The Malaysian government deserves congratulations for reforming its policy of quotas in favour of ethnic Malays. There is a pleasing symmetry in the fact that Najib Rajak, the current prime minister, is overhauling ethnically-based policies that were introduced almost forty years ago by his father, Abdul Razak.

Now if Malaysia really wants to jump head first into the 21st century, can I suggest another reform - abolish the law making sodomy a crime. This law is not some irrelevant and forgotten anachronism. Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the Malaysian opposition, is about to go on trial for allegedly having sex with a male aide. He has already served a long jail term after being convicted of sodomy in 1998 - a conviction that was over-turned in 2004. The new case is being tastefully referred to in the Malaysian press as “Sodomy Two“.

Anwar insists that he is innocent and the victim of trumped-up, poliitcally-motivated charges. His devoted wife has long been one of his keenest defenders. But in any case, it is awful that the government of a modern state, has such a backward law on its statute books.

The news of the military coup in Honduras provides an unplesant flash-back to the period when Central America was one of the world’s most unstable and war-torn regions. Not so long ago, really - the 1980s.

But in one respect things are very different from the Cold War era. Back then the dividing lines were clear. The Reagan administration was supporting rightist forces, like Nicaragua’s Contras, against the radical left - right across the region. This time things are, mercifully, much less clear-cut. Yesterday Hugo Chavez fiercely condemned rhe coup - and Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president of Honduras, appeared alongside Chavez and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua at an emergency summit in Managua. In the old days, appearing as part of a line-up like that would have been enough to condemn Zelaya out of hand in Washington, DC. But not now. President Obama has also condemned the coup as illegal and as setting a “terrible precedent”. And Zelaya even credited the US with discouraging the coup plotters.

So far, so encouraging. But just because Central America may not slip back into the old style Cold War era conflicts does not mean that it cannot be destabilised in new, more modern ways. The combination of a massive recession, organised crime and the war on drugs is creating a new sort of crisis. And the uneasy alliance of opinion between Chavez and the US over Honduras does not look terribly stable to me, either.

Most days I get an e-mail informing me that somebody or other is “now following you on Twitter!” I find this slightly baffling, since I hardly ever tweet – that is, broadcast my every thought and deed to the world, using 140 characters or fewer. I tried Twitter out on the night of the US presidential election in November and did not like it much. One of my very last tweets was: “This is possibly the most moronic form of journalism I have ever done.” Since then, I have fallen largely silent.

But now I am having to rethink my disdain. Twitter is the most fashionable political medium of the moment, widely hailed for the role it played in allowing Iranian demonstrators to stay in touch with each other and avoid censorship. The US state department was so impressed by the role the microblogging service was playing it asked Twitter to delay an update that would have taken it off air. A headline in the Los Angeles Times summarised the conventional wisdom when it roared: “Tyranny’s new nightmare: Twitter”.

Even before Iran, Twitter was becoming increasingly trendy. Everybody from Senator John McCain to Britain’s Foreign Office was tweeting. The whole phenomenon has made me belatedly accept that the most important and profound political messages can, in fact, usually be encapsulated in 140 characters.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.

There is much head-scratching in Britain today, about why the Iranian government has chosen to focus its anger about “foreign meddling” more on the UK than the US. Why is it Iranians working for the British embassy who have been arrested? Why did the supreme leader single Britain out for special condemnation in his speech at Friday prayers, ten days ago?

Two popular theories are doing the rounds here. First, its all to do with history - and Iranian memories of decades of British meddling. Second, the Iranians want to keep open the possiblity of accepting Obama’s famously outstretched hand. Both theories have their merits. But I think there is a simpler explanation. I’m sure the Iranians are furious with the Americans and see the CIA’s hand everywhere. But arresting Americans or bating Obama is risky. The US is the sole superpower and has troops and planes sitting in the Gulf and in Iraq. It is much easier and less risky to pick a fight with Britain.

