundered badly by not analysing or understanding the Saudi Arabian reaction to the “morally superior” and sanctimonious statements made by the Swedish Foreign Minister about the status of “human and women’s rights” in the Kingdom. The debacle is transforming into high farce as the Swedish King – who has no powers at all – offers to ride to the rescue.

In a most unusual statement, the Swedish King, Carl XVI Gustaf, has offered his “help to contribute in finding a solution to the situation”. The Swedish monarch has no political powers whatsoever but felt compelled to say something as the crisis with Saudi Arabia and the Arab world created by the Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, continues to escalate. While more Arab countries are expressing their condemnation of Wallströms ill-judged  statements, even the Danish government has indicated that they feel she went too far.

TheLocal.se: The king is seemingly distressed about Sweden’s escalating spat with Saudi Arabia. The row began when Saudi Arabia blocked Wallström’s speech on democracy and human rights as a guest of honour addressing the Arab League, and resulted in Sweden limiting its military ties with the Saudis.

Tensions heightened when Saudi Arabia responded by recalling its ambassador to Stockholm and announced it would not issue any new visas for Swedish business people.

On Saturday, the royal palace announced that the king would meet Sweden’s top diplomat on Monday “to help contribute in finding a solution to the situation”. The king also said that: “It’s important to have a good dialogue and good relations between countries,” but noted that he hadn’t been in contact with the Saudi royals.

In Saudi Arabia, the Justice Minister has also added his voice to the wide-spread Arab condemnation of  Wallström’s statements.

ArabNews: Justice Minister Walid Al-Samaani strongly condemned recent statements from foreign parties targeting the country’s judicial system. ….. 

Al-Samaani’s statement came in the backdrop of Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s pronouncements against the Kingdom’s Shariah laws that led Saudi Arabia to recall its envoy to Stockholm. The minister said that such accusations are unwarranted and uncalled for, since the Saudi law is derived from the Book of Allah and the teachings and practices of His Prophet (peace be upon him). 

The Saudi law, the minister emphasized, guarantees the dignity of all its citizens irrespective of race, religion, sex and language. “Everybody before our law is equal,” he reiterated.

 

A prosecutor who admits lying to influence opinion and the outcome of a trial

March 21, 2015

A trial in the media run in parallel to a trial in court is becoming – for both defence and prosecution – a necessary way of influencing the atmosphere in which the legal process is carried out.

Ajmal Kasab was the baby-faced terrorist who participated in the 26/11/2008 Mumbai bombings, was convicted on 80 charges in 2010 and was executed on 21st November 2012.

On 3 May 2010, Kasab was found guilty of 80 offences, including murder, waging war against India, possessing explosives, and other charges. On 6 May 2010, the same trial court sentenced him to death on four counts and to a life sentence on five counts. Kasab’s death sentence was upheld by the Bombay High Court on 21 February 2011. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court of India on 29 August 2012. Kasab was hanged on 21 November 2012 at 7:30 a.m. and buried at Yerwada Jail in Pune.

A remarkably rapid legal process by Indian standards. The speed of the process was undoubtedly influenced by public opinion and the outrage that the attack had generated. However sensationalised media reports during 2009, about Kasab’s “tears”, his assumed emotions and his apparent remorse during the trial created some sympathy especially among those opposed to the death penalty. This sympathy wave was then followed by a counter-wave in the media where it was reported that a remorseless Kasab was demanding “mutton biriyani”!  “Why feed terrorists biryani?” became a catch phrase and the trial process was even further speeded up.

But the biriyani story was entirely concocted by the Special Prosecutor who disseminated it in the media. He admitted this himself at a conference this week on counter-terrorism in Jaipur. He had taken it upon himself to mould public opinion such that his own case in court could be favourably influenced:

Economic Times: 26/11 Mumbai terror attack accused Ajmal Kasab’s demand for mutton biryani in jail was just a myth and was “concocted” to stop an “emotional wave” which was being created in favour of the militant, claimed Ujjwal Nikam, public prosecutor in the case.

