It’s ironic that progressive Muslim Dr Taj Hargey of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, (here) asserts what radical-progressive Christian Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia doubts (here), that there is now active discrimination against Christianity in the UK – much of the responsibility for which I reckon lies at the door of this country’s particular brand of aggressive New Atheist secularisation.

Such discrimination in schools was highlighted in an Ofsted report published three weeks ago (here). And a publication ‘A New Inquisition: Religious Persecution In Britain Today’ launched a couple of week ago by the independent non-religious think-tank Civitas (here) and dedicated to Ben and Sharon Volgelenzang (see my previous post here) highlights how recent religious hatred legislation has been used in an “at best arbitrary and at worst biased” way particularly against Christians.

But discrimination against Christians in the UK is nothing compared to the persecution of Christians abroad. Over the past month:

On 1st July, Muhammad Guul Hashim Idiris, a convert from Islam, was publicly executed in the Hudur district of Somalia, apparently because of his Christian views (here).

On 5th July Maher el-Gowhary, also a convert from Islam who in the face of deep hostility is trying to get his conversion recognised by the Egyptian authorities, was ferociously attacked on a Cairo street while accompanied by his lawyer (here). According to Maher the attackers intended to behead him.

On 16th July Pastor Artur Suleimanov, another convert from Islam, was shot dead outside his church in Makhachkala, the capital of the Russian republic of Dagestan (here).

On 17th July, at least eight Christians including the wife, two children and grandson of a priest were slaughtered in a previously peaceful village near Jos, Nigeria, (here) where the wider conflict is a complex tribal and economic/land issue as well as a religious one (here).

On 20th July, two local Christians questionably accused of blaspheming Islam’s prophet were shot dead outside court in Faisalabad, Pakistan (here).

On 27th July, a Christian centre in West Java, Indonesia, was attacked by Islamic extremists and buildings were destroyed (here).

There are fewer than sixty Catholic priests in Turkey and in June the fifth to be shot or stabbed in the past four years was killed and decapitated by Islamic ritual (here).

In Iraq the campaign of violence against Christians is so decimating and displacing the community that some commentators reckon it is possible Christianity’s 2000-year history in Iraq could end within a generation (here).

It is right of course that discrimination against Christians in the UK should be challenged by Hargey, Ofsted, Civitas and others.

But it is abroad where the real Christian persecution is taking place.

(Incidentally, I spoke outside 10 Downing Street yesterday at a protest against Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws. Organised by the British Pakistani Christian Association (here) and including Sikhs and people from other persecuted Pakistani minority faiths, it was held on the anniversary of the Gojra atrocity – see my previous post here – and had Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali (here), who is himself a refugee from death-threats in Pakistan, as keynote speaker.

I don’t hold much hope. Not only is the Pakistan government unwilling to address the evil effects of the blasphemy laws in their own country, they are actively promoting what is effectively a global Islamic blasphemy law at the United Nations. Pakistan, on behalf of the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, etc, who are not exactly known for promoting human rights – proposed the Combating Defamation of Religions resolution (here) which was passed at the United Nations Human Rights Council in March; indicatively and ominously the resolution highlights Islam and Muslims four times but cites no other religion. It certainly makes no mention of the defamed and mistreated Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Ahmadiyya Muslim sect in the Islamic Republic’s own backyard.)

Like our recent prime minister, German federal chancellor Angela Merkel is a child of the manse but, unlike him, she is willing to bat for the public benefits of Christianity – as of course befits the leader of Europe’s largest Christian Democratic party, the CDU.

In Munich last month, following in the footsteps of federal president Horst Kohler, she beat a path to the Ecumenical Kirchentag (church congress) where 50,000 Christians from all major Gernam denominations heard her clearly re-affirm that Christianity is the main foundation of that country’s value system.

Alan Wilson reported in the Guardian about Kohler’s robust pull-your-socks-up call to the ecclesiastical leaders attending the Kirchentag – ‘power speaking truth to church’ Wilson dubbed it (here).

(Incidentally, Wilson writes an informative article – but why does he underplay Christianity on this side of the Channel? He states twice that the 55,000 attendees at Munich are about 20 times the numbers of those at the largest Christian gathering in England. Really? Just 2,750 people?

Here in Newham 30,000 Christians meet twice a year at the ExCel Centre for an all-night ‘Festival of Life’ (here) .