You could see the same logic at work in the recent spats between Britain and Russia. The Russians, like the Iranians, claim to be convinced that western intelligence agencies are plotting against them and fomenting revolution. But it was the British Council that was singled out for harassment - not some branch of the American government. Again, its easier to pick on the less intimidating “little Satan”. Continue reading "Bashing Britain is fun and easy"

Reports that the Americans have agreed to send emergency military aid to the Somali government are confirmation that the military situation there is deteriorating fast. In fact, without the world paying much attention, Somalia is in danger of being effectively taken over by Islamists supported by foreign jihadists. It would then look rather like Afghanistan in the years before 9/11.

The FT reported a few days ago that “several hundred foreign jihadists linked to al-Qaeda are reported to have joined al-Shabaab’s efforts to topple the government”. According to our report, the national government now controls just a few blocks of the capital, Mogadishu.

The only real foreign military assistance the Somali government is getting comes from just 4,300 African Union troops. The Ethiopians have made it clear that they are not going back in. The Americans have their own bad memories of Somalia. Perhaps the new US military aid will do the trick - or perhaps it won’t.

Alas poor Michael Jackson, I didn’t know him particularly well. In fact, I didn’t know him at all. I did, however, play a walk-on part in the media frenzy that surrounded him as his life became increasingly bizarre.

Jackson was in Bangkok in 1993 when the first allegations that he had an unhealthy interest in children were made. I was living there and together with my wife, who was working as a freelancer for the BBC, made my way down to the Oriental Hotel to see if we could put the allegations to Jacko directly. The whole place was, of course, a circus - the Oriental was surrounded by singing fans and the lobby was stuffed with security men. Jackson was on the top floor - but the lifts weren’t stopping there. But somehow we found out the room number of a member of his management team, who was on the tenth floor.

We went up there and rapped smartly on his door. The man from the Jackson team opened the door - behind him in the room, we could see some young Thai men who he seemed to be entertaining. As soon as we identified ourselves as journalists, he lost his temper - and tried to knock away the microphone that my heavily-preganant wife was waving. There was an unseemly bout of pushing and shoving. Eventually we beat a retreat. Our next move was to try the fire escape to see if we get upto the 12th floor - but that was also blocked by security men. So eventually we went outside the hotel and vox-popped fans on whether they believed the allegations. As far as I recall, all the British fans thought they were definitely true and all the Thais thought they were scurrilous lies.

Anyway, I’m sorry to lower the tone on the day of the poor man’s death. I don’t think he was up there with John Lennon or Elvis - but maybe he makes the Buddy Holly, Otis Redding, Jimi Hendrix league, when it comes to the untimely deaths of pop icons.

It is always interesting - and sometimes chastening - to have journalistic musings subjected to academic examination. Sean Safford has performed this service, by taking a look at the Miller-Rachman list of revolutionary pointers. He thinks we are both too optimistic about the potential for change in Iran.

There is much anticipation in Washington as important legislation on a cap and trade scheme to deal with global warming comes up for a vote in Congress later this week. But don’t get your hopes up too high about the legislation’s long-term chances. News from Australia shows how difficult it is to get this sort of legislation through. When politicians really focus on the economic costs involved, they tend to quail.

There is also the “after you, Claude” problem. The Australian opposition are arguing that there is no point in their country acting until they know what the US will do, and what will happen at the Copenhagen climate change talks. American politicians, meanwhile, are quite certain to argue that the US should not act until it has a guarantee that China will make similar sacrifices.

The American opponents of climate-change legislation are already taking heart from the setbacks to the Australian scheme. They are also seizing upon a new book by Ian Plimer, an Australian professor and climate-change denier. Actually, I hate that phrase “climate-change denier” - since it (possibly deliberately?) links disputing the consensus view on global warming with “holocaust denial”. It might be brave, it might be irresponsible - but taking issue with global consensus on global warming is not like claiming that there were no gas chambers as Auschwitz.