“Kasab never demanded biryani and was never served by the government. I concocted it just to break an emotional atmosphere which was taking shape in favour of Kasab during the trial of the case,” Nikam told reporters on the sidelines of international conference on counter-terrorism.

Ujjwal Nikam is a high profile lawyer who – even when a trial is ongoing and is presumably sub judice – has few qualms about talking to the media. Already in 2009, he was being criticised by other lawyers about his propensity to prosecute his cases in the media:

Indian Express: Published on:July 28, 2009

Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam has come under criticism from his own legal fraternity over what they allege his attempts to conduct trial outside the court for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

Around 20 lawyers at a meeting in the city passed a resolution criticising Nikam and advising him not to sit on judgment in the case before the final verdict is out. A copy of the resolution has been sent to the State Government,urging it to put a gag on Nikam in order to maintain the fairness of the trial.

“Some of the comments made by the special public prosecutor during his briefings to the media are objectionable and do not reflect the seriousness of the trial. You get the feeling that he is conducting a trial outside the court when he should actually be taking up those points before the judge and not before the media,” said advocate Sushil Mancharkar,who was present at the meeting.

But I don’t suppose that Ujjwal Nikam is going to change his methods of conducting his prosecutions in the media as an enhancement to his prosecutions in court. Especially, as has been fairly obvious in the recent Delhi rape cases, trials in court are not immune to public opinion.

WHO delayed Ebola emergency declaration by 2 months – for political expedience

March 20, 2015

In October last year it was revealed that the complacency of the WHO African country heads (mainly political appointees) and who “seem to have been unwilling to even acknowledge that there was a problem on their turfs” had caused avoidable delays.

Now the Associated Press reports (NY Times) that the WHO leadership delayed declaring an emergency by 2 months for reasons of political expediency; to avoid upsetting some African countries, to avoid economic damage and to avoid any interruption to the annual Haj pilgrimage to Mecca. The emergency was declared on August 8th 2014 but from emails obtained by AP, it should have been declared 2 months earlier. That probably means that about 1000 deaths might have been prevented. The death toll from the outbreak is now estimated to have reached over 10,000.

Ebola deaths in West Africa (Data: WHO / Chart CC BY 4.0: JV Chamary / Source: http://onforb.es/1sCVxE1)

The Hindu:

Among the reasons the United Nations agency cited in internal deliberations – worries that declaring such an emergency akin to an international SOS could anger the African countries involved, hurt their economies or interfere with the Muslim pilgrimage to Makkah. ….. 

In public comments, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan has repeatedly said the epidemic caught the world by surprise. ……

But internal documents obtained by AP show that senior directors at the health agency’s headquarters in Geneva were informed of how dire the situation was early on and held off on declaring a global emergency. Such an alert is meant to trigger a surge in outside help, or, as a WHO document put it, “ramps up political pressure in the countries affected” and “mobilizes foreign aid and action”.

When WHO experts discussed the possibility of an emergency declaration in early June, one director viewed it as a “last resort”.

The delay in declaring an emergency was one of many critical problems that hobbled the agency’s ability to contain the epidemic. When aid agency Doctors Without Borders warned Ebola was spiralling out of control, WHO contradicted it, even as WHO’s own scientists called for backup. When WHO did send staffers to Africa, they were of mixed calibre. Fellow responders said many lacked Ebola experience; one WHO consultant who got infected with Ebola broke his own agency’s protocol, putting others at risk and getting WHO kicked out of a hotel, the AP found.

……..  The vacuum of leadership at WHO was so damaging the U.N. created the Mission for Ebola Emergency Response to take over the overall fight against the disease.

….. By the time WHO declared an international emergency, nearly 1,000 people were already dead. Overall, more than 10,000 are thought to have died in the year since the outbreak was announced.

NYT: 5 Key Findings

1. WHO officials privately floated the idea of declaring an international health emergency in early June, more than a month before the agency maintains it got its first sign the outbreak merited one — in late July — and two months before the declaration was finally made on August 8, 2014.