Also in Newham this coming weekend, Christians from across London and the denominations will meet at West Ham United FC in Upton Park for the annual Global Day of Prayer (here). If the last GDOP at West Ham in 2007 is anything to go by, there will be up to 15,000 Christians in the stadium on Sunday afternoon.

At the end of July my family will attend New Wine (here) for a week of Christian worship, teaching and fellowship – together with over 10,000 other believers.

There are many more examples. In its heyday before the development of the Olympic complex claimed its premises in 2007, Hackney-based Kingsway international Christian Centre (here) had 12,000 worshippers in its 4,000-capacity building every Sunday. So although Wilson is (a) a C of E bishop and (b) writing for the Guardian, surely these are inadequate excuses for him being so out-of-touch with on-the-ground Christian reality.)

But while Kohler’s robust comments rightly grabbed the headlines, Merkel’s were important too. “Our society lives on premises that it cannot create by itself,” she reminded the Christian audience, a statement which commentators recognise as based on the dictum of German legal philosopher Ernst-Wolfgang Bockenforde, that “the liberal secular state is based on normative premises that it cannot itself guarantee”.

Basically the argument is that only religion – Christianity – can create the ethical basis that modern secular societies depend upon to function. “On the one hand (the liberal secular state) can subsist only if the freedom it consents to its citizens is regulated from within, inside the moral substance of the individuals and of a homogeneous society,” wrote Bockenforde in his ‘Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit’ (here). “On the other it is not able to guarantee these forces of inner regulation by itself without renouncing its liberalism.”

Exactly! Our democratic freedoms depend on their Christian undergirdings, and as the latter are eroded from public life so inevitably the former shrink too. The direct consequence is our burgeoning and increasingly illiberal nanny state where Big Sister knows best and replaces God; citizens are handbagged into line by progressively more intrusive laws, bureaucratic regulations and diktats from Brussels as well as Whitehall; fear and caution replace faith and optimism in public discourse; and, for example, freely consenting adult smokers are no longer allowed to get together to form a smoking club! The vital organs of our mature democracy – such as freedom of association – are being closed down. Liberalism is being renounced.

Regrettably despite his much-vaunted churchgoing, I don’t see David Cameron following Angela Merkel with a reminder of the necessity of Christianity for the health of our democracy.

Religious minorities have a difficult, sometimes horrendous, time in Pakistan. In previous posts I have cited the murder of Christians in Gojra (here) and the persecution of the Ahmadi Muslim sect (here) . More recently Shazia Masih, the 12 year old Christian domestic servant of Lahore High Court attorney and former president of the Lahore Bar Association Muhammad Naeem, allegedly has been raped and killed by her well-connected and wealthy employer (here) and three Sikh men who refused to convert to Islam were beheaded by the Taliban in Peshawar (here).

So when the charismatic Wilson Chowdhry of the British Pakistan Christian Association, together with his cousin Alex, asked me recently to join a group of UK-based Sikhs and Christians who were presenting a petition and letter at Downing Street about these atrocities, I accepted with alacrity.

Our joint protest not only covered the Sikh beheadings and the Shazia rape and murder case, but also the urgent need to change the Blasphemy Laws of Pakistan, Sections 298A and 295B & C, which are used to persecute and harass minority faiths in the country.

Besides the BPCA and the Christian Peoples Alliance, the delegation included representatives from the British Sikh Council, United Sikhs and the Sikh Human Rights Group.

As ever, leading, organising and energising the delegation was Wilson.

This is a cause close to my heart and worthy of the support of everyone who sees freedom of speech and religion as vital human rights.

We have two daughters at our local primary school and by God’s grace they’re thriving – thanks to an excellent head teacher and a committed staff team. Reflecting Newham, the school is richly diverse with over 90% of pupils coming from a variety of minority ethnic backgrounds. Nearly three quarters of the children have English as an additional language, many being at early stages of learning the indigenous tongue. Our daughters’ friends reflect this cultural diversity of course, which gives them a great social foundation for living in the 21st century global village. 

Following the Macdonald review and thanks to Ed Balls’ decisions (here), Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) is now high up the educational agenda with significant changes pending. My wife and I have already assessed the current SRE at our girls’ school and it seems sensible, sensitive to cultural diversity and not in need of change.

