I’m still dipping in and out of Chris Mullin’s excellent diaries, ‘A View from the Foothills’.  I’m in the middle of the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, and what jumps out is just how often the argument of ‘if you knew what I know…’ is made.

Today’s poll in the Independent on Sunday has an interesting supplementary question about Afghanistan, as well as good news on voting intention and the NHS.  It asks respondents to agree or disagree with the statement, ‘All British forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan as quickly as possible’.  60 per cent agree, 33 per cent disagree.

‘As quickly as possible’ could mean anything at all, and ‘British forces’ are one thing, but does the question mean that other NATO members should stay? Leaving aside these quibbles, I think we can probably assume that the intention is that troops should withdraw in the very near future, whether or not they have achieved what it was they were sent there to do.

Hmm. There’s another problem. Have we ever really come to a conclusion on what they are there to do? I’ve heard remove the Taliban, restore democracy, rebuild a shattered nation, help ensure Pakistan doesn’t descend into lawlessness, ensure human rights, ensure women’s rights, ensure children’s rights, clean out opium production… the list goes on, I’m sure I’ve missed some out.

I’m not getting into the rights and wrongs of action in Afghanistan, but I want to pose a question. How does a government, which clearly has access to more information and wider expertise than the average citizen, make sure that it doesn’t just metaphorically pat us on the head and say ‘I know best’? What measures should a government use to decide what to make public? Should there be an assumption that, for example, Cabinet minutes should be published unless an application is made to keep them secret?

Given all the information available around the world, with the example of the wisdom of crowds and with the old adage of many hands making light work, is it sensible to expect greater transparency from governments? Or will the very fact of easier access to some types of information make governments more likely to try to restrict access?

I don’t know what the answer is; but what I do know is that the more information anyone has, the better decisions they can make.  The question is, where do you draw the line in letting go?

So it’s finally done. The new grouping for Conservative MEPs is called the European Conservatives and Reformists group.  It’s a bit of a mouthful, I suppose, but does the job.

Two observations. First – it was a promise made in the leadership campaign, it took a while (somewhat longer than planned, but better to do these things properly than to get put off at the first hurdle), and the campaign pledge has been delivered in full.

Secondly, and I think more importantly for the long-term, it shows a determination to deliver.  And to deliver properly. This new grouping is only the first step.

The point of this pledge was never just to remove Conservative MEPs from a grouping to which British Conservatives generally are ideologically opposed to.  It was to start to reform the way the EU works, and to make sure it does the things it’s supposed to, doesn’t do the things it’s not supposed to, and delivers for Europeans.

That’s the big challenge. This new grouping of ECR MEPs (55 MEPs from 8 countries, with a ninth already announced to be seeking to join) will need to work hard to deliver what they’ve promised. This is a good start, but it’s only the beginning.

Congratulations should at least be extended to the BBC for their decision not to back down to pressure from the Hampstead set and unacceptable interference from Government Ministers over the Disasters Appeal Committee Gaza appeal.  The appeal is composed of a number of charities who have been openly one sided and hostile to Israel over the years and have taken on the role of Palestinian propagandists rather than humanitarian charities over the course of recent years.  There have been no similar appeals for other troubled war zones in recent years and I can find no explanation why this appeal is merely helping the victims of one side of this tragic war, rather than victims on both sides.  Hamas also has a reputation for utterly failing to ensure that aid reaches those who deserve it.  Unless guarantees can be made then about aid reaching its desired recipients then there is little reason that the BBC should be airing such an appeal.  Of course, plenty of the oil rich countries in the Middle East could also be providing humanitarian and Iranand Lebanon could try helping Palestinian civilians with humanitarian aid rather than helping Hamas with increasingly dangerous and sophisticated weaponry.