2. WHO blamed its slow response partly on a lack of real-time information and the surprising characteristics of the epidemic. In fact it had accurate field reports — including scientists asking for backup — and it identified the unprecedented features of the outbreak. The agency was also hobbled by a shortage of funds and a lack of clear leadership over its country and regional offices.

3. Politics appear to have clouded WHO’s willingness to declare an international emergency. Internal emails and documents suggest the U.N. health agency was afraid of provoking conflict with the Ebola-stricken countries and wary that a declaration could interfere with the economy and the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca.

4. An Ebola-infected WHO consultant in Sierra Leone violated WHO health protocols, creating a rift with Doctors Without Borders that was only resolved when WHO was thrown out of a shared hotel.

5. Despite WHO’s pledges to reform, many of the proposed changes are recycled suggestions from previous outbreaks that have never taken hold. Any meaningful reform to the organization would likely require countries to rewrite the constitution, a prospect many find unpalatable.

Left/Green sanctimony is causing a debacle for Swedish foreign policy

March 19, 2015

The 2005 defence cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was renewed in 2010 and was coming up for a natural termination or a mutual renewal again this year. Currently there is very little being done under this agreement. It could have been allowed to die quietly. But that was not loud enough and self-righteous enough for the Greens and the left of the ruling Social Democrats.

The Greens are new to government (and it shows in many areas) but they are implacably opposed to Sweden having any defense industry of any kind. The Greens and the left are utterly opposed to the “anti-feminist and anti-democratic” nature of Saudi Arabia. But the Greens and the left of the Social Democrats forgot that they were actually in government and were not just an irresponsible lobby group like Greenpeace or the WWF indulging in publicity pranks.  They were so mesmerised by the idea of showing off their moral credentials that the intention to terminate the defense agreement was announced in a great blaze of self-righteous publicity.  The Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (an old trade unionist with a good understanding of the importance of jobs) actually wanted to extend the agreement. But he was over-ruled by his far left and the Greens. His Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström (who, unlike the Greens, is old enough to know better), was more obsessed with demonstrating how Swedish foreign policy was feminist and green and occupied the moral high ground than in promoting Swedish interests and values. And so she forgot about her duties as a Foreign Minister and sharply criticised Saudi Arabia in most undiplomatic language. It verges on incompetence that the consequences of her statements were not analysed. She received a swift diplomatic “punch on the nose” when she was barred from speaking to the Arab League.

But the Greens and the left (and the Swedish media – who are all very politically correct and morally upstanding) basked in the warmth of their own sanctimonious self-indulgence. If they thought they were promoting Swedish values, they seem to have failed spectacularly. Instead they have fuelled the opposing views from the region about Swedish moral degeneracy and decadence.

But now the whole affair is becoming a foreign policy debacle. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have called their ambassadors home. Fifty seven other nations have backed Saudi Arabia in criticising Margot Wallström for “denigrating Saudi Arabia’s social norms, judicial institutions and political institutions”. Swedes are not being issued visas for Saudi Arabia any longer.

Sweden is left floundering with a foreign policy being made by children and governed by childishness. A policy built on trying to demonstrate a self-proclaimed moral superiority and which talks down to others smacks of the playground. It diminishes Sweden. Business will suffer and jobs will suffer. And it will take a long time to repair the damage. Right now almost the entire Islamic world has taken umbrage and Sweden’s voice has never been as irrelevant in the region.

(Soon after the left/green government took over they had recognised Palestine as a State – also to demonstrate their moral superiority. Needless to say Israel was not amused and they are not the flavour of the month with Netanyahu. And he is going to be around for a long time yet).

But the Greens and far left are still basking in their moral superiority and don’t even realise that they have done something very silly. That they have managed to earn the contempt of both Israel and the Arab World  – simultaneously – seems to be of little consequence.

Swedish Radio:

Saudi Arabia has informed the Foreign Ministry that they will not issue any new business visas to Swedes. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that they received notice about this and say they will continue trying to resolve the issue bilaterally.

Companies that are in procurement or planning projects will not be able to send employees to the country. 

The Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven had just received the information and said, “We do not want this situation with Saudi Arabia. We have been clear all the time that we want a good relationship with Saudi Arabia and we work seriously and systematically with it”.