But UNESCO’s approach to SRE has shocked me rather more than UK government policies. This authoritative United Nations body has published an ‘evidence-based’ report ‘International Guidelines on Sexuality Education’ (here).   Its intention is to influence “educational, health and other relevant authorities in the development and implementation of school-based sexuality education programmes and materials… (The report) will have immediate relevance for… education ministers… curriculum developers, school principals and teachers.”

On page 54 this august body – drawing on ‘evidence’ from diverse cultures around the globe – tells us that learning objectives for children aged five to eight (yes, five to eight) should include the key ideas that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation; some people masturbate and some do not; masturbation is not harmful but should be done in private”!

I looked at our daughters aged seven and eight chattering away as they played happily together and I felt a primordial protective rage well up within me. How dare they try to soil my girls’ innocence and childhood with such grubby, sordid and contentious ‘education’? Teach them about masturbation? My fury hasn’t yet fully subsided.

Doesn’t every father of a five to eight year old feel the same anger when confronted with this official, inappropriate and depraved trollop?

Or perhaps the better ones amongst us manage simply to laugh… or cry.

I’ve joined a Christian debating team called Codgers and recently found myself enjoying the new experience of leading on a couple of Muslim/Christian debates. The first topic was ‘Islam or Christianity: Which offers comprehensive solutions for Britain?’ with Adnan Rashid of the Hittin Institute (here); the second was ‘Jihad on trial’ with Sami Zataari of the Muslim Debate Initiative (here). 

They’ve been well-attended and amicable affairs with friendly relations across the faiths. The Muslim organisers are pleasant guys (yes, only guys, no girls of course – this is Islam) who seem genuinely interested in grappling with the issues. They undoubtedly see the debates as Islamic da’wah (call to Islam, or Muslim proselytism) but there’s nothing wrong with that. The events provide for open argument and discussion, with a level playing field for all sides.

The debates themselves were robust and illuminating, the main result for me being a new understanding of what a wooden rule-bound religion is Islam – at least, the Islam promoted by my debating opponents. It is amazing how little Muslims refer to spiritual things or to invisible matters of the Spirit, and the Islamic after-life seems entirely carnal; paradise is where they (Muslim men; women are much more likely to be found in hell according to Muhammad [Sahih al-Bukhari hadith 1.301; 7.125; and 8.554]) will be rewarded with up to 72 virgins, fresh-faced boy servants, rivers of milk, wine and honey, an abundance of fruits, dates and pomegranates and a life of leisurely luxury the Quran and reliable Hadith tell us, but with apparently few signs of Allah.

My guess is that the negative social impact of such primal, corporal, unspiritual Islam is the root reason why so many of the 57 Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries are failing states – an issue I have begun to address (here). It is also one of the reasons why Islam is certainly no more appropriate for Britain than the materialist ideological secularism (read atheism) that dominates public life today.

My involvement with the Muslim Debate Initiative led me to peruse the blog of one of their organising team, Paul Williams, an intelligent mild-mannered English convert to Islam. There I received a shock.

In his 14th August post under the astonishing question ‘Should Apostates Be Executed?’ (here) Williams writes, “I’ve been mulling over this issue recently, and although I’m no scholar, I would like to outline the arguments for and against executing apostates in an attempt to clarify some of the arguments involved…”

What? “Should apostates be executed?” “Arguments for and against executing apostates.” I couldn’t believe what I was reading! Was this a sick joke? An apparently decent human being brought up in a civilised society was asking seriously whether someone who leaves their religion should be killed. Should slaves be shipped to the West Indies? Should witches be burnt at the stake? Should gays be stoned? Should traitors be hanged, drawn and quartered?

Williams didn’t have time to finish his article on this “hot issue” as he calls it (yes, he really does; check the article yourself) – so instead he posted an historical survey of the subject by Tim Winter. But Williams’ question is in the present tense and posed in 21st century Britain. The subject may possibly be a hot issue in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan but it is shockingly offensive in the UK and alarming for the growing number of ex-Muslims in this country. It is by definition a life-threatening question for many that simply shouldn’t be asked.

As an example, I can highly recommend ‘The Imam’s Daughter’ by Hannah Shah (here for Times review). It’s unputdownable. It’s a sickening but ultimately heart-warming true story about the conversion to Christianity of an Imam’s daughter here in England, her abuse at the hands of her father and his attempts to kill her because of her change of religion. I’ve met ‘Hannah’ – not her real name for obvious reasons – and she’s a very courageous young woman. You can buy her book here.