So, well done to the BBC on this occasion.  However, the idea that they have adopted anything like impartiality over this dispute is nothing short of a fiction.  Their coverage in the past few weeks has been completely one sided – ignoring the fact that Israel’s action was provoked by countless missile attacks by Hamas on to Israeli territory.  Nor has the BBC done anything to expose Hamas as an organisation with an extreme anti Jewish message, dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, as well as the destruction of the Western way of life and the democratic pluralism that makes Western liberal societies stand out.  The record of Hamas in using women and children as ‘human shields’ has barely been mentioned by the BBC – often ready to parrot anti Israeli propaganda. Jeremy Bowen has not even tried to hide his sympathies in the past few weeks, often following Israeli statements with emotionally loaded proclamations such as “try telling that to these Gazacivilians.”  If the BBC are so concerned about their impartiality maybe they should try publishing the report into the alleged bias in their Middle Eastcoverage that they commissioned in 2005?  Despite the BBC doing the right thing over the DEC appeal, we should not pretend that their coverage has been anything other than one sided.

I haven’t seen it (no-one has yet!) but I’ve just found the full text of President Ahmadinejad’s alternative Christmas message for Channel 4. 

Despite the ravings of various people, I don’t see much wrong with it. True, he doesn’t say all that much of substance. It’s too reliant on religion as the one true path for my taste – but then I also think that the Pope’s recent comments on homosexuality were just as blind to reality. 

I’m not defending Ahmadinejad’s views on the Holocaust or any of his other prejudices, but I absolutely believe that there is a duty on broadcasters to provide information to allow us to make up our own minds AND a duty on all of us to try to see past our own prejudices.

 It is a bit strange that a country’s president has agreed to what is effectively a commercial broadcast on a (sadly) minority channel. But doesn’t it say a lot that the knee-jerk response to this is to call for the privatisation of Channel 4, a ban on Ahmadinejad’s broadcast and for advertisers to boycott the channel? Surely if there’s one thing we pride ourselves on, it’s the freedom that we all have to choose. And think on this – he is able to broadcast this in the UK but would probably not allow such freedom in his own country. I’m assuming that there will be some coverage of this event in Iran…

As for the rest of us: there is an off button, you know.

The United Nations has abjectly failed the people of Zimbabwe.  It has completely failed to stand for human rights against tyranny.  In doing so, the UN has once again drawn into question its value as a global institution.  It has become quite clear that the UN does not exist to protect human right or for a higher moral purpose.  Anybody who thinks otherwise is clearly whistling in the wind.  The unfolding tragedy in Zimbabwe was the latest great test for the UN and it is a test that it has comprehensively failed.

The Charter of the United Nations saw the body as reaffirming “faith in fundamental human right, in the dignity and worth of the human person.”  The human devastation in Zimbabwe is as stark an example as can be expected of a terrible abuse of human rights.  Mugabe has turned the bread basket of Africa into a country where the average male life expectancy is 37 and female life expectancy is 34.  He has deliberately brought famine on to areas of Zimbabwe not loyal to his tyranny by withholding grain.  3000 opposition supporters have been arrested and imprisoned; many others have been brutally tortured; and over 100 have been killed since the first round of elections.  According to Amnesty International, most of those killed have been tortured to death.  Sadly, the United Nations Security Council does not think that this abuse of human rights merits even the mildest of international sanctions.  Russia and China have handed a huge publicity coup to Mugabe and provided a further blow to the dwindling hopes of the long oppressed Zimbabwean people.

Of course, this is not the first time that the UN has completely failed to act against horrific human rights abuses.  It stood idly by while the terrible genocide in Rwanda occurred.  For the majority of the Yugoslavian war, the UN did nothing to prevent ethnic cleansing and abuse of human rights. The United Nations has done too little too late to address the horrific situation in Darfur.  In all cases, the myth of the UN as a body prepared to stand up for human rights has been exposed as a sham.  In each case, countries such as Russia and China have put realpolitik and national self interest well above any notion of human rights or international moral standards.  It is difficult to think of any reason that this behaviour will change in the years to come.

Some people across the political spectrum remain naively attached to the United Nations as an instrument for progress.  Plenty on the liberal left seem to use the United Nations as an article of faith, almost oblivious to its near total inability to act as a force for good in recent years.  As progressive Conservatives, defence of human rights should be a central part of our creed.  Whether the United Nations can play a key role in this defence of human rights remains very much open to question.