Swedish Industry Minister Mikael Damberg also believe that the news is negative. “It is clear that this not good and we are working both to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and to make sure that it does not spread to more countries. We are very careful to emphasize that what the government did was not to extend a military Terms of Collaboration with Saudi Arabia. And there was a very strong political majority in parliament not to extend”, says Mikael Damberg.

Tonight, the Minister and the Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström will meet with executives from Swedish industry regarding Sweden’s relations with Saudi Arabia. “I will talk about what the government is doing but also to listen to those companies that are active in the region to see if they have encountered a problem and if there are misunderstandings so that we can help each other” says Mikael Damberg.

On being asked what actions the government would take, he said “We are working very hard to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. Both through diplomatic contacts here in Stockholm but also in place in Riyadh and in countries in the region. The work is intense.. We are also working together with Swedish companies in place in these markets. We take note that this has happened but we have no interest to implement some kind of retaliation or to escalate this”, says Mikael Damberg.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have called their ambassadors home from Sweden. The reason is because of the statements made by Foreign Minister Margot Wallström about Saudi Arabia in connection with the Swedish government cancelling a controversial trade agreement.

At the same time 57 states have closed ranks behind Saudi Arabia in their criticism of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Margot Wallström. This means that almost the entire Muslim world is critical of Wallström’s statements.

“In its opinion Wallström has humiliated Saudi Arabia and its social norms, legal systems and political institutions,” says a statement on the website of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (IOC).

 

Solar Impulse 2 is more fossil than solar

March 18, 2015

The BBC reports that the much hyped, Swiss Solar Impulse 2 is crossing India on its way to Myanmar:

BBC: The solar-powered plane attempting to fly around the world is in the air again, crossing India and hoping to make it to Myanmar on Thursday. Solar Impulse, with Andre Borschberg at the controls, took off from Ahmedabad at 07:18 local time (01:48 GMT).

It is heading to Varanasi in India’s Uttar Pradesh region, where it will make a short “pit stop” before pushing on over the Bay of Bengal. The leg to Mandalay in Myanmar (Burma) will be flown by Bertrand Piccard. The two pilots are taking it in turns to guide Solar Impulse on its circumnavigation of the globe.

So far, they have covered about 2,000km in two segments since beginning the adventure in Abu Dhabi. It will likely be another five months before they return to the United Arab Emirates, having crossed both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans in the process.

It is surely a challenging piloting exercise but it is worth noting, as Pierre Gosselin points out, that some tens of thousands of litres of aviation fuel will be burned to keep Solar Impulse 2 in the air. For safety reasons the batteries on board will probably be fully charged at each take-off. It is not clear as to what extent the batteries will be topped up by using electrical power (which will be predominantly fossil fuel based) at each of the stops.

NoTricksZone: According to an audio report by SRF Swiss Radio and Television the Solar Impulse 2 mission involves the substitute pilot, a technical ground crew “of dozens of people” and tonnes of equipment and logistical supplies that have to be flown behind using conventional charter flights. The “fossil fuel-free” Solar Impulse 2 journey is in fact being made possible only with the use of tens of thousands of litres of aviation fuel. This is a fact that is being almost entirely ignored by the media.

The SRF reporter tells listeners:

“It is so that the entire group, the team members, are multiple dozens of men and women, have to fly behind in charter planes. This naturally is the less sustainable aspect of the entire project, but it just isn’t possible any other way. This involves one cargo plane for transporting all the equipment, and a small passenger plane on which the entire group travels to the destinations.”

A promotion video here shows how the aircraft was transported from Europe to its start point in Abu Dhabi earlier this year: With a Boeing 747!

Global map

source Solar Impulse via BBC

Five months, no cargo and no luggage beside the 2 pilots, a large support staff and a great deal of fossil energy somehow seems much less impressive than Jules Verne’s story (published in 1873) envisaging Phileas Fogg and Passepartout circumnavigating the world, with all their luggage and later an Indian princess, in just 80 days.

Green has become the colour of deception.