Regrettably Hannah’s case is far from unique. A few months ago another UK Muslim convert to Christianity – who was born and bred in Newham – sat in my front room telling me how the Imam of an East Ham mosque had indicated to her face that the consequence of her apostasy should be death. And this was from a pillar of the community in Newham!

A few weeks previously I had sat in a coffee bar in Stratford with a further Muslim convert to Christianity who was about to move out of London partly for similar personal safety reasons.

None of these British-born citizens needs an intelligent mild-mannered Englishman asking publicly whether apostates should be executed.

So how come Williams’ normal moral framework has so collapsed that he can seriously ask such a question? How has his conscience become so seared and insensitive?

Sadly, the culprit is clearly his conversion to Islam.

Tehran-based Press TV, the Iranian government’s English-language answer to the Arab-owned Al-Jazeera English, has been taking some heavy hits since the repression of opposition during and after the rigged Iranian presidential elections in June. The station has been referred to Ofcom for breaching ‘impartiality and accuracy’ requirements of public broadcasting (here), and Press TV’s English journalists like Andrew Gilligan, Cherie Blair’s half-sister Lauren Booth and Yvonne Ridley have all been heavily criticised for de facto working for the holocaust-denying and increasingly apocalyptic Tehran government (here) . Some have even questioned whether the station should be allowed to operate in the UK (here).

I was posed a conundrum on Monday when, out of the blue, I received an email inviting me to participate as a panellist in Press TV’s flagship current affairs show Forum on Wednesday. This is a Question Time-style programme with four panellists and chaired by none other than the controversial Andrew Gilligan. The four were to be Ahmed Versi, the respected editor of Muslim News; Massoud Shadjareh, the vocal and perennially indignant chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission; Said Shehata, Egyptian Coptic lecturer in Middle East politics at London Metropolitan University; and me. The topic for discussion: ‘Is Islamophobia a threat to British society?’ Apparently Press TV ‘found (my) views compelling’ when they interviewed me about the proposed West Ham mega-mosque last year, and reckoned I would be ‘a very valuable asset to the panel’.

Putting aside the naughty thought that if I was so compelling why had they contacted me just 48 hours before the show (who had cancelled on them?), I realised that I had to decide (a) whether an appearance on Press TV is in any way supporting the Iranian regime; and (b) whether to accept the offered fee.

Having been frequently and baselessly accused of Islamophobia over our mega-mosque campaign, I knew I had a lot to say on the topic. And – more importantly – we live in a liberal democracy, and even a government led by a Mahdist maniac should be allowed to promote its views in the UK. So the station is legitimate. But should I take Ahmadinejad’s shilling?

After some heart-searching I came to a blindingly obvious conclusion. I’d ask for the fee to be sent to a deserving charity. I informed Press TV that the payment should be forwarded to the campaigning ‘voice for the voiceless’ aid organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide (here) led by the former disgraced Cabinet minister but now rehabilitated Christian writer and speaker Jonathan Aitken.

Problem solved, I attended the show in west London and came up against the full force of Shadjareh’s incendiary indignation. He immediately locked onto the BNP and didn’t want to come off the topic. It was only slowly that I realised he actually needs the BNP; the more he can enhance the perceived role and importance of this dreadful far-right group, the more important his own role will be – at least in his own eyes. No growth of the BNP, no stick with which to beat the UK media, authorities, and society in general. During the show Shadjareh and I went head-to-head more than once.

The following morning I attended a Henry Jackson Society conference in Westminster on Iran: ‘The Islamic Republic of Iran: New Course or Old Paradigms?’ (here) Among other things speakers explained that the messianic proclamations and lunatic policies of Ahmadinejad are derived from his form of Shi’ite Mahdism. The Mahdi is the Twelfth and last Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who was born in 868 AD, ‘hidden by Allah’ at age 5 and now apparently waiting to return. Shi’ites consider that on his return the Mahdi will fight for the cause of Islam and restore justice, fairness and faith.

If I understand it right, Ahmadinejad’s version of Mahdism is particularly apocalyptic. It seems he believes Muslims can actively speed up the Mahdi’s return by deliberately creating the necessary chaos that will impel him to come back to sort out the situation, to rid the earth of error and injustice, and to rule the globe for Islam.

It looks like Iran, the Middle East and the world are in for a rough ride thanks to Ahmadinejad’s dangerous theology and imminent nuclear capability. The dreadful BNP seem like Andrex puppies in comparison.

Some people claim that Green Street in Newham is to travellers from South Asia what Oxford Street is to North Americans. It provides a colourful variety of predominantly Asian clothing, foods, confectionery and jewellery usually of high quality and at relatively low prices. At weekends it is usually packed with shoppers looking for bargains, especially at the extraordinary Queens Market which is more of a bazaar or souk than a traditional East End street market.

We live just off Green Street so last night my family and I walked along the road to participate with our neighbours in the lively Pakistan Independence Day celebrations. The police had closed off part of the street to facilitate the event, and crowds of mainly young people bedecked in the national colours of green and white and blowing on hooters promenaded along Green Street enjoying the party. It was good fun.

But I also had a heavy heart. Just two weeks ago some eight of my co-religionists (including children) at Gojra in Punjab, Pakistan, had been brutally butchered (here) by a murderous crowd whipped up to a frenzy by militant leaders of local mosques. Some of the Christians – who form a small vulnerable minority in Punjab and indeed in Pakistan – were burnt to death in their homes while the local police looked on.

At the last count there were some 20,000 Pakistani-background people living in Newham, about 8.5% of the population. They are a minority but a respected one, and I was pleased to see Newham police actively cooperating while they celebrated their national independence from Britain that took place 62 years ago.

The contrast between the treatment of the respective minorities on Green Street and at Gojra was painful, so I wrote today to the Pakistani High Commissioner in London:

Your Excellency,

Atrocities against Christian minority in Gojra
Last night my family and I attended the Pakistan Independence Day celebrations on Green Street here in the heart of Newham in London’s East End where we live. It was a safe and vibrant street party for all and particularly for the large Pakistani minority in our area, thanks in part to the local police who closed off the road in order to protect and promote the event.

On Saturday 1 August a number of Pakistan’s Christian minority in Gojra were butchered by a mob apparently inflamed by leaders of nearby mosques over accusations of ‘blasphemy’ against the Quran. During the massacre the local police stood by, unwilling to intervene while Christians – including children – were burnt to death.

Reports indicate that a senior Gojra police officer has now been suspended. Nonetheless as a Newham councillor and a Christian I felt deeply the tragic contrast between the happy event for Newham’s Pakistani minority on Green Street last night and the gut-wrenching atrocity perpetrated with police collusion against the Pakistan’s Christian minority in Gojra two weeks ago.

The Gojra massacre follows a similar if non-fatal mob attack on minority Christian homes a few weeks earlier in the Kasur district of Punjab, also following accusations of ‘blasphemy’.

I am writing therefore to insist that the Pakistani government urgently:

(a) Ensures that the mosque and Muslim leaders who inflamed the violence together with the actual perpetrators are brought to justice;
(b) Carries out a full investigation into Gojra police collusion with – and inactivity during – the atrocity, makes sure that officers responsible are appropriately and severely punished, and guarantees that in future police attitudes towards all minorities is respectful and in line with Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s inclusive founding vision for Pakistan;
(c) Provides generous compensation for the grieving families and the traumatised Christian community in Gojra; and
(d) Abolishes or drastically amends the notorious Pakistan blasphemy laws that are used abusively against non-Muslim minorities and others, often in pursuit of non-religious petty disputes.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Alan Craig

I’ll update you on his reply and any developments in due course.

I don’t normally buy a weekend paper as it costs twice the price for a double dose of news padding, celeb superficialities and lifestyle irrelevancies. I save the money.

But I purchased The Times on Saturday and got a good return on my £1.50 as it included a courageous article by Matthew Parris, ‘As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God’ (here)

I have noted before (The church and the melt down of Blairs Britian) that Parris is an ‘excellent and stimulating writer’ with whom I frequently disagree. But in Saturday’s article he shows a tenacious commitment to hard facts and a gutsy willingness to follow the evidence even against the atheist and socially liberal tide of which he himself is part, and I enjoy honouring him here.

(The equally stimulating but more prejudiced columnist from the same school, Johann Hari, has occasionally showed a similar and unexpected honesty. In an August article in The Independent (we need to stop being such cowards about islam) he admitted that considerations of personal safety had biased his writing about Islam: ‘I am ashamed to say I would be more scathing if I was discussing Christianity. One reason is fear: the image of Theo Van Gogh lying on a pavement crying “Can’t we just talk about this?”’

It takes some courage to confess publicly to your own cowardice and prejudice, and Hari should be honoured for this too.)

Back to Saturday’s article: Based on his time in Africa, Parris argues – much to his own atheist embarrassment – that the contribution Christian evangelism makes on the continent is enormous and good. It is sharply distinct from and a necessary precondition to effective work by secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts.

Why? Faced with the apathy, anxiety, fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, and the tribal hierarchy in rural areas, and the swaggering ‘big man’ gangster politics of the African city, it is “Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther… (that) smashes straight through” this debilitating  philosophical/spiritual framework. Christianity liberates.” (It) changes people’s hearts. It brings spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good,” says Parris. Through Christianity people’s attitudes and belief systems are changed for the better.

As Africa today, so Britain yesterday. A century ago Max Weber first made the intellectual connection between the Protestant work ethic and the rise of capitalism, but Christianity’s impact in the UK hasn’t been restricted to the economy. It is that same faith, especially post-Reformation Christianity, that has provided the life-force and moral framework for the flowering of initiative, creativity, energy, discipline, freedom, rationality, individualism, truthfulness, modesty, order, excellence, sense of service and community that in turn has led this small island to having such an extraordinary impact worldwide in all areas of human endeavour over the past half-millennium.

And now, as our secularised society sinks slowly into its 21st century torpor of lethargy, cynicism, selfishness, consumerism and superficiality, and as we use up the moral and spiritual capital left to us by previous generations, we have a fundamental choice:(a) We can ignore reality, give in to apathy, descend into shabby mediocrity and – well, will the last person out of the country please turn off the lights? Or (b) we can renew and revitalise the deep Christian roots of our society.

The New Year is a time for new resolutions. I’ve made mine.

Happy 2009!

Back from a family holiday in blistering sunny Spain last night to find that the UK has just completed the most sunless August since records began.

But also to find that the world has changed significantly while I’ve been away: Team GB has won an unimaginable 19 golds in Beijing, and a little Russian escapade in Georgia has finally nailed the post-Berlin Wall nonsense that we live in a unipolar world of a single super-power, the USA, that can unilaterally police the globe – supposedly on behalf of all of us.

A camp-site in Catalonia is not the best place for a ringside seat at such seismic events, as the occasional international version of The Guardian together with irregular access to the TV set in the poolside bar hardly sufficed to keep us abreast of world developments. But I did manage to see some of the Olympic action and – along with others – my jaw dropped as we won medal after medal (47 in all) and came 4th in the table. I mean, Brits simply don’t do sporting success. Ever since left-wing local authorities sold off schools’ sports facilities in the 70s/80s, we’ve flunked it on the international sporting scene. Our single gold in Atlanta in 1996 (Steve Redgrave of course) said it all.

But there’s a more serious point to be made about China and their impressive Olympic Games. With its human rights abuses, one-child policy and crackdown in Tibet, the Beijing government leaves a lot to be desired. But it has self-consciously announced its emergence onto the world stage as a 21st century superpower with an entertaining peaceful event that has amazed us all, and leaves London (and my own east London Olympic Host borough, Newham) a mountain to climb to match it in 2012.

Not so the pirate Putin, who paraded Moscow’s new-found oil-fuelled virility by sending his tanks into little Georgia who wants to join NATO and the West. “Russia is back,” was Putin’s blunt message, “and the world and the West had better take notice.” The parallels with Cold War Moscow and the Russian military occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968 are striking.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of Moscow’s current case, the contrast between the Russian and Chinese approaches could hardly be greater. Suddenly there are two new kids on the block; in fact one of them is simply returning to his old haunt with a sore head and a knife.

All of which poses a headache for the incoming US President.  The relative superpower status of the USA has diminished, is diminishing and will continue to diminish, and Bush’s successor will have to adjust American policy to these new realities.

Can we be confident McCain or Obama will do so? The temptation to return to the escapism of my sunny Spanish camp-site cannot be attributed solely to the awful English weather.